Studies on unconscious priming suffer from methodological issues. Typically, evidence for unconscious processing of a prime stimulus comes from two tasks: (1) In the direct task, participants attempt to discriminate the prime stimulus and discrimination performance is low. (2) In the indirect task, participants respond to another (target) stimulus and the prime nevertheless produces a response time effect. This pattern of results seems to demonstrate that the prime was processed beyond what participants can consciously report, and (with further assumptions) is often taken as evidence for unconscious priming. But this approach is highly problematic. Schmidt & Vorberg (2006) advocated pursuing a more insightful pattern of results: a double dissociation. For double dissociations, researchers would show that — from one experimental condition to another — the indirect task response time effect decreases while the direct task discrimination performance increases. With few assumptions, such a pattern of results provides evidence for two dissociated processes (from which one may reflect unconscious processing). One of the required assumptions, the weak monotonicity assumption, can be put into question. Here, we argue that this assumption can be replaced by an empirical result: The finding that the indirect task shows higher sensitivity to the prime than the direct task, which we dubbed indirect task advantage. When demonstrated jointly, a double dissociation and an indirect task advantage, both pieces of evidence would provide a solid foundation for further interpretations. Such an empirically focused approach could be promising in advancing research on unconscious processing.