Abstract
It has previously been argued (a) that automatic evaluative stimulus processing is critically dependent upon feature-specific attention allocation and (b) that evaluative priming effects can arise in the absence of dimensional overlap between the prime set and the response set. In line with both claims, research conducted at our lab revealed that the evaluative priming effect replicates in the valent/non-valent categorization task. This research was criticized, however, because non-automatic, strategic processes may have contributed to the emergence of this effect. We now report the results of a replication study in which the operation of non-automatic, strategic processes was controlled for. A clear-cut evaluative priming effect emerged, thus supporting initial claims concerning feature-specific attention allocation and dimensional overlap.
Highlights
In a number of recent publications, Spruyt and colleagues have argued that automatic stimulus evaluation occurs only under conditions that promote selective attention for the evaluative stimulus dimension [1,2,3,4]
In line with this assertion, they were able to demonstrate that FeatureSpecific Attention Allocation exerts a strong influence on various markers of automatic evaluative stimulus processing, including the evaluative priming effect [1,2,3], the emotional Stroop effect [5], the dot probe effect [5], and amplitude variations of the P3a evoked by unexpected emotional stimuli [6]
Werner and Rothermund [7] published new evaluative priming data that are difficult to reconcile with the idea that automatic stimulus evaluation is critically dependent upon FSAA
Summary
In a number of recent publications, Spruyt and colleagues have argued that automatic stimulus evaluation occurs only under conditions that promote selective attention for the evaluative stimulus dimension [1,2,3,4]. Whereas Werner and Rothermund [7] used an ITI of just 250 ms, the ITI typically used in the evaluative priming studies by Spruyt and colleagues was (about) 1,000 ms This procedural difference is potentially important as the valent/non-valent categorization task, when taking into account all trials, is characterized by dimensional overlap between the prime set and the response set. Whilst the fact that direct response priming can be ruled out as a source of the evaluative priming effect itself, there are good reasons to assume that target responding in the valent/non-valent categorization task is influenced by processes operating at the response selection stage It has been demonstrated, for example, that response priming effects are typically larger on trials following a response-incompatible trial than on trials following a response-compatible trial [24], a phenomenon known as the Gratton effect [25]. We examined whether the magnitude of the evaluative priming effect was dependent upon phenomena such as the Gratton effect, post-conflict slowing, negative priming, and/or response repetition facilitation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
