2004
DOI: 10.3758/bf03196578
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Loading working memory enhances affective priming

Abstract: Stronger affectivepriming (Murphy & Zajonc, 1993)with suboptimal (i.e., reduced consciousness) than with optimal (i.e., full consciousness) prime presentation suggests that nonconscious processes form an important part of emotions. Merikle and Joordens (1997) have argued that both impoverished presentation and divided attention can produce suboptimal conditions and result in parallel effects. We manipulated attention by means of a concurrent working memory load while keeping presentation duration constant, as … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

3
16
3

Year Published

2004
2004
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
3
16
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Given these considerations, Rotteveel and Phaf's () study cannot provide unequivocal support for an increase of affective priming with increasing cognitive load during prime processing, which would confirm a prediction specifically made by affect misattribution theory (see above). One aim of the present study is therefore to use a prime‐specific load manipulation that allows an interpretation of cognitive load effects in terms of altered prime processing.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Given these considerations, Rotteveel and Phaf's () study cannot provide unequivocal support for an increase of affective priming with increasing cognitive load during prime processing, which would confirm a prediction specifically made by affect misattribution theory (see above). One aim of the present study is therefore to use a prime‐specific load manipulation that allows an interpretation of cognitive load effects in terms of altered prime processing.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…However, of particular importance for the present study is a study by Rotteveel and Phaf (). It drew on findings by Merikle and Joordens () suggesting that masking of the primes and their presentation under conditions of divided attention (i.e., cognitive load) have similar effects in terms of reduced explicit processing.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A more plausible explanation offers a conceptual variant of affective priming that shows up in congruent shifts in preference ratings of neutrally valenced stimuli after presentations of positive and negative prime stimuli (e.g., Murphy & Zajonc, 1993). In one 1316 EDER AND KLAUER study (Rotteveel & Phaf, 2004) participants evaluated the connotation of Japanese ideographs with button presses labelled ''positive'' and ''negative'', and results revealed more frequent positive ideograph evaluations after presentations of happy facial expressions and more frequent negative judgements after presentations of angry facial expressions in conditions of working memory load. The similarity of this preference judgement task to the evaluative identification task of our experiments is obvious because in both tasks information about the target valence is missing or only weakly activated, opening irrelevant evaluative activations a gate to shift the weights in the decision process.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, this type of stimuli is useful for researchers using mere exposure (i.e., repeated exposure to Chinese-like characters leads to more positive attitudes, Zajonc, 1968) or affective priming paradigms (e.g., ideographs are evaluated more positively when preceded by happy vs. angry faces; Murphy & Zajonc, 1993). Our set may offer alternatives in material selection beyond the foreign language characters typically used (e.g., for Greek, see Garcia-Marques, 2005; for Japanese, see Hess, Waters, & Bolstad, 2000;Rotteveel & Phaf, 2004). Symbols have also been used to prime concepts (see Bargh & Chartrand, 2000).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%