9/17 and 9/19 Automatic and Nonconscious Processing Flashcards
Who was the first guy to look at skill acquistion and what was he doing?
What did Shiffrin and Schneider do?
William O’Brian in the 1880s looking at how you acquire morse code skills at Indiana university.
Shiffrin - hire students to work in lab, pay them to engage in task to look at how skill develops over time.
importance of automaticity. What happens to performance when they deviate from procedure. Dr. Fazio doesn’t really get into this.
Automatic Attention
Shiffrin & Schneider (1977)
Basic distinction: automatic and controlled processing
Visual detection.
Memory: ACF Distractor: BTX
Press if you see memory set.
Trial: A X, Answer: YES (even if only 1 letter present)
Trial: B T, Answer: NO.
Vary load: # in memory set and # in trial. 3x2 experiment.
Consistent mapping: ACF
Varied mapping: BTX
TWIST: what is the memory or distract set changes what we need to be vigilant to. What if next time watch for BTX disractors DRV. Ignore/attend to. Varied mapping. HOWEVER, if ACF is always memory, it’s consistent mapping.
Results: speed/accurary for consistently mapped stimuli regardless of load. However, not true for varied mapping stimuli that is sometimes a memory set or sometimes distractor.
Automatic Attention: Shiffrin & Schneider (1977)
Does detection of CM items become automatic?
Diagonal Study- Visual Search Task
Items in 4 quads of letters. Target on one diagonal, never the other.
GR
SP
When on off-diagonal, CM items slowed visual search. Therefore, CM items automatically attracted attention.
Once you become an expert in A, now looking for R. so you respond slower because A is distracting.
Consistent mapping automatically attract attention even when you know what target letter will be.
Attitudes as object-evaluation Associations in memory
Object—Evaluation
Just like well-learned semantic associations
Bacon-???
Salt-???
April 15th- ???
What does the value = ?
When did they say Anchovies –> yucky was true?
Highly Accessible Attitude - Relatively Inaccessible Attitude - Nonattitude
Value = strength association
Developing evaluative priming paradigm.
Anchovies –> yucky, quicker to say disgusting means bad if you have a head start.
When?
1) Faster latency = strong association, predictive of priming
2) Experimentaly enhance. Move people by making them “research” association (anchoives bad over and over again).
Attitude Accessibility and Visual Attention Roskos-Ewoldsen & Fazio (1992)
Hypothesis: Attitude-evoking objects automatically attract attention when presented in a visual field.
How do they test this?
What do attitudes do for us? Wanted to argue that one thing they do for us is lead us to elements in our visual field that are likely to be relevant.
Attitude rehersal task. Visual search task after Shiffrin & Schneider. Search for presence of either of two target items, which will appear only in specific locations.
Numbers and Pictures: positive attitude towards bike, see it more or negative to plane. Attitude rehersal: say like or don’t like it. Reherse association.
Tell them target in positions 246 NEVER 135. Series of trials, don’t violate premise. Target always in 1 of the 3 positions.
Results: Main effect of whether target is there. Faster to detect when target is present no matter control or attitude rehersal. Search more elements, also slower. However, attitude rehersal did have effect: slower because thinking about attitudes to things other than target.
Meaning of Automaticity:
Bargh (1994) vs. Moors and De Houwer (2006) vs. Shiffrin and Dumais (1981)
1) Four horsies: Aware, intention, efficiency, and control
2) Consider related concepts, goal independence
3) 15 features, but mostly INESCAPABILITY: can’t control, can’t bypass the distraction.
Don’t want to claim not aware.
You can be aware even if automatic.
Process who’s INITIATION subject can’t control detecting or attending to A. Happens when external intiating stimuli are presented regardless of subjects attempt to ignore or bypass distraction.
Wentura, Rothermund, & Bak (2000)
Color naming latency and the twist.
Attention autodirected to negative traits. “Violent” slide with red background. Job was not to announce words outloud. Tell color Red. Negative terms interferred with ability to pronounce color background.
They thought it was the negative words doing it, but there was a twist:
IS THE TRAIT RELEVANT TO ME. Possesser-relevant: named colors faster regardless of +/- (faster than other-relevant)
Large effect relevant, weak effect valence.
Post-Suppressional Rebound
The white bear
Don’t think about the white bear, well dang it there he is.
Suppress the urge, now I’m thinking about it all the time.
Even if we suppress out stereotypes, there is a rebound
Explanations for Post-suppressional rebound
Are they competing theories?
- Ironic monitoring theory of suppression
- Motivational Account
No. Both could be right.
Post-suppression rebound:
Ironic Process Model
Problem: suppress, now we monitor for failures. Ironically more automatic. Monitor to make sure not thinking about it. Classic paradox.
When you suppress:
1) Search for distractors
2) Monitor for failures
Stereotype Suppression
Macrae et al. (1994)
The 2 skinhead experiments
Skinheads: 1/2 suppress, 1/2 no instructions
Then write description,
Then lexical deicsion task negative words and unrelated
Those that suppressed were quicker to see the negative words.
Experiment 2: 8 empty seats, skinhead left the room, belongings in first seat, where would they choose to sit.
Those that suppressed sat further away.
Erksine et al. (2010)
Cigarettes
Smokers (10 cigs/day for more than 12 months) w/no intention to quit
Suppress thought/cravings
Week 1- daily record of smoking
Week 2- Try not to think about it (suppress) or express (think about it) or control (no instruction)
Week 3- daily record
Suppression had huge increase, but expression went down because they scratched the itch
Motivational Account of Rebound Effect
If I’m suppressing something, I must really like it.
Then motivated to use construct.
Suppression increases motivation or need to think of suppressed construct
Liberman & Forster (2000)
Stereotype Activation and Suppresion
African-American men.
Asked to write a story describing typical day in life of the person in the first photo.
No Suppression: no instructions. Suppression: told to avoid using racial stereotypes.
After 5 min, asked to write about person in 2nd photo
No expression: no instructions
Expression: told to write story that would reflect common stereotypes of African-Americans
2x2 design.
DV: ratings of ambiguously hostile man
Phase 1: Expression/Suppression had low hostility ratings
Why? Spend time suppressing, think about stereotype, then get it out of system. Thought of it, but tell me to think of it, and I don’t. Not relevant.
NEXT EXPERIMENT: Colorful abstract painting.
No Suppression: no instruction
Suppression: avoid color words/words related to color
Phase 2: Describe second painingor not using as many color words
DV: word fragment completion (could be a color)
If color accessible, more likely color names.
Suppression + Expression = not more color names. Got it out of the system.
Suppression OR expression was more color names.
Denzler, Forster, Liberman, & Rozenman (2010)
Motivational Interence Model (MIMO) approach to behavioral rebound
Watch coke ad. talk about it for 5 minutes and offered soft drinks during the break
Suppression BUT told “you know participants in former studies like this say they find it very difficult not to talk about drinks or thirst while verbalizing their thoughts about the coke commercial”
No. Why? It’s not telling something about YOU.
No suppress is the same as those told suppression was difficult for everyone. Suppression only, drink a lot of coke.
Hamilton, Katz, & Leirer (1980)
Automatic Goal Activation
Hint: this is a review
Now Chartand & Bargh (1996) repolicate it, BUT without giving participants goals. Instead, what do they do?
Manipulated processing goals.
You remember: impression and memory set, 4 categories (social, religious, athletic, intelligent).
Clustering: Impression Goal, remember more with general impression
New experiment: no goals, just scrambled sentences. Memorization goal uses words like “recalls” and “maintain” in sentences. Impression use words like “impression” and “essence”
Findings were the exact same
Bargh chen & Burrows (1996) Two experiments with the scramble sentences
Scrambled sentence with rude or polite. Experimenter levaes, participant “i’ll be nearby come get me” then participant finds them talking. Do they wait or intrupt.
Primed with rude inturrupt more than primed with polite.
Did a post experiment survey to be sure, but was the participant rude or experimenter?
Experiment 2: Elderly walking stereotype. Debriefed (fake) and dismissed.
Primed with elderly walked slow in this and replication.
HOWEVER: failed to replicate. Other variables at play, like if you need to get going.
Moderating Variables in priming
- Cost of Action (Macrae and Johnston 1998 helping pick up stuff, less likely when pens leaky and experiment running late)
- Attitudes to primed group (like the elderly, walk slower, don’t like them, walk faster)
Jefferis & Fazio (2008) Accessibility as Input
Construct accessibility provides info about one’s current state
Interpreted in relation to current objectives.
Accessibility can signal that all is well or corrective action necessary. Analogous to mood as input framework.
Stop Rule Paradigm: Stop when tired OR stop when master task.
What does this do? Change fast and slow meaning.
2x2 design: fast and slow priming and stop rule.
DV = time on anagram task (fun)
Tired stop rule: time more in fast condition
Master stop rule: time more on slow condition
Experiment 2:
2x2: Prime (elderly and control) and stop rules.
DV = anagram task again.
**Tired: more time controls
Master: more time elderly
Loersch & Payne (2011)
Attributional Model of Priming
(response to the replication crisis)
Construal, behavior, and goal priming all arise from the same process
Accessibiltiy is misattributed to one’s natural response towards some aspect of the situation
Prime content serves as information from which to draw inference about whatever
Chartrand & Bargh (1999)
Hint: Confederates involved. Mimic
Shakes food and touches face
Video record mannerisms.
Results: Yes, mimics the behavior.
Lakin & Chartrand (2003)
Aim of experiment: Examine nonconscious behavioral mimicry as a function of what?
2 Experiments
Function of goal to affiliate.
Rapport increases mimicry and vis-versa.
Hypothesis: Goal will activate associated affiliative behaviors, including mimicry. Notion of goal.
Experiment 1: Prime to like or not like someone, then recall what she does, frequently touches face.
Nonconcious: prime with nice words.
Concious: informed would do cooperative task, important to like them.
DV = time touching face
Both goals had higher face touch than no goal
Experiment 2: Aim to examine if failure to satisfy affliation goal enhances mimicry.
Noncousious goal: same as experiment one. Then online and face-to-face interview: successor failure in online interview, then face to face with a different confederate who shakes his foot.
DV: Foot shakes and interaction rating.
no goal was fine, BUT…
Goal + Failure = Shakes a lot
AND Participant and Confederate liked each other more in the goal + failure condition
