Dai Wenhao, Yang Tianshu, White Benjamin X, Palmer Ryan, Sanders Emily K, McDonald Jack A, Leung Melody, Albarracín Dolores
Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania.
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
Psychol Bull. 2023 Jan-Feb;149(1-2):67-98. doi: 10.1037/bul0000374. Epub 2023 Mar 13.
Past meta-analyses of the effects of priming on overt behavior have not examined whether the effects and processes of priming behavioral or nonbehavioral concepts (e.g., priming action through the word and priming religion through the word ) differ, even though these possibilities are important to our understanding of concept accessibility and behavior. Hence, we meta-analyzed 351 studies (224 reports and 862 effect sizes) involving incidental presentation of behavioral or nonbehavioral primes, a neutral control group, and at least one behavioral outcome. Our random-effects analyses, which used the correlated and hierarchical effects model with robust variance estimation (Pustejovsky & Tipton, 2021; Tanner-Smith et al., 2016), revealed a moderate priming effect ( = 0.37) that remained stable across behavioral and nonbehavioral primes and across different methodological procedures and adjustments for possible inclusion/publication biases (e.g., sensitivity analyses from Mathur & VanderWeele, 2020; sensitivity analyses from Vevea & Woods, 2005). Although the findings suggest that associative processes explain both the effects of behavioral and nonbehavioral primes, lowering the value of a behavior weakened the effect only when the primes were behavioral. These findings support the possibility that even though both types of primes activate associations that promote behavior, behavioral (vs. nonbehavioral) primes may provide a greater opportunity for goals to control the effect of the primes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
过往关于启动效应(priming)对公开行为影响的元分析,并未考察启动行为或非行为概念(例如,通过单词“走”启动动作,通过单词“上帝”启动宗教概念)的效应和过程是否存在差异,尽管这些可能性对于我们理解概念可及性和行为至关重要。因此,我们对351项研究(224份报告和862个效应量)进行了元分析,这些研究涉及行为或非行为启动因素的偶然呈现、一个中性对照组,以及至少一个行为结果。我们的随机效应分析采用了具有稳健方差估计的相关和分层效应模型(Pustejovsky & Tipton,2021;Tanner-Smith等人,2016),结果显示存在中等程度的启动效应(效应量 = 0.37),该效应在行为和非行为启动因素之间、以及不同的方法程序和针对可能的纳入/发表偏倚的调整(例如,Mathur & VanderWeele,2020的敏感性分析;Vevea & Woods,2005的敏感性分析)中保持稳定。尽管研究结果表明联想过程可以解释行为和非行为启动因素的效应,但只有当启动因素为行为性时,降低行为的价值才会削弱这种效应。这些发现支持了这样一种可能性,即尽管两种类型的启动因素都会激活促进行为的联想,但行为性(而非非行为性)启动因素可能为目标控制启动因素的效应提供了更大的机会。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023美国心理学会,保留所有权利)