Wentura Dirk, Rohr Michaela, Kiefer Markus
Department of Psychology, Saarland University.
Department of Psychiatry, Ulm University.
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2024 Nov 7. doi: 10.1037/xge0001648.
Masked priming paradigms are frequently used to shine light on the processes of nonconscious cognition. Introducing a new method to this field, Lähteenmäki et al. (2015) claimed that affective priming requires awareness. Specifically, they administered a subjective rating task after the priming task in each trial to directly assess awareness of the prime. Their main result was a lack of priming for subjectively unaware primes. In four experiments, we compared their method with the traditional paradigm, that is, a single-task priming phase followed by a direct test of prime recognition. We used faces with anger versus sadness expressions as primes and targets; emotion categorization was the task. In contrast to Lähteenmäki et al., primes and targets were drawn from different sets, such that priming effects can be unequivocally attributed to the processing of evaluative features. In Experiments 1a, b, we followed their approach of using different prime durations to produce variance in awareness ratings. With a duration of 40 ms, significant priming effects for subjectively unaware primes were found. This duration was also associated with priming effects in the traditional paradigm with near-zero objective prime categorization, suggesting that priming does not require awareness. In Experiment 2a, employing a constant 40-ms duration, we replicated the traditional effect. However, the parallel Experiment 2b with subjective awareness ratings produced a null result at a sharply increased response time level. We conclude that the claim that affective processing requires awareness is not justified. Subjective trial-by-trial visibility ratings can severely alter processing strategies in response priming paradigms. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
掩蔽启动范式经常被用于揭示无意识认知的过程。在该领域引入一种新方法时,拉赫蒂恩迈基等人(2015年)声称情感启动需要意识。具体而言,他们在每个试验的启动任务之后进行了一项主观评分任务,以直接评估对启动刺激的意识。他们的主要结果是,对于主观上未意识到的启动刺激,不存在启动效应。在四项实验中,我们将他们的方法与传统范式进行了比较,即一个单任务启动阶段,随后直接测试启动刺激的识别。我们使用愤怒与悲伤表情的面孔作为启动刺激和目标刺激;情绪分类是任务。与拉赫蒂恩迈基等人不同的是,启动刺激和目标刺激来自不同的集合,这样启动效应就可以明确地归因于评价特征的加工。在实验1a和1b中,我们采用了他们使用不同启动刺激持续时间来产生意识评分差异的方法。在40毫秒的持续时间下,发现了对于主观上未意识到的启动刺激有显著的启动效应。这个持续时间在传统范式中也与接近零的客观启动刺激分类的启动效应相关,这表明启动并不需要意识。在实验2a中,采用恒定的40毫秒持续时间,我们重现了传统效应。然而,在响应时间大幅增加的水平下,具有主观意识评分的平行实验2b产生了零结果。我们得出结论,认为情感加工需要意识这一说法是没有依据的。逐次试验的主观可见性评分会严重改变响应启动范式中的加工策略。(《心理学文摘数据库记录》(c)2024美国心理学会,保留所有权利)