On the adaptive flexibility of evaluative priming.
If priming effects serve an adaptive function, they have to be both robust and flexible. In four experiments, we demonstrated regular evaluative-priming effects for relatively long stimulus-onset asynchronies, which can, however, be eliminated or reversed strategically. When participants responded to both primes and targets, rather than only to targets, the standard congruity effect disappeared. In Experiments 1a-1c, this result was regularly obtained, independently of the prime response (valence or gender classification) and the response mode (pronunciation or keystroke). In Experiment 2, we showed that once the default congruity effect was eliminated, strategic-priming effects reflected the statistical contingency between prime valence and target valence. Positive contingencies produced congruity, whereas negative contingencies produced equally strong incongruity effects. Altogether, these findings are consistent with an adaptive-cognitive perspective, which highlights the role of flexible strategic processes in working memory as opposed to fixed structures in semantic long-term memory or in the sensorimotor system.
Psychologisches Institut, Universität Heidelberg, Hauptstrasse 47-51, 69117, Heidelberg, Germany. kf@psychologie.uni-heidelberg.de
Klaus
K
Fiedler
Matthias
M
Bluemke
Christian
C
Unkelbach
D000339:Affect; D001288:Attention; D003463:Cues; D003657:Decision Making; D006801:Humans; D010153:Paired-Associate Learning; D011597:Psychomotor Performance; D011930:Reaction Time; D012153:Retention, Psychology; D012193:Reversal Learning; D012660:Semantics; D014705:Verbal Behavior
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 May;35(3):757-79
19379048
Mem Cognit. 1981 Jan;9(1):1-16
7231163
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2005 Sep;31(9):1226-36
16055642
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006 Dec;91(6):1009-19
17144761
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006 Aug;91(2):232-42
16881761
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Jan;33(1):219-30
17201563
Psychol Rev. 2001 Jan;108(1):149-82
11212626
Span J Psychol. 2006 May;9(1):10-8
16673618
Q J Exp Psychol A. 2005 Oct;58(7):1173-97
16194954
Mem Cognit. 2007 Jan;35(1):95-106
17533884
Brain. 2007 May;130(Pt 5):1395-407
17430981
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Sep;89(3):277-93
16248714
Can J Exp Psychol. 2003 Jun;57(2):97-114
12822839
Mem Cognit. 1984 Jul;12(4):315-28
6503694
J Abnorm Psychol. 2000 Nov;109(4):713-20
11195995
Mem Cognit. 2003 Sep;31(6):953-67
14651302
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1996 Dec;125(4):403-21
8945790
Psychol Sci. 2006 Apr;17(4):339-45
16623692
Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2004;8(1):2-27
15121538
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995 Dec;69(6):1013-27
8531054
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1997 Jan;23(1):246-55
9028030
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986 Sep;51(3):493-504
3761145
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2009 Feb;138(1):112-30
19203172
Psychol Rev. 1988 Jul;95(3):385-408
3406246
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Aug;85(2):231-48
12916567
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 Mar;26(2):441-55
10764105
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 May;84(5):972-87
12757142
Nature. 1998 Oct 8;395(6702):597-600
9783584
Psychol Rev. 2009 Jan;116(1):187-206
19159153
Span J Psychol. 2007 Nov;10(2):209-17
17992947
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 Mar;34(2):257-81
18315405
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Feb;88(2):229-44
15841856
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1989 Nov;15(6):1003-19
2530303
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 Jul;95(1):36-49
18605850
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1998 Sep;127(3):286-303
9742717
Cogn Emot. 2011 Apr;25(3):426-39
21432684