Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition vol:23 issue:1 pages:229-231
P. Lewicki, M. Czyzewska, and H. Hoffman (1997) argued that H. Hendrickx, J. De Houwer, F. Baeyens, P. Eelen, and E. Van Avermaet's (1997) failures to replicate hidden covariation detection (HCD) were due to procedural weaknesses. They also discuss theoretical arguments and evidence supposedly supportive of the generality and robustness of the phenomenon. In the current article, the authors argue that the boundary conditions Lewicki et al. proposed are not based on experimental evidence, that they are too vague, and that the criteria they give for obtaining HCD are applied in a highly selective way. Further, Lewicki et al. did not take alternative explanations of the null results into account. The authors conclude that HCD is not as general and robust as previously suggested and that research efforts must be directed at identifying its boundary conditions.