Moderation of masked affective priming
1
Running head: MODERATION OF MASKED AFFECTIVE PRIMING
Automatic evaluation isn’t that crude!
Moderation of masked affective priming by type of valence
Dirk Wentura1 and Juliane Degner2
1
2
Saarland University
University of Amsterdam
----------------- Cognition & Emotion, in press -----------------
Address correspondence to:
Dirk Wentura
Department of Psychology, Saarland University, D-66115, Saarbruecken,
Germany
Tel.: +49-681-302-4781
Fax: +49-681-302-4049
E-Mail: [email protected]
Moderation of masked affective priming
2
Moderation of masked affective priming
3
Abstract
In two experiments, the automatic processing of evaluative information
was investigated using a masked affective priming paradigm, varying
valence (positive vs. negative) and relevance (other-relevant traits vs.
possessor-relevant traits; Peeters, 1983) of prime and target stimuli. It was
found that under specified conditions, valence-congruency effects were only
found if prime and target matched with regard to relevance type (i.e., were
both either of the other-relevant or possessor-relevant type). These results
suggest that automatic processing of affective information conveys not only
the positive-negative differentiation, but also the relevance type of valence.
Consequences for research on automatic attitudes, especially prejudice are
discussed. For current research on masked priming, it is important to
highlight that the subliminal effect was found even for non-practiced prime
stimuli.
Moderation of masked affective priming
4
Automatic evaluation isn’t that crude!
Moderation of masked affective priming by type of valence
Since the seminal article on affective priming by Fazio, Sanbonmatsu,
Powell, and Kardes (1986), a lot of research has been done on the
automaticity of evaluation (for reviews see Fazio, 2001; Klauer & Musch,
2003; Wentura & Rothermund, 2003). Typically, affective priming is
assessed with an evaluation task: participants have to decide for each target
stimulus whether it is positive or negative.1 Shortly before each target, a
prime stimulus is presented. In cases of affective congruence (i.e., prime and
target share the same valence), response times (and/or number of errors) are
expected to be lower than in cases of affective incongruence (i.e., prime and
target are of different valence). Although there has been some debate about
the underlying mechanisms (see, e.g., De Houwer, Hermans, Rothermund,
& Wentura, 2002; Klauer & Musch, 2003; Spruyt et al., 2002), it is rather
undisputed that this effect reflects the automatically – in the sense of nonintentionally – activated evaluation of the prime. Given this background, the
affective priming procedure was proposed as a measurement tool for
automatic attitude activation (Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995).
The underlying rationale is that automatic evaluation of attitude-related
stimuli can be inferred from affective priming effects if these stimuli are
presented as primes.
Moderation of masked affective priming
5
Meanwhile, it has been shown that affective priming effects can be
found with subliminally presented prime stimuli (Abrams, Klinger, &
Greenwald, 2002; Draine & Greenwald, 1998; Greenwald, Draine, &
Abrams, 1996; Greenwald, Klinger, & Liu, 1989; Greenwald, Klinger, &
Schuh, 1995; Klauer, Eder, Greenwald, & Abrams, 2007). Thus, even if
prime stimuli are processed outside of awareness, their valence is activated.
This feature renders the evaluation task the most unobtrusive measure of
automatic evaluations. Given this backdrop, we were able to fruitfully use
the affective priming technique in its masked version in several studies,
tapping different domains of evaluation (Degner & Wentura, in press;
Degner, Wentura, Gniewosz, & Noack, 2007; Frings & Wentura, 2003;
Otten & Wentura, 1999; Wentura, Kulfanek, & Greve, 2005).
The present studies are concerned with a question that is highly relevant
for research on automatic processing of affective connotations in general,
and research on indirect assessment of attitudes in specific: Is automatic
evaluation a rather undifferentiated process that only conveys general
positive or negative affective connotations? Or do we find more subtle
differentiations at the level of fast, effortless, and unconscious valence
processing? With the following studies we explore a candidate distinction
for such a differentiation, that is, the other- vs. possessor-relevance
introduced by Peeters (1983; Peeters & Czapinski, 1990).
Other vs. Possessor-Relevance
Moderation of masked affective priming
6
Peeters (1983; Peeters & Czapinski, 1990) introduced a typology of
valenced trait adjectives according to the kind of positivity or negativity
they convey. That is, the evaluation of a given trait depends on the
perspective of the evaluator – whether they evaluate the trait from the
perspective of the trait-holder him/herself or from the perspective of
someone who has to interact with the trait-holder. Thus, this typology is
termed possessor- vs. other-relevance (or self- vs. other-profitability, see
Peeters, 1983). To give an example, being brutal is primarily bad for the
social environment of the brutal person, but not necessarily for the brutal
person him-/herself (he/she might be a sadist). On the contrary, being lonely
is primarily bad for the lonely individual but not necessarily for his/her
social environment. The same applies to positive adjectives: Being honest is
primarily good for those who interact with the honest person but not
necessarily for the honest person him-/herself (honesty might be abused),
whereas being intelligent is primarily good for intelligent persons
themselves but not necessarily for the social environment (she or he might
have selfish motives). Adjectives like brutal or honest are called otherrelevant, whereas words like lonely or intelligent are called possessorrelevant.
Wentura, Rothermund, and Bak (2000) provided first evidence that this
typology is relevant for automatic evaluation processes. They found that
other-relevant stimuli increased color-naming times in the “Emotional
Moderation of masked affective priming
7
Stroop” task compared to possessor-relevant words. Thus, there is some
evidence that our cognitive-affective system is tuned to distinguish between
these kinds of positivity and negativity at a very basic level. If automatic
evaluation differentiates into other- versus possessor-relevance, it can be
hypothesized that affective priming will be susceptible to different types of
valence as well. In fact, applying the affective priming paradigm to the
indirect assessment of attitudes provided first indications that (a) automatic
evaluation of socially relevant stimuli seem to comprise a differentiation of
possessor- and other-relevance and that (b) this can potentially be assessed
with the affective priming task: Interindividual differences in social attitudes
such as self-esteem or intergroup prejudice – as measured by questionnaires
– were differentially and meaningfully related to priming effects based on
attitude-related primes and either self-relevant or other relevant target words
(Wentura et al., 2005; Degner et al., 2007). These results indicate that the
potential of the affective priming paradigm for the assessment of different
types of automatic evaluation should be systematically explored.
Overview
In the following two experiments, we test for the moderation of masked
affective priming effects by relevance type of valence. We hypothesize that
– possibly given some boundary conditions – masked affective priming
effects are most pronounced if primes and targets are from the same
relevance type.
Moderation of masked affective priming
8
We used the masked version of affective priming to make strategic
influences maximally unlikely. Masking, for example, precludes that
participants acquire a clear picture of the trial structure which might be used
by participants to successfully manipulate effects (Degner, in press; Klauer
& Teige-Mocigemba, 2007). Although it is not our dominant concern to add
to the debate on unconscious priming (see, e.g., Dehaene & Naccache,
2001), one might evaluate the experiments also in the light of this research
field. Therefore we conducted a direct test of prime awareness.
For both experiments, we added a further factor, that is, whether
participants were instructed to emphasize speed or accuracy in responding.
This was done for the following reason. It is known from the affective
priming literature that masked priming effects are a rather robust finding if
participants are urged to respond very quickly (see, e.g., Draine &
Greenwald, 1998; Greenwald et al., 1996). An obvious explanation for
affective priming effects is the assumption that the prime prepares either for
the correct or the wrong response needed for the target. Given this
explanation, it might be relevant that the targets are not yet fully processed
when the response is given: it could then be argued that the weight of the
task-relevant target attribute is relatively decreased compared to the
corresponding prime attribute when the response is generated (Wentura &
Rothermund, 2003). Accuracy instructions might counteract this tendency,
because participants will give the target features considerably more weight
Moderation of masked affective priming
9
and will thus be more susceptible to differences between prime and target
(Wentura & Rothermund, 2003). However, accuracy instructions involve
the risk of getting no priming effects at all. Thus, we can consider varying
instructions as an “adjustment tool” that helps identifying conditions that
make the masked affective priming paradigm sensitive to the relevance type
of primes and targets.
STUDY 1
We start our exploration with an experiment that should guarantee to
establish masked affective priming, using our materials and apparatus.
Previous studies found stable masked priming effects especially if primes
and targets were drawn from the same set of stimuli, such that over the
course of the experiment the primes were presented as targets too (Abrams
et al., 2002; Abrams & Greenwald, 2000; Draine & Greenwald, 1998).
Method
Participants
Nineteen students (12 women; 7 men) participated in Study 1a. Ten
participants were instructed to emphasize speed; nine participants were
instructed to emphasize accuracy. The median age was 22.0 years; all of
them were native speakers of German. One participant of the emphasis-onaccuracy sample was replaced because his mean overall response time was
more than 2.5 standard deviation units below the mean response time of the
emphasis-on-speed sample. Study 1b was done to further clarify a detail in
Moderation of masked affective priming
10
the results of the emphasis-on-speed sample of Study 1a (see Results
section). Ten students (eight women; two men) participated in this
replication. They all received the speed instruction. The median age was
22.0 years; all of them were native speakers of German.
Design
In detail, the experiment was based on a 2 (target valence: positive vs.
negative) x 2 (target relevance: other vs. possessor) x 2 (prime valence:
positive vs. negative) x 2 (prime relevance: other vs. possessor) withinparticipants design. However, we can reframe the design as essentially two
factors that were varied within participants. First, the congruence vs.
incongruence of prime and target valences was manipulated. Second, it was
manipulated whether prime and target belonged to the same or different
category of relevance. A neutral prime condition was added to get a hint as
to whether priming effects (i.e., the difference of RTs to congruent and
incongruent conditions) were caused by interference or facilitation
processes.2 For Study 1a, instruction (emphasis on speed vs. emphasis on
accuracy) was manipulated between participants. In Study 1b, all
participants received the speed instruction.
Materials
The stimulus set comprised 10 positive and 10 negative German
adjectives (see Appendix). Within each valence set, five adjectives were
other-relevant and five adjectives were possessor-relevant according to
Moderation of masked affective priming
11
norm data (Wentura, Rothermund, & Bak, 1998). The adjectives had a
length of five to eight letters. Mean length of the four type sets ranged from
5.60 letters to 6.40 letters. Absolute pleasantness (on a scale ranging from 0
to +100 was between 52 and 89; Hager, Mecklenbräuker, Möller, &
Westermann, 1985; Möller & Hager, 1991). Mean absolute pleasantness of
the four type sets ranged from 56 to 72. A string of six x’s was used as a
neutral prime condition.
Procedure
Participants were tested either alone or in pairs. They were seated in
front of standard personal computers separated by partition walls.
Instructions were given on the CRT screen. Participants were told that they
had to classify words with regard to their valence. Participants in the
emphasis-on-speed samples received the following instruction: “Decide as
quickly as possible. Of course, you should not make errors permanently
(otherwise your data would be worthless); but the emphasis on speed might
be somewhat at the cost of accuracy. Your error rate can be within the range
of 15 to 20 %.” Participants in the emphasis-on-accuracy sample received
the following instruction: “Decide quickly, but be as accurate as possible.
Of course, you should decide quickly (otherwise your data would be
worthless) but the emphasis on accuracy might be somewhat at the cost of
speed. On average, your error rate should be below 3 %.” For participants of
Moderation of masked affective priming
12
the emphasis-on-accuracy sample, a feedback (“Error!”) appeared on the
screen in the case of a false response.
Parameters of masked prime presentation were the same as those used
by Otten and Wentura (1999) and Wentura et al. (2005). A randomly
generated string of nine consonant letters (e.g., mlsdzkhwd) marked the
beginning of the trial and also served as a forward mask. It remained on the
screen for 300 ms and was then immediately replaced by the prime. Thus, as
the prime word was always shorter than the forward mask, it was embedded
into the string of random consonants (e.g., mlhonestwd). The prime
remained on the screen for 43 ms (three refresh cycles) and was
immediately replaced by a different randomly generated string of nine
consonant letters that served as a backward mask and was displayed for 14
ms (one cycle). It was replaced by the target stimulus that remained on the
screen until a response was given. The ‘positive’ response was assigned to
the right index finger, the ‘negative’ response to the left index finger. The
inter-trial interval was 2500 ms.
At the beginning of the priming task, participants worked through 20
practice trials (i.e., each target word was presented once) in order to become
familiarized with the task. After the practice trials, a summarized
performance feedback was given, indicating the number of errors, the
percentage of errors, and the mean RT. In the emphasis-on-speed sample,
the following messages were added depending on participants' performance:
Moderation of masked affective priming
13
(a) if the number of errors was less than two: “You have made very few
errors. You should try to be faster and less cautious”; (b) if the number of
errors was between 2 and 4: “Your error rate is appropriate. Continue to
respond quickly”; (c) if the number of errors was above 4: “As an average
value across the experiment, the error rate is somewhat too high”. In the
emphasis-on-accuracy sample, the following messages were added for the
emphasis-on-accuracy participants: (a) if there were any errors: “Try to be
more cautious!” (b) if they had made no errors: “Continue to be accurate!”.
The main part of the experiment consisted of three blocks of 100 trials
each. Within a block, each target word was presented once in each of the
five priming conditions, with the sequence determined by a Latin-square
design. Each block was further subdivided into five 20-trial sequences. Each
20-trial sequence comprised each target word once, and was followed by the
summarized feedback (see above). In each word-prime trial, the prime was
randomly chosen from the list of the five possible stimuli, with the
restriction that in each 20-trial sequence a prime word appeared only once.
In the condition ‘congruent pairs of same relevance type,’ the program
precluded the selection of a prime that was identical to the target.
Following the main blocks, a direct test of prime identification was
administered. Forty more trials (eight trials per prime) were presented that
were identical with the trials of the main phase, except for the following
detail. Instead of a target word, a row of nine question marks appeared in the
Moderation of masked affective priming
14
center of the screen accompanied by two stimuli, one to the right and one to
the left of the question marks. One of these words was a repetition of the
prime and one was a distractor, which was drawn from the stimulus list with
the constraint that it was always from the same valence and relevance type
as the prime. The location of the prime repetition was determined at random.
Participants were informed that the sequence of flickers preceding the
question marks (i.e., the mask-prime-mask sequence) contained either the
left or right word. They were instructed to identify this word (i.e., the prime)
by pressing the corresponding key (i.e., the key assigned to the right index
finger if they decided for the right word, the key assigned to the left index
finger if they decided for the left word).3
Results
Unless otherwise noted, all effects referred to as statistically significant
are associated with p values less than .05, two-tailed. All priming analyses
were performed using both subjects (referred to by t1, F1) and item (t2, F2)
means.
Manipulation check
Mean reaction times were derived from correct responses only. Reaction
times that were three interquartile ranges above the third quartile with
respect to the individual distribution were discarded (see Tukey, 1977), as
were those above 1500 ms, or below 150 ms (0.96 %, 0.70 %, and 0.83 % of
all values of the emphasis-on-accuracy sample and the emphasis-on-speed
Moderation of masked affective priming
15
samples [Exp. 1a and 1b], respectively). The emphasis-on-speed sample
(Exp. 1a) had a mean RT of M = 527 ms (SD = 40 ms), whereas the
emphasis-on-accuracy sample had a mean RT of M = 587 ms (SD = 64 ms);
this constitutes a significant difference, t(17) = 2.48. The emphasis-on-speed
sample (Exp. 1a) had a mean error rate of M = 9.5 % (SD = 2.7 %), whereas
the emphasis-on-accuracy sample had a mean error rate of M = 2.4 % (SD =
1.3 %); this again constitutes a significant difference, t(12.99) = 7.37. The
emphasis-on-speed samples of Study 1a and 1b did not significantly differ
neither with regard to mean RT (M[Exp. 1b] = 543 ms; SD = 43 ms), t(18) =
0.85, ns, and mean error rate (M[Exp. 1b] = 8.0 %; SD = 4.1 %), t(18) =
0.95, ns.
Priming effects (Study 1a)
The Block factor did not significantly moderate the priming results.
Thus, this factor was discarded. To simplify the presentation of results,
priming indices were calculated as the difference of incongruent and
congruent mean RTs. Mean reaction times for the conditions of interest are
shown in Table 1.
A 2 (instruction: emphasis on speed vs. accuracy) x 2 (prime-target
relevance: same vs. different) analysis of variance with the priming indices
as the dependent variable yielded a significant interaction of instruction and
relevance, F1(1,17) = 8.36, MSe = 179; F2(1,19) = 8.14, MSe = 481, all other
Fs < 1.
Moderation of masked affective priming
16
In the emphasis-on-speed sample, there no moderation of priming by
relevance match was found, t1(9) = 1.73, p > .10; t2(19) = 1.46, p > .16. For
both relevance types, a significant and marked priming effect emerged for
prime-target pairs of the same relevance type, t1(9) = 2.93, d1 = 0.93; t2(19)
= 2.19, d2 = 0.49, and for prime-target pairs of different relevance types,
t1(9) = 4.57, d1 = 1.45; t2(19) = 5.86, d2 = 1.31, respectively. On the
contrary, in the emphasis-on-accuracy sample, the priming effect was
significantly moderated by relevance match, t1(8) = 2.34, d = 0.78; t2(19) =
2.37, d = 0.53. There was a marked and significant priming effect for primetarget pairs of the same relevance type, t1(8) = 4.25, d1 = 1.42; t2(19) =
4.11, d2 = 0.92, whereas no priming effect occurred for prime-target pairs of
different relevance types, t1(8) = 1.12, ns, d1 = 0.37; t2(19) = 1.49, ns, d2 =
0.33.
Mean error rates for the conditions of interest are shown in Table 1. In a
2 (instruction: emphasis on speed vs. accuracy) x 2 (prime-target relevance:
same vs. different) analysis of variance with priming indices as the
dependent variable, a significant main effect of instruction occured,
F1(1,17) = 7.49, MSe = 24.2; F2(1,19) = 12.03, MSe = 31.75, all other Fs <
1. There was a significant priming effect for the emphasis-on-speed sample,
M = 4.8 %, t1(9) = 3.38, d1 = 1.07; t2(19) = 4.78, d2 = 1.07, whereas there
was no priming effect for the emphasis-on-accuracy sample, M = 0.5 %,
Moderation of masked affective priming
17
both |t1|s < 1. Priming was not moderated by relevance match in either
sample, all |t|s < 1.
Priming effects (Study 1b)
In the emphasis-on-speed sample of Study 1a, there was a slight
numerical (but non-significant) difference between priming effects for same
and different relevance in an unexpected direction (12 ms vs. 22 ms). To test
whether this difference is replicable, we conducted Study 1b. Mean reaction
times for the conditions of interest are shown in Table 1. In a 2 (prime-target
relevance: same vs. different) x 2 (affective priming: congruent vs.
incongruent) analysis of variance there was nothing but a significant main
effect of affective priming F1(1,9) = 14.40, MSe = 297; F2(1,19) = 29.94,
MSe = 350, indicating an affective congruency effect (all other Fs < 1). For
both relevance types, a significant and marked priming effect emerged: t1(9)
= 3.60, d1 = 1.14; t2(19) = 4.71, d2 = 1.05, for prime-target pairs of the same
relevance type, t1(9) = 2.11, d1 = 0.67, p < .05 (one-tailed); t2(19) = 3.90, d2
= 0.78, for prime-target pairs of different relevance types.
The results for the error rates are comparable to those for RTs (see
Table 1). In a 2 (prime-target relevance: same vs. different) x 2 (affective
priming: congruent vs. incongruent) analysis of variance, there was nothing
but a significant main effect of Affective Priming F1(1,9) = 8.71, MSe =
22.4; F2(1,19) = 24.58, MSe = 15.9, indicating an affective congruency
effect (both Fs < 1 for relevance and both Fs < 2.57, ns for the interaction).
Moderation of masked affective priming
18
Direct effects (Study 1a)
The signal detection sensitivity for the masked primes was d’ = .32 (SD
= .50; range of -0.13 to 0.65 plus one outlier with d’ = 1.56) for the
emphasis-on-speed sample and d’ = .17 (SD = .29; range of -0.29 to 0.63)
for the emphasis-on-accuracy sample, t(17) = 0.77, ns, for the difference.
Although the overall mean d’ of M = 0.25 (SD = .41) was significantly
above zero, t(18) = 2.65, there was only one participant with a significant
contingency between the position of the prime repetition (i.e., to the left or
to the right of the question marks) and response (left or right key), χ2 >
11.31, all other χ2s < 3.28, p > .07.
We followed the suggestion by Draine and Greenwald (1998) to regress
the priming indices (i.e., the difference variable ‘incongruent minus
congruent priming’) on d’. Since both variables have a meaningful neutral
point, the intercept can be interpreted as the amount of priming in the
absence of awareness (i.e., d’ = 0). We regressed the RT priming indices on
d’, separately for the speed and the accuracy sample. Table 1 includes the
intercepts (and their standard errors). For the emphasis-on-speed sample,
both intercepts were significantly above zero, t(8) = 2.00, p < .05 (onetailed; t(8) = 0.62, ns, for the slope) for prime-target pairs of same relevance
type, t(8) = 3.23 (t(8) = 1.03, ns, for the slope) for prime-target pairs of
different relevance type. For the emphasis-on-accuracy sample, the intercept
for prime-target pairs of same relevance type was significantly above zero,
Moderation of masked affective priming
19
t(7) = 3.20 (t(7) = 0.41, ns, for the slope), whereas the intercept for primetarget pairs of different relevance type failed to be different from zero, t(7) =
0.30, ns (t(7) = 1.30, ns, for the slope).
Direct effects (Study 1b)
The mean signal detection sensitivity for the masked primes was d’ = .29 (SD = .53; range of –1.07 to 0.65), t(6) = -1.48, ns.4 For prime-target
pairs of the same relevance type, the intercept was significantly above zero,
t(5) = 2.20, p < .05 (one-tailed; t(5) = -0.77, ns, for the slope). Interestingly,
the intercept for prime-target pairs of different relevance type failed to be
significantly above zero, t(5) = 0.40, ns (t(5) = -1.22, ns, for the slope).
Discussion
Study 1 revealed two essential results. Given instructions to emphasize
speed, a robust, replicable, and undifferentiated affective priming effect
emerged. This result is in line with several other studies published during
the last decade (e.g., Draine & Greenwald, 1998). Not unexpectedly, the
priming effect was not moderated by a match or mismatch of prime and
target relevance. However, given instructions to emphasize accuracy, a
moderation by match of relevance type was observed. If prime and target
belonged to the same type of relevance with regard to the distinction
introduced by Peeters (1983), a significant positive priming effect was
observed. If the relevance types of prime and target were different, priming
was no longer found. These results at indicate that affective priming effects
Moderation of masked affective priming
20
are susceptible to the kind of positivity or negativity of primes and targets.
Thus, we can infer that the relevance type of valence is in fact a feature of
valent stimuli that is activated under conditions of limited processing and
limited awareness.
However, one caveat remains with regard to this conclusion. As we
have already noted, masked affective priming effects are especially
observed if primes are practiced, for example, if primes and targets are
drawn from the same set of stimuli (as in Study 1; see Abrams &
Greenwald, 2000; Abrams & Grinspan, 2007). Several explanations of the
masked affective priming effect focus on this detail. For example, Damian
(2001) argued that masked affective priming effects are based on stimulusresponse mappings that become automatized during the course of the
experiment. If we attribute our results to this process, we can easily explain
the undifferentiated character of the priming effect under speed instructions:
This instruction might not only increase the weight of the prime relatively to
the target in quickly establishing a response, it might induce a strategy to
simply respond on the first evidence available without paying attention to
the source of this evidence, that is, whether it stems from the masked prime
or the target (Wentura & Rothermund, 2003). Thus, this condition might
quickly lead to stimulus-response associations that are blurred with regard
to the relevance distinction, because ultimately only a simple positive or
negative response has to be given.
Moderation of masked affective priming
21
By contrast, accuracy instructions induce a strategy to respond only on
the basis of the correct evidence – evidence unambiguously attributable to
the target (Wentura & Rothermund, 2003). This can explain that primes that
are congruent to the target with regard to valence but not with regard to
relevance do not facilitate target responses because the sources of evaluative
information can be disentangled on the basis of relevance. Similarly, primes
and targets that are incongruent in valence can always be disentangled
(irrespective of their relevance). Primes, however, that are congruent to the
target with regard to both features facilitate the responding because there is
no indication of a wrong source of evidence. This explains why there is
affective priming only for pairs matching in relevance but no effect for nonmatching pairs. Essentially, stimulus-response associations evolving
throughout the course of the experiment might become more sophisticated
than simple positive-negative responses and thus contain connotations of
relevance. If this explanation fits, we are faced by somewhat disappointing
implications about the automatic processing of the relevance feature. The
priming effect that is differentiated according to relevance might be a mere
side effect of a deeper processing of the targets, given accuracy instructions:
To disentangle sources of evidence, the target is more deeply processed than
is needed for a superficial positive versus negative categorization.
Eventually, stimulus-response associations are stored including valence and
Moderation of masked affective priming
22
relevance and will later be easily retrieved if the same word is presented as a
prime.
Recently, however, Klauer, Eder, Greenwald, and Abrams (2007)
showed masked affective priming with novel stimuli, that is, with stimuli
never presented for classification during the course of the experiment. They
explicitly argued for a two-component explanation of masked priming: One
component is based on response-related stimulus-associations and depends
on practice. Another smaller component is based on long-term stored
features of the masked prime.
Given these considerations, it is important to explore the meaning of the
relevance distinction in an experiment that rules out automatized response
mappings by using primes that are never openly presented for classification.
In addition, this manipulation is important for another reason. Given our
goal to corroborate our findings in the area of indirect assessment of
attitudes, it is even more important to explore priming effects caused by
novel stimuli, since it is a conditio sine qua non in this field of research that
the attitude-related primes are never presented for evaluative categorization.
STUDY 2
Study 2 is an almost exact copy of Study 1 except that primes and
targets were now from different stimulus sets. That is, primes were neither
categorized nor even consciously visible throughout the task. Again, we
explored affective priming given speed versus accuracy instructions,
Moderation of masked affective priming
23
although the reason for doing so was somewhat different than before. Given
overall sparse and weak evidence of priming with novel masked primes,
which, however, were always found with speed instructions, we used the
speed instruction condition simply for establishing a condition that might be
needed for obtaining priming at all.
Method
Participants
Study 2 included two independent recruitments of participants. The only
difference between Study 2a and 2b was that Study 2b lacked the direct test.
A total of fifty-eight students (51 women; 7 men) participated in the
experiments (29 participants for Study 2a and 2b, respectively). 30 of them
were instructed to emphasize speed, 28 were instructed to emphasize
accuracy. The median age was 21.0 years; all of them were native speakers
of German. Two participants of the emphasis-on-accuracy sample were
replaced because their mean overall response time was more than a standard
deviation unit below the mean response time of the emphasis-on-speed
sample.
Design, Materials, and Procedure
Design and Procedure were essentially the same as in Study 1. Now,
primes and targets were taken from different stimulus sets. Both, the prime
and the target set, comprised 10 positive and 10 negative German adjectives
(see Appendix). Within each valence subset, five adjectives were other-
Moderation of masked affective priming
24
relevant and five adjectives were possessor-relevant according to norm data
(Wentura et al., 1998). Absolute pleasantness (on a scale ranging from 0 to
+100; Hager et al., 1985; Möller & Hager, 1991) was between 50 and 87
(prime list) and between 50 and 72 (target list). Mean absolute pleasantness
of the four type sets ranged from 60 to 68 (prime list) and from 57 to 66
(target list). To bolster dissimilarity between primes and targets, we selected
short adjectives (four to six letters) for the prime list and long adjectives
(seven to nine letters) for the target list. Mean length of the four type sets
ranged from 4.4 letters to 5.6 letters (prime list) and from 8.0 letters to 8.8
letters (target list).
Since it is known that the response-related component of priming might
already be triggered by fragments of practiced stimuli (Abrams &
Greenwald, 2000), we made sure that there was no confound of matching
letters between prime and target for the different conditions (see also Klauer
et al., 2007). Therefore, we calculated the overlap of single letters, letter
pairs, and letter triplets for each combination of prime and target. Mean
overlap for those prime-target combinations matching in valence and
relevance was M = 1.97 for single letters (compared to M = 1.94 for the
remaining combinations; t[19] = .31, ns), M = 0.23 for letter pairs
(compared to M = 0.21; t[19] = .29, ns), and M = 0.04 for triplets (compared
to M = 0.02; t[19] = .85, ns).
Results
Moderation of masked affective priming
25
With the exception of results related to the direct test, we present the
data collapsed across Experiments 2a and 2b because experiment (as a
factor) did not modify any of the reported results.
Manipulation check
The emphasis-on-speed sample had a mean RT of M = 531 ms (SD = 67
ms) whereas the emphasis-on-accuracy sample had a mean RT of M = 580
ms (SD = 67 ms); this constitutes a significant difference, t(56) = 2.77. The
emphasis-on-speed sample had a mean error rate of M = 11.9 % (SD = 8.7
%), whereas the emphasis-on-accuracy sample had a mean error rate of M =
2.6 % (SD = 2.1 %); this again constitutes a significant difference, t(32.54)
= 5.66.
Priming effects
Mean reaction times were derived from correct responses only. Reaction
times that were three interquartile ranges above the third quartile with
respect to the individual distribution were discarded (see Tukey, 1977), as
were those above 1500 ms, or below 150 ms (0.73 % and 0.98 % of all trials
of the emphasis-on-speed sample and the emphasis-on-accuracy sample,
respectively). The block factor did not significantly moderate the priming
results and was thus discarded. Mean reaction times for the conditions of
interest are shown in Table 2. To simplify the presentation of results,
priming indices were calculated as the difference of incongruent and
congruent mean RTs.
Moderation of masked affective priming
26
Most importantly, in the emphasis-on-speed sample, a significant
priming effect occurred for trials matching according to relevance type,
t1(29) = 5.01, d = .91; t2(19) = 3.91, d = .88, but not for mismatching trials,
both |t|s < 1, ns. The difference between the two priming effects was
significant, t1(29) = 3.07, d = .56; t2(19) = 2.11; d = .47. Not unexpectedly,
for the emphasis-on-accuracy sample, there was no priming effect at all,
with t1(27) = 1.37, ns; t2(19) = 1.32, ns, for the overall priming effect, and
both |t|s < 1, ns, for the difference between relevance-matching and nonmatching priming effects. For the sake of completeness, the interaction
effect in a 2 (instruction: emphasis on speed vs. accuracy) x 2 (prime-target
relevance: same vs. different) analysis of variance with the priming indices
as the dependent variable was significant, F1(1,56) = 5.88, MSe = 239;
F2(1,19) = 3.64, p < .05 (one-tailed)5, MSe = 236, thereby allowing to solely
focus on the effects in the speed condition.
Mean error rates for the conditions of interest are shown in Table 2. In a
2 (instruction: emphasis on speed vs. accuracy) x 2 (prime-target relevance:
same vs. different) analysis of variance of priming indices, there were no
significant effects, all |F|s < 1. Overall, there was a small positive priming
effect of M = 1.2 %, d = .33, t1(57) = 2.52; t2(19) = 3.03.
Direct effects
The signal detection sensitivity for the masked primes was d’ = .29 (SD
= .39; range of -0.49 to 1.05) for the emphasis-on-speed sample and d’ = .24
Moderation of masked affective priming
27
(SD = .57; range of -0.51 to 0.90 plus one outlier with d’ = 1.71) for the
emphasis-on-accuracy sample, t(27) = 0.31, ns, for the difference. Although
the overall mean d’ of M = 0.27 (SD = .48) was significantly above zero,
t(28) = 2.99, there were only three participants with a significant
contingency between the position of the prime repetition in the task display
(i.e., to the left or to the right of the question marks) and response (left or
right key), χ2 > 5.16, all other χ2 < 3.47, p > .05. We regressed the RT
priming indices for the emphasis-on-speed sample on d’ (see Table 2). 6 For
prime-target pairs of same relevance type the intercept was significantly
above zero, t(13) = 5.88 (t(13) = -1.65, ns, for the slope), whereas the
intercept for prime-target pairs of different relevance type failed to be
different from zero, t(13) = 0.79, ns (t(13) = -0.11, ns, for the slope).
Discussion
Study 2 revealed a masked affective priming effect with unpracticed
primes. This is inherently a noteworthy result, because evidence for masked
affective priming with non-practiced items has been rather sparse up to now
(but see Klauer et al., 2007). This effect, however, only emerged for primetarget pairs belonging to the same type of relevance, given speed
instructions. In other words: if we assume that accuracy instructions lead to
a lower weight for prime features in creating a response, it seems as if
primes without episodic response associations are to weak to affect the
response to the target. Given speed instructions, however, only evidence
Moderation of masked affective priming
28
unequivocally matching or mismatching the target feature needed for
classification influences the response.
STUDY 3
Interpretation of the results of Study 1 and 2 remains preliminary
regarding one possible objection. It is rather inevitable that the 2x2 variation
of valence-congruency and relevance match is somewhat confounded with
semantic relatedness. Words within one relevance subtype of valence might
be semantically related to each other but not to words of the other relevance
subtype. Even if no direct associative links exist, halo effects might be
stronger within a relevance subtype of the valence categories than across
subtypes. To account for this possible confound, we endorsed the following
strategy: We collected semantic association ratings for each word pair that
was presented as prime-target pair in Study 1 and Study 2. We used these
ratings for individual regression analyses for the samples of interest of
Study 1 (i.e., the accuracy sample) and Study 2 (i.e., the speed sample),
using trials as the unit of analysis (see Lorch & Myers, 1990; see, e.g., Otten
& Wentura, 2001, for an application). In a first step, response times were
regressed on three predictors, that is, two variables coding (a) valence
congruency and (b) relevance (both coded with +0.5 vs. -0.5), as well as (c)
their product term to account for the interaction of valence congruency and
relevance. Note that the mean of the individual regression weights for the
product term corresponds to the mean difference between priming for pairs
Moderation of masked affective priming
29
matching in relevance and those non-matching in relevance. Thus, the test
for deviance from zero for the mean regression weight corresponds to the
interaction test in the 2 (valence congruency) x 2 (relevance match) design
of Study 1 and 2. In a second step, we added the semantic similarity rating
of a given prime-target pair as a further predictor in the individual
regression analyses. If the interaction effects between valence congruency
and relevance match found in Study 1 and Study 2 were due to semantic
similarity, this predictor should be associated with a mean regression weight
that significantly deviates from zero whereas the mean regression weight for
the interaction term of valence congruency and relevance should no longer
be significant.
Method
Participants
For Study 3a, eight students (5 women; 3 men; median age 26.0 years)
rated the semantic similarity of all possible prime-target combinations of
Study 1. For Study 3b, eight students (4 women; 4 men; median 22.0 years)
rated the semantic similarity of all possible prime-target combinations of
Study 2. All of them were native speakers of German.
Materials and Procedure
For Study 3a, the rating list consisted of all possible prime-target
combinations of Study 1, that is, 190 word pairs. For reasons of comparison
and to provide participants with anchors, each of the 20 primes and targets
Moderation of masked affective priming
30
was additionally paired with one synonym and one antonym — resulting in
40 additional word pairs. Thus, each participant rated 230 word pairs. For
Study 3b, the rating list consisted of all possible prime-target combinations
of Study 2, that is, 400 word pairs. Again, each of the 20 primes and 20
targets were additionally paired with one synonym and one antonym. Thus,
each participant rated 480 pairs.
Participants were tested alone on a standard personal computer.
Instructions were given on the CRT screen. Participants were told that they
were presented with pairs of adjectives and that they had to rate the
semantic similarity of the two words on a scale from -4 (denoting an
antonym) over 0 (denoting no relationship) to +4 (denoting a synonym). If
both words denote roughly the same (i.e., can be used interchangeably in
most cases) – as, for example, intelligent and smart – participants were
instructed to use a value of +4. If both words denote roughly the opposite of
one another – as, for example, intelligent and stupid – they were instructed
to use a value of -4. If both words had nothing in common – as, for example,
intelligent and enamored – they were instructed to use a value of 0. The
values in between should be used with regard to semantic overlap, for
example, slightly different contexts of usage or a more narrow or broader
term – for example, intelligent and talented. Participants worked through the
individually randomized list of 230 (Study 3a) or 480 (Study 3b) trials.
Results
Moderation of masked affective priming
31
Descriptive statistics
Interrater reliability was very high (Cronbach’s Alpha = .95, and .91, for
Study 3a and 3b, respectively). Mean ratings are listed in Table 3. Two
observations should be noted. First, synonyms and antonyms were
associated with large (absolute) rating values as expected. In comparison,
the mean ratings for the prime-target pairs of Study 1 and 2 were rather low.
Second, valence-congruent pairs of the same relevance type were indeed
associated with larger similarity ratings compared to valence-congruent
pairs of the different relevance type, whereas valence-incongruent pairs of
same relevance type were associated with lower ratings compared to their
incongruent pairs of the different relevance type.7 Thus, there was indeed a
slight confound between the priming variation of interest and semantic
similarity. Therefore we adopted the regression approach explained above to
test for the alternative explanation that semantic similarity and not match in
relevance was the determining factor in the priming task of the accuracy
sample. Mean ratings across raters were taken as the indicator of semantic
similarity for a given pair.
Regression analyses for Data of Study 1 (accuracy condition)
First, individual multiple regressions were calculated with trials as the
unit of analysis, the response times as the dependent variable, and two
variables coding valence congruency, relevance (both coded with +0.5 vs. 0.5), as well as their product term as predictors. The mean individual
Moderation of masked affective priming
32
regression weight for the interaction term significantly deviated from zero,
M(B) = 15 (SE = 6), t(8) = 2.31. This result is equivalent to the analyses
with the aggregated measures: The mean regression weight for the
interaction term corresponds to the difference between priming for pairs
matching in relevance and those non-matching in relevance (see Table 1).8
Second, the semantic relatedness ratings of prime-target pairs were added as
additional predictors. If semantic similarity is the determining factor in the
priming task, this predictor should be associated with a mean regression
weight that significantly deviates from zero whereas the mean regression
weight for the interaction term of valence congruency and relevance should
no longer be significant. However, the mean individual regression weight
for the rating did not significantly deviate from zero, M(B) = -0.58 (SE =
4.00), t(8) = 0.14, ns. Also, the mean individual regression weight for the
interaction term valence congruency by relevance remained significant,
M(B) = 18 (SE = 9), t(6) = 2.12, p < .05 (one-tailed).9
Regression analyses for Data of Study 2 (speed condition)
We conducted the same kind of analysis for the speed condition of
Study 2. In an analysis with two variables coding valence congruency,
relevance (both coded with +0.5 vs. -0.5), and their product term, the mean
individual regression weight for the interaction term was M(B) = 9 (SE = 3),
t(29) = 2.74. Again, the added mean semantic relatedness ratings for each
given prime-target pair as additional predictors did not yield a significant
Moderation of masked affective priming
33
regression weight, M(B) = -0.51 (SE = 1.51), t(29) = 0.34, ns. The mean
individual regression weight for the interaction term of valence congruency
and relevance remained significantly deviant from zero, M(B) = 8 (SE = 4),
t(29) = 1.98, p < .05 (one-tailed).
Discussion
With Study 3, we explored whether semantic relatedness might be an
alternative explanation for our results. In individual regression analyses,
semantic relatedness ratings for the given prime-target pairs served as
competing predictors to the interaction term of valence congruency and
relevance match. The results were clear: Semantic relatedness did not
mediate the priming effects found in Study 1 and Study 2.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The experiments reported here were designed to reveal a differentiation
of automatic evaluation in the masked affective priming paradigm, as well
as its boundary conditions. Taken together, with regard to our main goal the
results are clear-cut and demonstrate that affective priming effects – given
some specified conditions – were moderated by the relevance distinction
introduced by Peeters (1983): affective priming was only found when prime
and target stimuli were of the same type of relevance. If there was no match
in relevance, affective priming decreased to non-significant levels. This
result is important for several reasons. Most of all, it corroborates the claim
that the distinction between other-relevant and possessor-relevant valence is
Moderation of masked affective priming
34
encoded at a very basic level of representation and is involuntarily activated
upon stimulus presentation. Although Wentura and colleagues (2000) had
provided first evidence that the distinction of possessor-relevant and otherrelevant valence is a deeply built-in feature of our cognitive-affective
system, the present experiments take a step forward. In detail, Wentura and
colleagues found increased color-naming latencies in an emotional Stroop
paradigm for other-relevant stimuli compared to possessor-relevant stimuli.
Thus, it was merely shown that other-relevant stimuli are associated with
special processing qualities. Also, the color-naming task was not suited to
disentangle positive and negative other-relevant stimuli. The present
experiments, however, indicate that the combination of valence and
relevance is indeed automatically processed. Moreover, we were able to
show that the differentiation is preserved even given masked presentation
conditions.
With Study 1 and Study 2 we realized two fundamentally different ways
of testing for masked priming effects. In Study 1, we used practiced primes
by drawing primes and targets from the same set of stimuli (of course by
avoiding identity of prime and target in a given trial). It is known that using
practiced primes lead to robust priming effects, especially given speed
instructions. In fact, in Study 1, the moderation of priming by relevance
only occurred when if participants were instructed to sacrifice speed in favor
of accuracy. In Study 2, we used primes that were never openly presented
Moderation of masked affective priming
35
for evaluative categorization. Recently, Klauer and colleagues (2007)
provided evidence for the existence of masked affective priming effects
using non-practiced primes. Results of Study 2 corroborate this general
claim. Most importantly, we found priming effects being moderated by
relevance. This result was bound to speed instructions. No significant
priming effects occurred given accuracy instructions, which fits to the
results of Klauer and colleagues who found masked affective priming
effects with novel primes with a variant of speed instructions.
How does this differentiated pattern of results match to existing theories
explaining affective priming? It has been shown that affective priming
effects in the evaluation task presumably reflect response competition
processes (Klauer, Roßnagel, & Musch, 1997; Wentura, 1999; see also
Fazio, 2001). The evaluation task, however, only demands a simple positive
or negative response. Thus, affective priming effects are easily explainable
by assuming that the positive or negative primes are involuntarily processed
according to their valence such that the evoked classification helps or
hinders the classification of the target. Because this classification is a simple
positive versus negative categorization, it seems at first sight rather
surprising to find moderation by type of relevance. Note, however, the
simple fact that the prime does not entirely determine the response in
response priming paradigms (in this case congruent trials would be error
free and incongruent trials would result in 100% errors). Thus, the degree of
Moderation of masked affective priming
36
fit between the involuntary response-related classification of the prime and
the controlled processing of the target plays a major role in determining the
response. We assume that the relevance type of positivity and negativity is
an inescapable and early part of evaluation – that is, pressing the “negative”
key to, for example, the target “lonely” means to categorize “lonely” as
possessor-relevant negative. Thus, the prototypical case of matching
processing paths (resulting in response facilitation) is only given if prime
and targets are valence congruent and of the same type of relevance. On the
contrary, in valence-incongruent but relevance-matching trials, the
preparatory response triggered by the prime stands in contrast to an
upcoming response due to processing of the target. Thus, a clear affective
priming effect emerges if prime and targets are from the same relevance
type. If there is a mismatch in relevance type, the preparatory classification
triggered by the prime neither perfectly matches (in case of valence
congruency) nor mismatches (in case of incongruency) first results from
processing the target. Thus, affective priming will not be obtained.
How does this explanation fit with our results in detail? Note again the
difference between using practiced (Study 1) vs. non-practiced primes
(Study 2). As we have argued above, this difference in procedure can be
linked to the theoretical difference between two components of masked
priming (Klauer et al., 2007). One component is response-related, depends
on practice, and is therefore observed if primes and targets are from the
Moderation of masked affective priming
37
same stimulus set and – we can add, given former studies – if participants
are instructed to sacrifice accuracy in favor of speed. Unsurprisingly, in this
case the acquired response association is an undifferentiated positive or
negative one, given that the evaluation task only asks for a simple positive
versus negative categorization.
This component of masked affective priming overshadows a second one
which is caused by long-term stored features of stimuli and which is
prototypically found with non-practiced primes as in our Study 2. As can be
seen from Study 2, in this case the differentiation according to type of
relevance clearly shows up.
Finally, the results of the accuracy condition of Study 1 can be
interpreted in two ways. As we have already argued above (see Discussion
of Study 1), it might be that automatized stimulus-response associations
contain the feature of relevance because accuracy instructions lead to a more
differentiated processing of targets. Then, the prime event acts as a cue to
this episode. If this was the case, Study 1 (accuracy condition) shows the
moderation of priming by relevance as a by-product of target processing.
However, given the backdrop of Study 2, we can interpret the same results
in line with Study 2: If accuracy instructions undermine the generation of
strong stimulus-response associations, the priming effect might reflect the
second component of masked affective priming, that is, the retrieval of longterm features. This component shows up in Study 1 (accuracy condition) but
Moderation of masked affective priming
38
not in the accuracy condition of Study 2 because practice facilitates access
to the long-term representation of the prime. It is beyond the aims of the
present article to decide between the two accounts of the accuracy condition
of Study 1.
At this point of the discussion we should frankly address one caveat.
This article is not dominantly about the specific pattern of differentiation in
priming found with practiced versus non-practiced primes. To corroborate
such a claim a further experiment has to be conducted comprising a
replication of the present Experiment 1 and 2, thereby employing the
manipulation of practiced versus non-practiced primes as a further factor. It
was beyond our present goal to provide this evidence. Our emphasis is on
the point that if the relevance distinction is included in the design, we can
find – at least given some conditions – affective priming for a match in
relevance type of prime and target whereas priming is missing for a nonmatch in relevance. That is what we have shown. It was rather clear from
the start on that this differentiation might not turn out given any conditions.
On the one hand, the robustness of masked priming effects found with
practiced primes and speed instructions reported in the literature (e.g.,
Draine & Greenwald, 1998) as well as the tiny effects found with nonpracticed primes (e.g., Klauer et al., 2007) even if speed instructions are
used were hints to this issue. To summarize: it was not our theoretical point
to find exactly the observed pattern of priming effects. It was our aim to find
Moderation of masked affective priming
39
evidence for a dependency of affective priming on relevance match at all, of
course with the constraint that boundary conditions should fit the pattern of
evidence that is generally known about affective priming.
The finding of relevance-specific affective priming effects should not be
confused with semantic priming effects in the tradition of Meyer and
Schvanefeldt (1971; for reviews see Lucas, 2000; McNamara & Holbrook,
2003; McNamara, 2005; Neely, 1991). First, although very similar at
surface, semantic priming experiments have a completely different design:
in contrast to affective priming, the essential variation (i.e., whether a
semantically related or unrelated prime precedes the target) is not
confounded with the response needed (i.e., a lexical decision or naming of
the target; see, e.g., Klinger, Burton, & Pitts, 2000; Wentura, 2000, Wentura
& Degner, in press, for a discussion). Second, in semantic priming research,
no robust priming effects of category coordinates (e.g., if rose-tulip is the
prime-target pair) were found (Lucas, 2000; Hutchison, 2003). Also,
affective priming effects do typically not occur in semantic priming studies
(e.g., De Houwer et al., 2002; but see Spruyt et al., 2002, 2004, 2007).
Third, we found no evidence for semantic relatedness in Study 3. Fourth, the
evidence for masked semantic priming is rather sparse (see, e.g., Wentura &
Frings, 2005). Taken together, we assume that automatic affective
evaluation processes is not located at the same level of processing as
semantic priming effects.
Moderation of masked affective priming
40
Finally, our findings have important implication for the application of
the affective priming task to the indirect assessment of (social) attitudes. If
automatic evaluations are a basis of attitudes that guide approach and
avoidance behavior (Han, Olson, & Fazio, 2006), it is of high relevance to
dissociate types of automatic evaluations. We want to give only one
example of the field of intergroup attitudes. Different outgroups, for
example the elderly on the one hand or ethnic outgroups on the other hand,
are associated with automatic negativity. However, behaviour towards
members of these groups might differ fundamentally based on the type of
negativity associated with the groups: Whereas possessor-relevant
negativity associated with the elderly might lead to approach and helping
behaviour (e.g., paternalistic talk, other-relevant negativity associated with
ethnic outgroups might be associated with avoidance or aggressive approach
behaviour. There is first evidence, that possessor- and other-relevant
associations do indeed play a role in automatic social attitudes (e.g. Degner
et al., 2007; Wentura et al., 2005). However, further research is needed to
explore their relations to attitude-related behaviours. The current research
illustrates that the affective priming task can be an adequate tool for this.
Moderation of masked affective priming
41
References
Abrams, R. L., & Greenwald, A. G. (2000). Parts outweigh the whole
(word) in unconscious analysis of meaning. Psychological Science, 11, 118124.
Abrams, R. L., & Grinspan, J. (2007). Unconscious semantic priming in
the absence of partial awareness. Consciousness and Cognition: An
International Journal, 16, 942-953.
Abrams, R. L., Klinger, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Subliminal
words activate semantic categories (not automated motor responses).
Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 100-106.
Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Raymond, P., & Hymes, C. (1996). The
automatic evaluation effect: Unconditional automatic attitude activation
with a pronunciation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32,
104-128.
Damian, M. F. (2001). Congruity effects evoked by subliminally
presented primes: Automaticity rather than semantic processing. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 154165.
De Houwer, J., Hermans, D., Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2002).
Affective priming of semantic categorisation responses. Cognition &
Emotion, 16, 643-666.
Degner, J. (in press). On the (un)controllability of affective priming:
Moderation of masked affective priming
42
strategic manipulation is possible but can be prevented. Cognition &
Emotion.
Degner, J., & Wentura, D. (in press). Not everybody likes the thin and
despises the fat: Own weight matters in the automatic activation of weightrelated social evaluation. Social Cognition.
Degner, J., Wentura, D., Gniewosz, B., & Noack, P. (2007). Hostilityrelated prejudice against Turks in adolescents: Masked affective priming
allows for a differentiation of automatic prejudice. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 29, 245-256.
Dehaene, S., & Naccache, L. (2001). Towards a cognitive neuroscience
of consciousness: Basic evidence and a workspace framework. Cognition,
79, 1-37.
Draine, S. C., & Greenwald, A. G. (1998). Replicable unconscious
semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 286303.
Fazio, R. H. (2001). On the automatic activation of associated
evaluations: An overview. Cognition & Emotion, 15, 115-141.
Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995).
Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial
attitudes: a bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69, 1013-1027.
Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R.
Moderation of masked affective priming
43
(1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50, 229-238.
Frings, C., & Wentura, D. (2003). Who is watching "Big Brother"? TV
consumption predicted by masked affective Priming. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 33, 779-791.
Greenwald, A. G., Draine, S. C., & Abrams, R. L. (1996). Three
cognitive markers of unconscious semantic activation. Science, 273, 16991702.
Greenwald, A. G., Klinger, M. R., & Liu, T. J. (1989). Unconscious
processing of dichoptically masked words. Memory & Cognition, 17, 35-47.
Greenwald, A. G., Klinger, M. R., & Schuh, E. S. (1995). Activation by
marginally perceptible ("subliminal") stimuli: Dissociation of unconscious
from conscious cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
124, 22-42.
Hager, W., Mecklenbräuker, S., Möller, H., & Westermann, R. (1985).
Emotionsgehalt, Bildhaftigkeit, Konkretheit und Bedeutungshaltigkeit von
580 Adjektiven: Ein Beitrag zur Normierung und zur Prüfung einiger
Zusammenhangshypothesen [Emotionality, imageability, concreteness, and
meaningfulness of 580 adjectives: A cont. Archiv für Psychologie, 137, 7597.
Han, H. A., Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2006). The influence of
experimentally created extrapersonal associations on the Implicit
Moderation of masked affective priming
44
Association Test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 259-272.
Hermans, D., De Houwer, J., & Eelen, P. (1994). The affective priming
effect: Automatic activation of evaluative information in memory.
Cognition & Emotion, 8, 515-533.
Hutchison, K. A. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength
or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 10, 785-813.
Klauer, K. C., Eder, A. B., Greenwald, A. G., & Abrams, R. L. (2007).
Priming of semantic classifications by novel subliminal prime words.
Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 63-83.
Klauer, K. C., & Musch, J. (2003). Affective priming: Findings and
theories. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation:
Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 7-49). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Klauer, K. C., Roßnagel, C., & Musch, J. (1997). List context effects in
evaluative priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 23, 246-255.
Klauer, K. C., & Teige-Mocigemba, S. (2007). Controllability and
resource dependence in automatic evaluation. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 43, 648-655.
Klinger, M. R., Burton, P. C., & Pitts, G. S. (2000). Mechanisms of
unconscious priming: I. Response competition, not spreading activation.
Moderation of masked affective priming
45
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
26, 441-455.
Kouider, S., & Dupoux, E. (2004). Partial Awareness Creates the
'Illusion' of Subliminal Semantic Priming. Psychological Science, 15, 75-81.
Lorch, R. F., & Myers, J. L. (1990). Regression analyses of repeated
measures data in cognitive research. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 149-157.
Lucas, M. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A metaanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 618-630.
Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (1990). Designing experiments and
analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Pacific Grove, CA:
Wadsworth.
McNamara, T. P. (2005). Semantic priming: Perspectives from memory
and word recognition. New York: Psychology Press.
McNamara, T. P., & Holbrook, J. B. (2003). Semantic memory and
priming. In A. F. Healy & R. W. Proctor (Eds.), Experimental psychology
(pp. 447-474). New York: Wiley.
Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing
pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227-234.
Möller, H., & Hager, W. (1991). Angenehmheit, Bedeutungshaltigkeit,
Bildhaftigkeit und Konkretheit-Abstraktheit von 452 Adjektiven
Moderation of masked affective priming
46
[Pleasantness, meaningfulness, imageability and concreteness of 452
adjectives]. Sprache und Kognition, 10, 39-51.
Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word
recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D.
Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading. Visual word
recognition (pp. 264-336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Otten, S., & Wentura, D. (1999). About the impact of automaticity in
the Minimal Group Paradigm: Evidence from affective priming tasks.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 1049-1071.
Otten, S., & Wentura, D. (2001). Self-anchoring and in-group
favoritism: An individual profiles analysis. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 37, 525-532.
Peeters, G. (1983). Relational and informational patterns in social
cognition. In W. Doise & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Current issues in European
social psychology (Vol. 1) (pp. 201-237). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in
evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity
effects. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 33-60.
Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (1998). Ein fairer Test für die
Aktivationsausbreitungshypothese: affektives Priming in der StroopAufgabe [An unbiased test of a spreading activation account of affective
Moderation of masked affective priming
47
priming: Analysis of affective congruency effects in the Stroop task].
Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 45, 120-135.
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Wentura, D. (1999). Activation and inhibition of affective information:
Evidence for negative priming in the evaluation task. Cognition & Emotion,
13, 65-91.
Wentura, D. (2000). Dissociative affective and associative priming
effects in the lexical decision task: Yes vs. no responses to word targets
reveal evaluative judgment tendencies. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 456-469.
Wentura, D., & Degner, J. (in press). Practical guide to sequential
priming and related tasks. In B. Gawronski & B. K. Payne (Eds.), Handbook
of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications. New
York: Guilford.
Wentura, D., & Frings, C. (2005). Repeated masked category primes
interfere with related exemplars: New evidence for negative semantic
priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 31, 108-120.
Wentura, D., Kulfanek, M., & Greve, W. (2005). Masked affective
priming by name letters: Evidence for a correspondence of explicit and
implicit self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 654-
Moderation of masked affective priming
48
663.
Wentura, D., & Rothermund, K. (2003). The "meddling-in" of affective
information: A general model of automatic evaluation effects. In J. Musch
& K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in
Cognition and Emotion (pp. 51-86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wentura, D., Rothermund, K., & Bak, P. (1998). [Ratings for possessorvs. other-relevance of adjectives]. Unpublished data.
Wentura, D., Rothermund, K., & Bak, P. (2000). Automatic vigilance:
The attention-grabbing power of approach- and avoidance-related social
information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1024-1037.
Wilcox, R. R. (1997). Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis
testing.
Wilcox, R. R. (1998). How many discoveries have been lost by ignoring
modern statistical methods? American Psychologist, 53, 300-314.
Moderation of masked affective priming
49
Author Note
Dirk Wentura, Department of Psychology, Saarland University,
Saarbrücken, Germany. Juliane Degner, Department of Social Psychology,
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
The research reported in this article was supported by a grant from the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) to Dirk Wentura (WE 2284/3).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dirk
Wentura, Department of Psychology, Saarland University, Building A2 4,
P.O. Box 15 11 50, 66041 Saarbrücken, Germany, e-mail:
[email protected].
Moderation of masked affective priming
50
Footnotes
1
Of course, other tasks (e.g., pronouncing the target, see, e.g., Bargh,
Chaiken, Raymond, & Hymes, 1996; Hermans, De Houwer, & Eelen,
1994, Spruyt, Hermans, De Houwer, & Eelen, 2002, 2004, deciding
whether it is a legal word, see, e.g., Wentura, 2000, non-affective semantic
categorisation, see, e.g., De Houwer et al., 2002, Spruyt, Hermans, De
Houwer, & Eelen, 2007, or naming the color in which it is presented, see,
e.g., Hermans, van den Broeck, & Eelen, 1998, Rothermund & Wentura,
1998) were employed as well (see, e.g., Klauer & Musch, 2003, for a
review). However, the evaluative decision task is the basic task of
affective priming research. It is associated with unequivocal results, a
process theory that cannot be applied to the other tasks, and is supposedly
the only one yielding masked (subliminal) effects which are the focus of
the present research.
2
This point should not be overemphasized, though. A simple consideration
shows that the comparison of mean RTs for congruent and incongruent
trials with the neutral baseline is ambiguous: assume that mean RT for
congruent trials is 500 ms and mean RT for incongruent trials amounts to
530 ms. If mean RT for the neutral baseline is M = 530 ms, it seems as if
priming was entirely due to facilitation. Now assume that negative primes
have an additional main effect (e.g., besides facilitating negative responses
for most of the trials they capture attention in some trials, thereby
increasing RTs for positive as well as negative targets). This main effect
will increase mean RTs for the congruent as well as for the incongruent
Moderation of masked affective priming
51
condition. To extend our example, if this increase amounts to 30 ms, we
face a result suggesting that priming is entirely due to interference, which
is, however, is not the case.
3
We decided for this version of test because it constitutes what was recently
termed a test of “partial awareness” (Abrams & Grinspan, 2007; Kouider
& Dupoux, 2004): Any remnant of surface features of the prime (e.g., a
letter or a letter pair) helps participants to select the correct answer even if
the masked prime was not processed on a semantic level.
4
There were three missing cases for the direct test because their responses
were not adequately recorded (probably due to using the wrong keys
during the direct test).
5
Because an F-test with one degree of freedom is equivalent to a t-test (with
differences as the dependent variables) and given our specific predictions,
a one-tailed test is allowed (see Maxwell & Delaney, 1990, p. 144).
6
For the emphasis-on-accuracy sample, both intercepts were not
significantly different from zero (see Table 2).
7
We refrained from statistical tests because assumptions of independence
are likely violated due to the use of the same words in different pairings.
8
The two kinds of analyses would provide exactly the same result if there
would have been no missing trials. That is, any differences are only due to
minor differences in error rates and outlier rates for the different
conditions. The correlation between the individual difference value
between priming for pairs matching in relevance and those non-matching
in relevance and the individual regression weight for the interaction term
Moderation of masked affective priming
52
is r = .996.
9
A t-test for trimmed means (see Wilcox, 1997,
1998 ) ωιτη α τριµµινγ οφ γ = .11 was done to adequately account for
one outlying regression weight.
Masked priming in the evaluation task
53
Table 1
Mean Response Times (in ms) and Error Rates (in %, in parentheses) as a Function of Prime
Condition and Instruction (Study 1)
Priming
Congruent Incongruent
Study 1a
Emphasis on Speed
Same Relevance Type
Different Relevance Type
Emphasis on Accuracy
Same Relevance Type
Different Relevance Type
Study 1b (Emphasis on Speed)
Same Relevance Type
520
(7.0)
518
(7.5)
532
(12.0)
541
(12.2)
572
(2.0)
591
(2.4)
594
(2.6)
598
(2.8)
APa
Ib
12 [4]
10
[5]
22 [5]
19
[6]
22 [5]
20
[6]
7 [6]
2
[7]
532
553
21 [6]
20 [9]
(5.5)
(11.7)
Different Relevance Type
535
555
20 [10]
6 [15]
(6.7)
(9.3)
Note: Mean response time for the neutral prime condition was 523 ms, 539 ms, and 580 ms for
the emphasis-on-speed samples of Exp. 1a and 1b, and the emphasis-on-accuracy sample,
respectively.
a Affective Priming: Mean of incongruent minus congruent prime condition; standard errors in
brackets.
b Intercept of regression of affective priming on d’; standard errors in brackets.
Masked priming in the evaluation task
54
Table 2
Mean Response Times (in ms) and Error Rates (in %, in parentheses) as a Function of Prime
Condition and Instruction (Study 2)
Priming
Congruent Incongruent
Emphasis on Speed
Same Relevance Type
Different Relevance Type
Emphasis on Accuracy
Same Relevance Type
APa
Ib
526
(11.9)
539
(12.9)
13 [4]
21
[6]
532
(10.5)
534
(12.4)
2 [4]
4
[6]
582
584
2 [3]
5 [8]
(2.1)
(2.9)
Different Relevance Type
576
581
5 [3]
6 [5]
(2.2)
(3.1)
Note: Mean response time for the neutral prime condition was 526 ms and 578 ms for the
emphasis-on-speed samples and the emphasis-on-accuracy sample, respectively.
a Affective Priming: Mean of incongruent minus congruent prime condition; standard errors in
brackets.
b Intercept of regression of affective priming on d’; standard errors in brackets.
Masked priming in the evaluation task
55
Table 3
Mean Semantic Similarity Ratings (Standard Deviations across Pairs in Parentheses) as a
Function of Valence Congruency and Relevance Match (Study 3)
Valence
Congruent Incongruent
Prime-Target-Pairs of Study 1
Same Relevance Type
Different Relevance Type
Prime-Target-Pairs of Study 2
Same Relevance Type
Different Relevance Type
1.15
(1.02)
Reference Pairs
Synonym
Antonym
-1.29
(1.00)
0.21
(0.29)
-0.25
(0.31)
0.71
(0.87)
-0.91
(0.78)
3.48
(0.58)
-3.47
(0.60)
3.00
(0.71)
-3.39
(0.62)
0.04
-0.25
(0.46)
(0.31)
Note: The scale was from -4 (denoting an antonymic relationship) over 0 (denoting no
relationship) to +4 (denoting a synonymic relationship).
Masked priming in the evaluation task
56
Appendix
The Trait Terms
Other-Relevant
Possessor-Relevant
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Primes and Targets
gierig (greedy)
grausam (cruel)
boshaft (malicious)
gemein (mean)
geizig (miserly, stingy)
human (humane)
zärtlich (affectionate)
ehrlich (honest)
gütig (kind, generous)
gerecht (just)
leblos (lifeless)
unfähig (incapable)
träge (sluggish)
lustlos (listless)
einsam (lonely)
heiter (cheerful, serene)
begabt (gifted)
schön (beautiful)
gesund (healthy)
aktiv (active)
Primes
gierig (greedy)
brutal (brutal)
böse (bad)
giftig (toxic)
geizig (miserly, stingy)
fair (fair)
treu (faithful, loyal)
lieb (dear)
gütig (kind, generous)
human (humane)
leblos (lifeless)
feige (cowardly)
träge (sluggish)
lahm (lame)
einsam (lonely)
froh (glad)
klug (smart)
schön (beautiful)
gesund (healthy)
aktiv (active)
Targets
boshaft (malicious)
unsozial (antisocial)
kriminell (criminal)
aggressiv (aggressive)
treulos (unfaithful)
gerecht (just)
geduldig (patient)
herzlich (cordial)
tolerant (tolerant)
friedlich (peaceful)
abhängig (dependent)
willenlos (aboulic (?))
depressiv (depressed)
entmutigt (demoralized)
zwanghaft (obsessive)
geschickt (skillful)
kreativ (creative)
vergnügt (happy)
zufrieden (content, satisfied)
entspannt (relaxed)
Study 1
Study 2