Comment on Birgegard and Sohlberg's (1999) suggestions for research in subliminal psychodynamic activation

Methodological changes in subliminal psychodynamic activation experiments based on the assumption that multiletter messages can be encoded automatically (Birgegard & Sohlberg, 1999) are questioned. Their contention that partial experimental messages and appropriate nonsense anagram controls (Fudin, 1986) need not be presented in every experiment is supported, with a reservation. If the difference between responses to the complete message and its control is significant in the predicted direction, then Fudin's procedure should be used. A nonsignificant difference between the response to each partial message and its control is needed to support the assumption of proponents of subliminal psychodynamic activation that successful outcomes are effected by the encoding of the meaning of a complete message. Experiments in subliminal psychodynamic activation can be improved if their methodologies take into account variables that may operate when subliminal stimuli are presented and encoded.