On the (un)conditionality of automatic attitude activation: The valence proportion effect.

Abstract

Affective priming studies have shown that participants are faster to pronounce affectively polarized target words that are preceded by affectively congruent prime words than affectively polarized target words that are preceded by affectively incongruent prime words. We examined whether affective priming of naming responses depends on the valence proportion (i.e., the proportion of stimuli that are affectively polarized). In one group of participants, experimental trials were embedded in a context of filler trials that consisted of affectively polarized stimulus materials (i.e., high valence proportion condition). In a second group, the same set of experimental trials was embedded in a context of filler trials consisting of neutral stimuli (i.e., low valence proportion condition). Results showed that affective priming of naming responses was significantly stronger in the high valence proportion condition than in the low valence proportion condition. We conclude that (a) subtle aspects of the procedure can influence affective priming of naming responses, (b) finding affective priming of naming responses does not allow for the conclusion that affective stimulus processing is unconditional, and (c) affective stimulus processing depends on selective attention for affective stimulus information.

Effects in the Affect Misattribution Procedure Are Modulated by Feature-Specific Attention Allocation

“…One way to account for these inconsistent findings concerns the nature of the procedures that were used to manipulate FSAA. In line with our earlier work (e.g., Everaert et al, 2011Everaert et al, , 2013Everaert et al, , 2014 selective attention for non-evaluative stimulus information. The use of two separable stimulus dimensions is important because it minimizes the likelihood that selective attention for one stimulus dimension affects the degree to which selective attention is assigned to the other stimulus dimension.…”

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

“…The present findings are also relevant for the discussion concerning the mechanisms responsible for translating the outcome of the prime-evaluation process into an observable evaluative priming effect (see Spruyt et al, 2011;Eder, Leuthold, Rothermund, Schweinberger, 2011). Given that evaluative overlap between the prime set and the response set is missing in the valent/non-valent categorization task, the present findings add further weight to the hypothesis that processes other than Stoop-like response competition are at play in the evaluative priming paradigm.…”

“…Nevertheless, the fact that a reliable evaluative priming effect emerged under these conditions is at least consistent with the idea that response priming effects interfered with the evaluative priming effect in the studies of Werner and Rothermund (2013). As an alternative explanation, however, it might also be Attention please 12 argued that variations along the positive/negative dimension are more likely to be picked up in the valent/non-valent categorization task when 100% of the prime stimuli (or 75 % of all the stimuli) are either positive or negative (see also Everaert et al, 2011). Further research would thus be needed to unravel the precise reason why the inclusion or exclusion of neutral stimuli in the prime set makes such a difference.…”

“…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.…”

“…First, although it is technically impossible to rule out response priming effects completely in the valent/non-valent categorization task, it seems reasonable to assume that response priming effects should be less pronounced when the prime set no longer varies along the response-relevant stimulus dimension (e.g., Notebaert, Verbruggen, & Soetens, 2005). Second, despite the nature of the response task, participants may be more sensitive to variations along the positive/negative dimension when they learn that all the prime stimuli (or 75% of all the stimuli) are either positive or negative (see also Attention please 8 Everaert et al, 2011). To examine these possibilities, I decided to run a conceptual replication of Experiment 2 of Werner and Rothermund (2013) using valent primes only.…”