编辑“促發 (心理學)”（章节）

==評論==
{{expand section|date=2016年6月}}
雖然語義、關聯、和形式促發已經制定的很好，但一些長期的促發效應在未來的研究中不能被複製，所以對他們的有效性甚至存在性依舊保有懷疑。<ref name="BadCopy">{{cite news|last=Yong|first=Ed|title=Replication studies: Bad copy|url=http://www.nature.com/news/replication-studies-bad-copy-1.10634|accessdate=12 October 2012|newspaper=Nature|archive-date=2016-06-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160625070808/http://www.nature.com/news/replication-studies-bad-copy-1.10634|dead-url=no}}</ref> [[诺贝尔奖|諾貝爾獎得主]]，心理學家[[丹尼尔·卡内曼|Daniel Kahneman]]呼籲促發的研究人員去檢查他們的研究結果的可靠性並向社會公開一封信，聲稱激發已經成為「典型代表對關於心理學研究的誠信有所懷疑」。<ref>{{cite web|last=Kahneman|first=Daniel|title=A proposal to deal with questions about priming effects|url=http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.6716.1349271308!/suppinfoFile/Kahneman%20Letter.pdf|publisher=Nature|accessdate=12 October 2012|archive-date=2016-07-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160711172106/http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.6716.1349271308!/suppinfoFile/Kahneman%20Letter.pdf|dead-url=no}}</ref>其他評論家也已經斷言，促發研究受大多數[[抽屉问题|出版偏見]]、<ref>{{cite news|last=Bower|first=Bruce|title=The Hot and Cold of Priming|url=http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/340408/title/The_Hot_and_Cold_of_Priming|accessdate=12 October 2012|newspaper=Science News|archive-date=2012-06-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120608030508/http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/340408/title/The_Hot_and_Cold_of_Priming|dead-url=no}}</ref> 實驗者效應 <ref name="Doyen2012"/>和這領域的評論這些沒有建設性的處理所苦。<ref>{{cite web|last=Yong|first=Ed|title=A failed replication draws a scathing personal attack from a psychology professor|url=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/03/10/failed-replication-bargh-psychology-study-doyen/|publisher=Discover Magazine|accessdate=12 October 2012|archive-date=2012-10-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121016014523/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/03/10/failed-replication-bargh-psychology-study-doyen/|dead-url=no}}</ref>