Psychophysiological evidence of response conflict and strategic control of responses in affective priming

Abstract

a b s t r a c tThis experiment investigated the role of conflict in the response and evaluative categorization systems in the affective congruency effect using event-related brain potentials (ERPs). Participants completed a primed evaluative decision task in which the proportion of congruent to incongruent trials was manipulated. The size of the affective congruency effect increased along with the proportion of congruent trials. ERP data identified the locus of this effect in the response system: the lateralized readiness potential (LRP) showed that preferential response activation occurred in motor cortex following prime onset, and the fronto-central N2 (conflict monitoring) component indicated that conflict occurred when the response activated by the prime differed from the target response, irrespective of the affective congruency of the prime and target. The extent of this conflict covaried with strategic processing of primes, as participants directed less attention to primes that were likely to elicit conflict. These data support a response conflict account of affective congruency effects in the evaluative decision task and indicate that strategic control of attention is important in determining the extent to which conflict occurs.

Emotional primes modulate the responses to others’ pain: an ERP study

“…In general, targets are categorized more quickly and have smaller P3 amplitudes when they are affectively congruent with primes relative to affectively incongruent with primes (Bartholow et al 2009;Ito et al 1998;Friedman et al 2001). In this study, painful target stimuli elicited larger P3 waves following negative primes.…”

On the controllability of evaluative-priming effects: Some limits that are none

“…Replicating Teige-Mocigemba and Klauer's Experiment 1 (2008), Bar-Anan manipulated primeÁtarget contingency such that participants were presented with inconsistent primeÁtarget pairs more often than with consistent primeÁtarget pairs (referred to as ''negative contingency'' in the following). Participants were able to use knowledge about this negative contingency to counteract evaluative-priming effects (see also Bartholow, Riordan, Saults, & Lust, 2009). …”

“…Furthermore, participants were not asked to fake, but were just told about the negative contingency, leaving it up to them whether and how to use this knowledge strategically when working through the task (cf. Bartholow et al, 2009). Importantly, Bar-Anan manipulated primeÁtarget contingency regardless of the direction of the participants' attitudes.…”

On the role of conflict and control in social cognition: Event-related brain potential investigations

“…This issue can be particularly relevant when considering theoretical mechanisms of social behavior tested with reaction-time tasks, such as whether facilitated responses on congruent trials in stereotype-priming tasks reflect more rapid categorization of stereotype-congruent targets, less conflicted response activation, or some combination (see Bartholow & Dickter, 2008;Bartholow, Riordan, Saults, & Lust, 2009). Finally, an additional stimulus-locked component, the negative slow wave (NSW), also known as the frontal slow wave because of its typical prominence at frontal and fronto-central scalp locations, can be useful for investigating the extent to which cognitive control processes are brought to bear during social-cognitive tasks.…”

“…Although evidence from several behavioral studies is consistent with this model (e.g., De Houwer, Hermans, Rothermund, & Wentura, 2002;Gawronski, Deutsch, & Seidel, 2005;Klauer & Musch, 2002;Klinger et al, 2000;Wentura, 1999), direct evidence that primes activate response tendencies and that such activation produces conflict on incongruent trials has been lacking. In a recent experiment, Bartholow, Riordan, et al (2009) used ERPs to directly test the hypothesis that incongruent trials in affective priming elicit response conflict. This hypothesis rests on two assumptions: (1) that primes activate response channels prior to target onset and (2) that this activation generates conflict on incongruent relative to congruent trials.…”