084 priming effect prime target Marcel1983a, 1983b Fowler Wolford Slade Tassinary1981 Balota 1983 Greenwald Klinger Liu1989 Niedenthal1990 affective-c

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "084 priming effect prime target Marcel1983a, 1983b Fowler Wolford Slade Tassinary1981 Balota 1983 Greenwald Klinger Liu1989 Niedenthal1990 affective-c"

责后
5 years ago
Views:

1 Chinese Journal of Psychology 2005, Vol. 47, N0. 1, chcjyh@cc.ntnu.edu.tw subliminal priming affective conditioning; contrast effect; subliminal mere exposure paradigm; Kunst-Wilson & Zajonc, 1980; Seamon, Brody, & Kauff, 1983; Seamon, Marsh, & Brody, 1984 Pierce & Jastrow, 1885 Merikle Reingold1990 forward mask backward mask

2 084 priming effect prime target Marcel1983a, 1983b Fowler Wolford Slade Tassinary1981 Balota 1983 Greenwald Klinger Liu1989 Niedenthal1990 affective-congruent Greenwald1992 subliminal affective conditioning Krosnick Betz Jussim Lynn Way Master1996 contrast effect Underwood1994 BBC

3 085 Bruce & Young, 1986 Greenwald et al., Likert Likert ,2, 3 4

4 X AVI VCD Ulead MediaStudia Pro 5.0 Croizet1998 traitnontrait t (18) 17.58, p < X120 pixel MediaStudia Pro % -5% r frame Optoma- LCD Projective

5 (6) = 3.43, p = F(1, 117) = 0.01, MSE = 26.45, p =.91 F(2, 117) = 1.04, MSE = 26.45, p =.36F(2, 117) = 0.65, MSE = , p = (6.10) (3.80) (5.54) (6.07) (4.45) (4.95) (5.09) (4.41) (4.78) (5.84) (4.25) (5.13) F(1, 117) = 1.35, MSE = 27.89, p =.25 F(2, 117) = 2.34, MSE = 27.89, p =.10 F(2, 117) = 0.71, MSE = 27.89, p = (6.53) (4.16) (6.03) (6.15) (4.74) (5.15) (5.53) (2.78) (4.49) (6.23) (4.20) (5.38)

6 t (8) 17.83, p < X240

7 F(1, 100) = 0.94, MSE = 29.81, p =.39 F(2, 100) = 1.43, MSE = 29.81, p =.25 F(2, 100) = 0.61, MSE = 29.81, p = F(1, 100) = 0.10, MSE = 34.40, p =.76 F(2, 100) = 0.67, MSE = 34.40, p =.51F(2, 100) = 1.11, MSE = 34.40, p = (6.10) (3.60) (5.54) (2.63) (5.09) (4.95) (4.26) (6.91) (5.91) (5.37) (5.37) (5.46) (6.53) (4.16) (6.03) (2.66) (6.03) (5.55) (5.63) (6.22) (5.66) (5.93) (5.75) (5.61) Greenwald, et al., 1989 Underwood, 1994

8 X

9 (6.10) (3.80) (5.54) (6.53) (4.16) (6.03) (6.04) (7.67) (7.07) (3.91) (7.24) (6.60) (6.53) (5.86) (6.80) (3.39) (6.69) (6.17) (6.26) (6.59) (6.41) (6.28) (6.41) (6.34) 2 (6) = 19.05, p < Cohen, 1976; Richards & Heller, F(1, 84) = 0.47, MSE = 39.53, p =.49 F(2, 84) = 3.33, MSE = 39.53, p <.05F(2, 84) = 1.13, MSE = 39.53, p =.33 Tukey p < p =.05 p = F(1, 84) = 1.96, MSE = 37.00, p =.17 F(2, 84) = 1.99, MSE = 37.00, p =.14F(2, 84) = 4.01, MSE = 37.00, p =.02 F(2, 84) = 0.89, MSE = 37.00, p =.41, F(2, 84) = 4.99, MSE = 37.00, p <.01 Tukey p = p <.05

10 092 p =.36 F (1, 84) = 1.75, MSE = 37.00, p =.19 F(1, 84) = 6.40, MSE = 37.00, p < F(1, 84) = 0.82, MSE = 37.00, p = X240

11 (6) = 8.26, p = F(1, 107) = 0.44, MSE = 35.27, p =.51 F(2, 107) = 11.85, MSE = 35.27, p <.001 F(2, 107) = 1.97, MSE = 35.27, p =.15 Tukey p < p <.001 p = F(1, 107) = 0.03, MSE = , p =.87 F(2, 107) = 9. 80, MSE = 26.15, p <.001 F(2, 107) = 1.33, MSE = 26.15, p =.27 Tukey p < p <.001 p = (6.10) (3.80) (5.54) (6.53) (4.16) (6.03) (4.28) (2.83) (3.88) (4.80) (5.44) (5.51) (4.50) (5.60) (5.44) (4.80) (5.44) (5.51) (5.76) (6.16) (6.12) (6.12) (5.46) (5.82)

12 094 IAT Freud Bruner Postman1949 perceptual defense Solomon Howes1951 Bootzin Natsoulas1965 Hayman Tulving1989 context specificity

13 095 assassin a a in _ss_ss Dijksterhuis Smith coding Bruce & Young, 1986 activate floating

14 IAT Balota, D. A. (1983). Automatic semantic activation and episodic memory encoding. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, Bootzin, R. R., & Natsoulas, T. (1965). Evidence for perceptual defense uncontaminated by response bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, Bruce, V., & Young, A. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77, Bruner, J. S., & Postman, L. (1949). On the perception of incongruity: a paradigm. Journal of Personality, 18, Cohen, J. (1976). Tachistoscopic word recognition as a function of word abstractness/concreteness, word frequency, and IQ. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 42(2), Croizet, J. (1998).. Unconscious perception of affective information and its impact on personality trait judgment. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 17(1), Dijksterhuis, A. & Smith, P. K. (2002). Affective habituation: subliminal exposure of extreme stimuli decreases their extremity. Emotion, 2, Fowler, C. A., Wolford, G., Slade, R., & Tassinary, L. (1981). Lexical access with and without awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, Greenwald, A. G. (1992). New Look 3: Unconscious cognition reclaimed. American Psychologist, 47(6), Greenwald, A. G., Klinger, M. R., & Liu, T. J. (1989). Unconscious processing of dichoptically masked words. Memory and Cognition, 17, Hayman, C. A. G., & Tulving, E. (1989). Is priming in fragment completion based on a traceless memory system. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, Krosnick, J. A., Betz, A. L., Jussim, L. J., & Lynn, A. R. (1992). Subliminal conditioning of attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Vol 18(2), Kunst-Wilson, W. R., & Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207, Marcel, A. (1983a). Conscious and unconscious perception: Experiments on visual masking and word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 15, Marcel, A. (1983b). Conscious and unconscious perception: An approach to the relations between phenomenal experience and perceptual processes. Cognitive Psychology, 15, Merikle, P. M., and Reingold, E. M. (1990). Recognition and lexical decision without detection: unconscious perception? Journal of

15 097 Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, Niedenthal, P. M. (1990). Implicit perception of affective information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(6), Pierce, C. S., and Jastrow, J. (1885). On small difference in sensation. Memoirs of the National Academy of Science, 3, Seamon, J. G., Brody, N., & Kauff, D. M. (1983). Affective discrimination of stimuli that are not recognized: Effects of shadowing, masking, and cerebral laterality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 3, Seamon, J. G., Marsh, R. L., & Brody, N. (1984). Critical importance of exposure duration for affective discrimination of stimuli that are not recognized. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, Underwood, G. (1994). Subliminal perception on TV. Nature, 370(6485), 103. Way, B. M., & Master. R. D. (1996). Political attitudes: Interactions of cognition and affect. Motivation and Emotion, 20(3), Richards, L. G., & Heller, F. P.(1979). Recognition thresholds as a function of word length. American Journal of Psychology, 89(3), Solomon, R. L., & Howes, D. H. (1951) Word frequency, personal values, and visual duration thresholds. Psychological Review, 58,

16 098 Subliminal Affective Priming Effect on TV Lecture: Affective Conditioning or Affective Contrast Effect? Hsueh-Chih Chen 1 and Lee-Xieng Yang 2 1 Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, National Taiwan Normal University 2 Department of Psychology, National Chung-Cheng University The phenomenon of subliminal priming refers to that a previous stimulus of which people are unaware can influence people s subsequent lexical access or affective judgment via the spreading activation in their semantic networks. Subliminal priming effect cannot only be an important way to uncover the consciousness and unconsciousness processes, but also bear many empirical applications. Although past research revealed a lot of subliminal priming phenomena, there exist theoretical and technological disagreements still. One major debate is which effect on earth a subliminal affective prime will induce on the subsequent target: affective condition (the affective response to target is assimilated to that to probe) or affective contrast effect (the affective response to target is opposite to that to probe). In this study, participants were asked to watch a video tap embedded with subliminal stimuli displaying a speech made by a stranger and then to make judgments to the speaker. The types of subliminal stimuli included word, animal picture, familiar face, and strange face, in each of which both affectively positive and negative items were included. The results showed that neither words nor animal pictures as subliminal stimuli had effect on the judgments to the speaker and the speech content. However, familiar faces induced affective contrast effect whereas strange faces affective conditioning effect on participants judgments. These results imply that the type of affective priming effect is contingent on stimulus type. Keywords: subliminal priming, subliminal affective conditioning effect, subliminal affective contrast effect

言语理解中的知觉表征与命题表征*

言语理解中的知觉表征与命题表征* * (,510631) 96 t 1 2 3 1 propositional symbol system [1] [2] [3-5] Barsalou perceptual symbol system [6-8] arbitrary linguistic-like analogue perceptual [7] 1 * 30270477 t-a-b-l-e [ 9, 10 ] [11] Barsalou