  In a recent paper Basieva, Cervantes, Dzhafarov, and Khrennikov (2019)
presented a series of experiments which they claimed show evidence for
contextuality in human judgments. This was based on a set of modified Bell-like
inequalities designed to rule out effects caused by signalling. In this comment
we show that it is, however, possible to construct a non-contextual model which
explains the experimental data via direct influences, which we take to mean
that a measurement outcome has a (model-specific) causal dependence on other
measurements. We trace the apparent inconsistency to a definition of signalling
which does not account for all possible forms of direct influence. Further, we
cast doubt on the idea that any experimental data in psychology could provide
conclusive evidence for contextuality beyond that explainable by direct
influence.
