On the nature of the affective priming effect: Effects of stimulus onset asynchrony and congruency proportion in naming and evaluative categorization

Spruyt, Adriaan; Hermans, Dirk; Houwer, Jan De; Vandromme, Heleen; Eelen, Paul

doi:10.3758/bf03195946

Cited by 82 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The relatedness-proportion effect in semantic priming refers to stronger facilitation when the proportion of related primetarget pairs is high rather than low (De Groot, 1984;Neely, Keefe, & Ross 1989;Seidenberg, Waters, Sanders, & Langer 1984). Analogous congruity proportion effects in EP (i.e., enhanced EP when the proportion of congruent pairs is high) were first reported by Klauer and colleagues (Klauer, Mierke, & Musch 2003;Klauer et al, 1997) and were later replicated by Spruyt, Hermans, De Houwer, Vandromme, and Eelen (2007).…”

Section: Strategic Influences On Evaluative Primingmentioning

confidence: 58%

On the adaptive flexibility of evaluative priming

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If priming effects serve an adaptive function, they have to be both robust and flexible. In four experiments, we demonstrated regular evaluative-priming effects for relatively long stimulus-onset asynchronies, which can, however, be eliminated or reversed strategically. When participants responded to both primes and targets, rather than only to targets, the standard congruity effect disappeared. In Experiments 1a-1c, this result was regularly obtained, independently of the prime response (valence or gender classification) and the response mode (pronunciation or keystroke). In Experiment 2, we showed that once the default congruity effect was eliminated, strategicpriming effects reflected the statistical contingency between prime valence and target valence. Positive contingencies produced congruity, whereas negative contingencies produced equally strong incongruity effects. Altogether, these findings are consistent with an adaptive-cognitive perspective, which highlights the role of flexible strategic processes in working memory as opposed to fixed structures in semantic long-term memory or in the sensorimotor system.

show abstract

Section: Strategic Influences On Evaluative Primingmentioning

confidence: 58%

On the adaptive flexibility of evaluative priming

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, while several researchers reported that they were unable to replicate the evaluative priming effect in the absence of dimensional overlap between the prime set and the response set (e.g., De Houwer, Hermans, Rothermund, & Wentura, 2002;Klauer & Musch, Attention please 6 2002;Klinger, Burton, & Pitts, 2000), others reported that they did succeed in capturing this phenomenon, at least under certain conditions (e.g., Bargh, Chaiken, Raymond, & Hymes, 1996; De Houwer, Hermans, & Spruyt, 2001;Everaert, Spruyt & De Houwer, 2011;Hermans, De Houwer, & Eelen, 1994;Spruyt, Hermans, De Houwer, & Eelen, 2002;Spruyt et al, , 2009Spruyt et al, , 2012Spruyt, Hermans, De Houwer, Vandromme, Eelen, 2007;Schmitz & Wentura, 2012;Wentura, 2000;Wentura, & Frings, 2008). These findings suggest that processes other than Stroop-like response interference are also involved in the translation of the outcome of the prime-evaluation process into an observable evaluative priming effect.…”

Section: Attention Pleasementioning

confidence: 99%

Attention please: Evaluative priming effects in a valent/non-valent categorisation task (reply to Werner & Rothermund, 2013)

Spruyt

2013

Cognition and Emotion

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Problems Of Previous Attempts To Distinguish Between Mediatimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The finding of significant priming effects with the pronunciation task thus establishes a specific influence of facilitated target access processes on priming effects. Robust priming effects with the pronunciation task have repeatedly been demonstrated for associative prime-target pairs (e.g., Meyer et al, 1975; see Neely, 1991, for a review), whereas for categorically related prime-target pairs (e.g., affective priming), highly inconsistent results have been reported, including congruency, incongruency, Cognitive Processes in Categorical and Associative Priming 8 as well as null effects (e.g., Bargh et al, 1996;De Houwer & Randell, 2004;Glaser & Banaji, 1999;Hermans, De Houwer, & Eelen, 1994; Klauer & Musch, 2001; Schmitz & Wentura, in press;Spruyt, De Houwer, & Hermans, 2009; Spruyt, Hermans, De Houwer, & Eelen, 2002;Spruyt, Hermans, Pandelaere, De Houwer, & Eelen, 2004;Spruyt, Hermans, De Houwer, Vandromme, & Eelen, 2007;Wentura & Frings, 2008; see Klauer & Musch, 2003, andRothermund, 2003, for reviews).Similarly, using a categorization task that is unrelated to the dimension for which category congruency effects are investigated (e.g., an animacy categorization task is used when testing for affective category priming) should eliminate response competition as a potential explanation of categorical priming effects (but see Schmitz & Wentura, in press).Moreover, since post-lexical mechanisms are most plausible for the lexical decision task (see above) this strategy should also eliminate post-lexical mechanisms. Categorical priming effects are typically eliminated in designs in which the task is to categorize the targets according to another dimension (e.g., De Houwer et al, 2002;Klinger et al, 2000; Klauer & Musch, 2002; but see Spruyt, De Houwer, Hermans, & Eelen, 2007; Schmitz & Wentura, in press).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive processes in associative and categorical priming: A diffusion model analysis.

Voss

Rothermund²,

Gast³

et al. 2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Diffusion Model AnalysisSequential priming procedures play a major role in Cognitive Psychology and related disciplines. For example, priming techniques are used to assess associative structures in semantic memory (e.g., Collins & Loftus, 1975;Neely, 1977;Rosch, 1975), to analyze subliminal semantic processing (e.g., Draine & Greenwald, 1998;Klinger, Burton, & Pitts, 2000;Marcel, 1983), or to investigate the mental basis of attitudes, prejudice, and stereotyping (Blair & Banaji, 1996;Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986; Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997, 2001a. With different sequential priming paradigms it has been shown that the processing of an irrelevant prime stimulus influences the processing ofor the responding to-a subsequently presented target stimulus. Typically, responses are faster and more accurate if prime and target are related.Despite these similarities, there are also important differences between paradigms.First, relatedness of prime and target can be based on many dimensions, including semantic relatedness, associations, similarity, and others. We are primarily interested here in associative and semantic relations between prime and target. Items are semantically related when they belong to the same category and thus share semantic properties (e.g., cat and cow are mammals) or when they are functionally related (e.g., broom and floor are related because brooms are used to sweep floors). Items are considered to be associated when a large percentage of people give the target as the first word they think of in response to the prime (see Moss, Ostrin, Tyler, & Marslen-Wilson, 1995, for an elaborate discussion of the distinction between semantic and associative priming). In addition to the relatedness dimension, priming paradigms differ in the type of task that is to be performed on the targets:Most paradigms use the lexical decision task (Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971;Neely, 1977; see also Gaertner & McLaughlin, 1983;Wentura, 2000; Wittenbrink et al., 1997 Wittenbrink et al., , 2001a & Hymes, 1996;Hermans, De Houwer, & Eelen, 1994), semantic or affective categorization tasks (e.g., De Houwer, Hermans, Rothermund, & Wentura, 2002;Fazio et al., 1986;Klinger et al., 2000), and verification tasks (Collins & Quillian, 1969;Meyer, 1970; see also Dovidio, Evans, & Tyler, 1986). A structural taxonomyIn this regard it is helpful to introduce a structural taxonomy of priming designs that distinguishes between semantic priming and response priming (see also Wentura & Degner, 2010). In semantic priming, the relationship of interest (e.g., whether prime and target are associatively related or not) is varied orthogonally to the response categories: For example, in a semantic priming design using the lexical decision task, targets that are preceded by associatively related primes as well as targets that are preceded by unrelated primes require a word-response. By way of contrast, in response priming designs, primes are at the same time congruent or incongruent to the target and to the response that ha...

show abstract

On the nature of the affective priming effect: Effects of stimulus onset asynchrony and congruency proportion in naming and evaluative categorization

Cited by 82 publications

References 86 publications

On the adaptive flexibility of evaluative priming

On the adaptive flexibility of evaluative priming

Attention please: Evaluative priming effects in a valent/non-valent categorisation task (reply to Werner & Rothermund, 2013)

Cognitive processes in associative and categorical priming: A diffusion model analysis.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About