Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review

Hutchison, Keith A.

doi:10.3758/bf03196544

Cited by 403 publications

(489 citation statements)

References 139 publications

(281 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

455

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We thus conclude that categorical priming effects of affective and semantic congruency are not mediated by differences in target processing (spreading activation) but instead reflect effects of response facilitation and conflict (cf. also Hutchison, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive processes in associative and categorical priming: A diffusion model analysis.

Voss

Rothermund²,

Gast³

et al. 2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Diffusion Model AnalysisSequential priming procedures play a major role in Cognitive Psychology and related disciplines. For example, priming techniques are used to assess associative structures in semantic memory (e.g., Collins & Loftus, 1975;Neely, 1977;Rosch, 1975), to analyze subliminal semantic processing (e.g., Draine & Greenwald, 1998;Klinger, Burton, & Pitts, 2000;Marcel, 1983), or to investigate the mental basis of attitudes, prejudice, and stereotyping (Blair & Banaji, 1996;Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986; Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997, 2001a. With different sequential priming paradigms it has been shown that the processing of an irrelevant prime stimulus influences the processing ofor the responding to-a subsequently presented target stimulus. Typically, responses are faster and more accurate if prime and target are related.Despite these similarities, there are also important differences between paradigms.First, relatedness of prime and target can be based on many dimensions, including semantic relatedness, associations, similarity, and others. We are primarily interested here in associative and semantic relations between prime and target. Items are semantically related when they belong to the same category and thus share semantic properties (e.g., cat and cow are mammals) or when they are functionally related (e.g., broom and floor are related because brooms are used to sweep floors). Items are considered to be associated when a large percentage of people give the target as the first word they think of in response to the prime (see Moss, Ostrin, Tyler, & Marslen-Wilson, 1995, for an elaborate discussion of the distinction between semantic and associative priming). In addition to the relatedness dimension, priming paradigms differ in the type of task that is to be performed on the targets:Most paradigms use the lexical decision task (Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971;Neely, 1977; see also Gaertner & McLaughlin, 1983;Wentura, 2000; Wittenbrink et al., 1997 Wittenbrink et al., , 2001a & Hymes, 1996;Hermans, De Houwer, & Eelen, 1994), semantic or affective categorization tasks (e.g., De Houwer, Hermans, Rothermund, & Wentura, 2002;Fazio et al., 1986;Klinger et al., 2000), and verification tasks (Collins & Quillian, 1969;Meyer, 1970; see also Dovidio, Evans, & Tyler, 1986). A structural taxonomyIn this regard it is helpful to introduce a structural taxonomy of priming designs that distinguishes between semantic priming and response priming (see also Wentura & Degner, 2010). In semantic priming, the relationship of interest (e.g., whether prime and target are associatively related or not) is varied orthogonally to the response categories: For example, in a semantic priming design using the lexical decision task, targets that are preceded by associatively related primes as well as targets that are preceded by unrelated primes require a word-response. By way of contrast, in response priming designs, primes are at the same time congruent or incongruent to the target and to the response that ha...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive processes in associative and categorical priming: A diffusion model analysis.

Voss

Rothermund²,

Gast³

et al. 2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most phrasal associates (e.g., SPIDER WEB; Hodgson, 1991;Hutchison, 2003;Williams, 1996) are understood via relational integration, and moreover, familiar noun compounds are understood more quickly than novel compounds (Wisniewski & Murphy, 2005).…”

Section: Integrative Priming Integrative Primingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Associative priming generally increases from brief to long SOAs (see Hutchison, 2003, Table 3; see also Hutchison et al, 2008 Coolen and colleagues (1991) in their study of relational integration, and this late SOA is known to produce associative priming (den Heyer et al, 1985;Neely, 1991;Perea & Rosa, 2002). The experiment therefore had a 3 (Prime: baseline, associative, integrative; within-participants) × 2 (SOA: 500, 2000 ms; between-participants) mixed design using a standard LDT.…”

Section: Integrative Priming 13mentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrative priming occurs rapidly and uncontrollably during lexical processing.

Estes

Jones

2009

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrative Priming 2 Abstract Lexical priming, whereby a prime word facilitates recognition of a related target word (e.g., nurse doctor), is typically attributed to association strength, semantic similarity, or compound familiarity. Here we demonstrate a novel type of lexical priming that occurs among unassociated, dissimilar, and unfamiliar concepts (e.g., horse doctor). Specifically, integrative priming occurs when a prime word can be easily integrated with a target word to create a unitary representation. Across several manipulations of timing (stimulus onset asynchrony) and list context (relatedness proportion), lexical decisions for the target word were facilitated when it could be integrated with the prime word. Moreover, integrative priming was dissociated from both associative priming and semantic priming, but was comparable in terms of both prevalence (across participants) and magnitude (within-participants). This observation of integrative priming challenges current models of lexical priming, such as spreading activation, distributed representation, expectancy, episodic retrieval, and compound cue models. We suggest that integrative priming may be explained by a role activation model of relational integration. KEYWORDS: associative priming, integrative priming, lexical decision, relational integration, semantic priming, word recognition. Integrative Priming 3One of the most robust phenomena of psychology is the lexical priming effect, whereby responding to a target word is facilitated by the prior presentation of a related prime word (for extensive review see Hutchison, 2003;Lucas, 2000;McNamara, 2005;Neely, 1991). In a seminal experiment, Meyer and Schvaneveldt (1971) simultaneously presented two letter strings in a lexical decision task (LDT; i.e., word/nonword judgments). They found that related words (e.g., BREAD -BUTTER) elicited faster lexical decisions than unrelated words (e.g., NURSE -BUTTER). Since that classic demonstration (see also Meyer, Schvaneveldt & Ruddy, 1975;Tweedy, Lapinski & Schvaneveldt, 1977), researchers have distinguished two broad classes of relation between primes and targets. Association refers to a relation in language use, typically defined as the proportion of participants who produce a given target word (e.g., PEPPER) in response to a cue word (e.g., SALT) in the free association task. Similarity refers to a relation in word meaning, typically defined as the degree of feature overlap between the concepts (e.g., DOG -WOLF). Thus one may distinguish associative priming, which is based on association strength, from semantic priming, which is based on featural similarity (see e.g., Fischler, 1977;Hutchison, 2003;Lucas, 2000;McNamara, 2005;McRae & Boisvert, 1998; Moss, Ostrin, Tyler & MarslenWilson, 1995;Shelton & Martin, 1992;Thompson-Schill, Kurtz & Gabrieli, 1998). The purpose of the present study is to demonstrate and characterize another source of lexical priming that is independent of both associations and similarity. Namely, we examine the influence of relational in...

show abstract

“…Such associative networks (see Figure 1) are common in modeling human thought (e.g., Anderson, 1976Anderson, , 1983Reder, Park, & Kieffaber, 2009) and involve a variety of semantic relationships (e.g., temporal continguity, spatial proximity, feature overlap, shared perceptual properties, category membership, antonymity, synonymy) (e.g., Wu & Barsalou, 2009). Although it is often difficult to discriminate associative strength and semantic overlap (see Hutchison, 2003), the use of associatively related lists (e.g., as in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott [DRM] paradigm; Deese, 1959;Roediger & McDermott, 1995) has become the sine qua non for researchers interested in the study of memory accuracy (i.e., the relationship between rates of correct recollection and error rates). Indeed, the use of the DRM paradigm to study memory accuracy is appropriate because these lists contain many of the semantic relations found in human thought, not just taxonomic (categorical) relations (see Brainerd, Yang, Reyna, Howe, & Mills, 2008b;Howe et al, 2009bHowe et al, , 2009cPark et al, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the susceptibility of adaptive memory to false memory illusions

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Howe, M. L. & Derbish, M. H. (2010). On the susceptibility of adaptive memory to false memory illusions. Cognition, 115(2), pp. 252-267. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.016 This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Abstract Previous research has shown that survival-related processing of word lists enhances retention for that material. However, the claim that survival-related memories are more accurate has only been examined when true recall and recognition of neutral material has been measured. In the current experiments, we examined the adaptive memory superiority effect for different types of processing and material, measuring accuracy more directly by comparing true and false recollection rates. Survival-related information and processing was examined using word lists containing backward associates of neutral, negative, and survival-related critical lures and type of processing (pleasantness, moving, survival) was varied using an incidental memory paradigm. Across four experiments, results showed that survival-related words were more susceptible than negative and neutral words to the false memory illusion and that processing information in terms of its relevance to survival independently increased this susceptibility to the false memory illusion. Overall, although survival-related processing and survival-related information resulted in poorer, not more accurate, memory, such inaccuracies may have adaptive significance. These findings are discussed in the context of false memory research and recent theories concerning the importance of survival processing and the nature of adaptive memory. Permanent

show abstract

Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review

Cited by 403 publications

References 139 publications

Cognitive processes in associative and categorical priming: A diffusion model analysis.

Cognitive processes in associative and categorical priming: A diffusion model analysis.

Integrative priming occurs rapidly and uncontrollably during lexical processing.

On the susceptibility of adaptive memory to false memory illusions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About