The hide-and-seek of hidden covariation detection: Reply to Lewicki, Hill, and Czyzewska (1997).

P. Lewicki, M. Czyzewska, and H. Hoffman (see record 1997-02349-013) argued that H. Hendrickx, J. De Houwer, F. Baeyens, P. Eelen, and E. Van Avermaet's (see record 1997-02349-012) 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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)