When less is more: The consequences of affective primacy for subliminal priming effects

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Volumn 31, Issue 9, 2005, Pages 1286-1295

  Stapel, Diederik A ^a   Koomen, Willem ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Affect; Applicability; Assimilation; Priming; Subliminal perception

Indexed keywords

AFFECT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONDITIONING; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; PERCEPTIVE THRESHOLD; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; TIME;

AFFECT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONDITIONING (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; JUDGMENT; PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL; SUBLIMINAL STIMULATION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 24344460982     PISSN: 01461672     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146167205275616     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Banaji, M. R., Hardin, C., & Rothman, A.J. (1993). Implicit stereotyping in person judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 272-281.
2. Bargh, J. A. (1992). Does subliminality matter to social psychology? Awareness of the stimulus versus awareness of its influence. In R. Bornstein & T. Pittman (Eds.), Perception without awareness (pp. 236-255). New York: Guilford.
3. Bargh, J. A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 10, pp. 1-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Bargh, J. A., & Pietromonaco, P. (1982). Automatic information processing and social perception: The influence of trait information presented outside of conscious awareness on impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 437-449.
5. Bruner, J. S. (1957). Going beyond the information given. In H. E. Gruber, K. R. Hammond, & R. Jessor (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to cognition (pp. 41-69). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Croizet, J. -C., & Fiske, S. T. (2000). Moderation of priming by goals: Feeling entitled to judge increases judged usability of evaluative primes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 155-181.
7. Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.
8. Erdley, C. A., & D'Agostino, P. R. (1988). Cognitive and affective components of automatic priming effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 741-747.
9. Greenwald, A. G. (1992). New look 3: Unconscious cognition reclaimed. American Psychologist, 47, 766-779.
10. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes, Psychological Review, 102, 4-27.
11. Hermans, D., De Houwer J., & Eelen, P. (1994). The affective priming effect: Automatic activation of evaluative information in memory. Cognition and Emotion, 8, 515-533.
12. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Socialpsychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). New York: Guilford.
13. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Biases in social cognition: "Aboutness" as a general principle. In G. McGarty & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The message of social psychology (pp. 182-199). Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
14. Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141-154.
15. James, W. (1979). The varieties of religious experience. New York: McMillan. (Original work published in 1902)
16. Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perspectives on the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79-94). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
17. Loftus, E. F., & Klinger, M. R. (1992). Is the unconscious smart or dumb? American Psychologist, 47, 761-765.
18. Marcel, A.J. (1983). Conscious and unconscious perception: Experiments on visual masking and word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 197-237.
19. Martin, L. L. (1986). Set/reset: Use and disuse of concepts in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 493-504.
20. Merikle, P. M., & Reingold, E. M. (1990). Recognition and lexical decision without detection: Unconscious perception? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 574-583.
21. Murphy, S. T., & Zajonc, R. B. (1993). Affect, cognition, and awareness: Affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 723-739.
22. Neuberg, S. L. (1988). Behavioral implications of information presented outside of conscious awareness: The effect of subliminal presentation of trait information on behavior in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game. Social Cognition, 6, 207-230.
23. Peabody, D., & Goldberg, L. R. (1989) Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 552-567.
24. Sedikides, C. (1990). Effects of fortuitously activated constructs versus activated communication goals on person impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 397-408.
25. Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of information about persons: Some determinants and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1660-1672.
26. Stapel, D. A. (2003). Making sense of hot cognition: Why and when description influences our feelings andjudgments. In J. P Forgas, K. D. Williams, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), Social judgments: Implicit and explicit processes (pp. 227-250). New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Stapel, D. A., & Koomen, W. (2000). How far do we go beyond the information given? The impact of knowledge activation on interpretation and inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 19-37.
28. Stapel, D. A., & Koomen, W. (2001). When we wonder what it all means: Interpretation goals facilitate accessibility and stereotyping effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 915-929.
29. Stapel, D. A., Koomen, W., & Ruys, K. (2002). The effects of diffuse and distinct affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 60-74.
30. Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1989). Memory and social cognition in its social context. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
32. Zajonc, R. B. (2000). Feeling and thinking: Closing the debate over the independence of affect. In J. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 31-58). New York: Cambridge University Press.