Defining the opposition procedure: A reply to toth, reingold and jacoby' (1995) response to graf and komatsu (1994)

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The opposition procedure (OP) is a new method for revealing two different aspects of processing (said to be automatic and consciously controlled processing, respectively) that are recruited for performance in various memory test situations. Graf and Komatsu (1994) wrote a critique of this method, and Toth, Reingold and Jacoby (1995) responded, unfortunately in a manner that missed the core of our message. In this brief reply, my goal is to draw attention away from arguments about whether the OP is better or worse than other methods and towards efforts aimed at defining it more precisely. To start the process, I offer a tentative definition of the OP's proper domain of application (i.e. situations where its use seems appropriate), I argue that it is wrong (or at least an over-generalisation) to interpret as automatic and consciously controlled processing the two components that are identified by the OP and, finally, I underscore the necessity to validate the assumptions of the OP procedure, especially those concerned with the purity of processing in different experimental conditions.

This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit: