Semantic Priming of Attention Focus: Evidence for Short- and Long-Term Effects

doi:10.4236/psych.2012.32019

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2012. Vol.3, No.2, 128-131

Published Online February 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.32019

128

Semantic Priming of Attention Focus: Evidence for Short- and

Long-Term Effects

Stefanie Hüttermann1, Daniel Memmert1, Otmar Bock2

1Institute of Cognitive and Team/Racket Sport Research, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany

2Institute of Physiology and Anatomy, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Email: [email protected]

Received December 1st, 2011; r evised January 11th, 2012; accept ed J anua ry 27th, 2012

Research on subliminal priming documents that our brain can understand words, interpret facial expres-

sions and decode symbols even without realizing them consciously. Thus, words presented for merely a

few ms can shorten the response times to semantically related target words, if compared to words with

opposite meaning (e.g., Klauer & Musch, 2003). While most previous semantic priming studies used se-

mantic prime-target pairs of affective valence, the present study explored for the first time semantic

priming effects for prime-target pairs characterizing an attentional focus. In Experiment 1, a subliminally

presented prime word was followed by an above-threshold target word such that both words denoted a

broad attention focus, both denoted a narrow focus, or one word denoted a broad and the other a narrow

focus. Subjects had to judge the focus of the target words, and we found their response times to be shorter

when the prime-target pairs were semantically congruent rather than incongruent. In Experiment 2, a

block of subliminally presented prime words, all denoting a broad or all a narrow focus of attention, was

followed by a block of subliminally presented target words denoting a broad or a narrow focus in a mixed

sequence. Subjects had to judge the position of each prime or target, and we found their target response

times to be shorter when the target was semantically congruent rather than incongruent with the preceding

prime block. We concluded that semantic priming is effective, that it works for primes denoting the atten-

tion focus, and that it persists for more than just a fraction of a second.

Keywords: Semantic Priming; Attention Focus; Subliminal Priming

Introduction

Subliminal priming refers to the fact that stimuli of which

subjects are not aware can nevertheless influence their behavior

(Radel, Sarrazin, & Pelletier, 2009). This influence can mani-

fest as facilitation of responses that are congruent with the

prime, and/or as degradation of responses that are incongruent

with it (Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971). As an example, subjects

primed with smiling faces subsequently detected a happy face

faster than an angry one, and vice versa (Werheid, Alpay,

Jentzsch, & Sommer, 2005). Besides figural primes such as

faces, another popular category are semantic primes, i.e., words

which are presented too briefly for conscious perception, but

whose meaning nevertheless influences subsequent responses

(e.g., Klauer & Musch, 2003). The semantic primes in most

previous studies were words that denoted affective valence;

they were found to reduce the reaction times to subsequent

words of the same valence below those to words of the opposite

valence (Klauer, Eder, Greenwald, & Abrams, 2007; Naccache

et al., 2005; Rossell & Nobre, 2004). The present research ex-

pands this work to adjectives representing a broad or a narrow

focus of attention; to our knowledge, there has been no attempt

in the past to explore the effectiveness of semantic priming for

prime-target pairs denoting subjects’ attention focus.

The efficiency of semantic priming has been attributed to the

existence of a lexical network (Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971)

which stores semantically similar words in neighboring loca-

tions (Bueno & Frenck-Mestre, 2008): a word that is not con-

sciously perceived can nevertheless pre-activate the pertinent

region of the lexical network, and thus facilitate responses to

subsequent words that activate similar network locations (e.g.,

Kiesel, Kunde, & Hoffmann, 2007). In analogy to previous

semantic priming studies, we reasoned that subjects who were

subliminally primed with words relating to a narrow focus of

attention would subsequently respond faster to target words that

relate to a narrow rather than to a broad focus of attention,

while the opposite would be the case for subjects who were

subliminally primed with words relating to a broad focus of

attention. Primes and targets are paired trial-by-trial in Experi-

ment 1 to explore immediate effects, and block-by-block in

Experiment 2 to eval uate lasting effects.

Experiment 1

Method

Participants

Thirty university students (12 females and 18 males) between

the ages of 19 and 28 (Mage = 23.50 years; SD = 2.74 years)

took part after signing an informed consent statement. They

were right-handed, healthy, and have not participated in related

research before. The study was carried out in accordance with

the Helsinki Declaration of 1975.

Materials and Stimuli

Primes and targets were chosen from a set of 20 adjectives

describing a narrow attentional focus, and from a set of 20 ad-

jectives describing a broad focus of attention. The choice was

S. HÜTTERMANN ET AL.

made by common consent of two persons who were given a

larger list of adjectives. The word sets are shown in Appendix

A. The adjectives were comprised of small letters with an av-

erage height of 0.8 cm. Since the longest adjective had thirteen

letters, all other words were prolonged to thirteen letters by

leading and trailing “+” characters.

Procedure

Participants sat at a distance of about 45 cm from a 15” PC

monitor, such that the visual angle of the display was about 27˚

vertical × 34˚ horizontal. They were told that the experiment

concerned the speed at which people are able to affectively

categorize various stimulus words. The presented words should

be evaluated as quickly as possible as either describing a nar-

row or a broad focus of attention.

Each trial began with a masking stimulus (dot of about 3 cm

diameter), which appeared on the screen center for 500 ms.

Following the procedure of Bargh and Chartrand (2000), a

prime word was then displayed for only 32 ms such that par-

ticipants should merely detect a flicker on the screen. The

prime was followed by another dot mask for 50 ms. Then, the

target word was presented. Participants were instructed to press

a response key with one hand if the target was describing a

narrow focus of attention, and another key with the other hand

if the target was characterizing a broad focus of attention. The

target remained on the screen until the participant responded.

Prime and target were congruent on some trials (e.g. Figure 1,

top), and incongruent on other trials (e.g. Figure 1, bottom).

Participants were randomly subdivided into Group N, which

was primed only with adjectives representing a narrow focus,

and Group B, which was primed with adjectives describing a

broad focus. The primes from either list were selected by a

random process, and some words were therefore presented more

often than others. Target words for both groups were selected

from both lists under the constraint that prime and target were

always different words, and that each subject received target

words from both lists in equal proportions. Since an experi-

mental session lasted 56 trials (with 20 s rest breaks after each

14 trials), each subject received 56 prime words from one list,

paired with 28 target words from the same list and 28 from the

other list. One half of the subjects was instructed to use their

left hand for indicating “narrow” and their right hand for indi-

cating “broad”, while the opposite was the case for the other

half.

Data Analysis

We defined the response time on a given trial as the interval

between target appearance and key press. The mean response

time of each participant to targets representing a narrow or a

broad focus, respectively, was submitted to a two-way analysis

of variance ANOVA with the between-factor Group (N, B) and

the within-factor Target (narrow, broad).

Results and Discussion

All participants reported retrospectively that they had only

perceived a flicker between the two masks. When confronted

with the fact that words had been presented between masks,

they all negated having seen them.

ANOVA yielded no significant effects of Group (F1,28 = .001,

p = .979) or Target (F1,28 = 1.707, p = .202), but a significant

Group × Target interaction (F1,28 = 69.854, p < .001,



2 = .714):

Figure 1.

Sequence of events in a congruent (top) and in an incongruent trial

(bottom) in Experiment 1.

as Figure 2 illustrates, Group N responded faster to targets

representing a narrow focus than to those representing a broad

focus while the opposite held for Group B, i.e., each group

responded faster in the primed category.

Experiment 1 confirms the effectiveness of semantic priming:

responses to target words were faster when the target was pre-

ceded by a semantically congruent rather than incongruent sub-

liminal prime word. While previous studies mostly explored the

effect of affectively congruent or incongruent primes on evalu-

ation responses to positive or negative valenced targets, the

present work is, to our knowledge, the first investigating the

effect of prime-target pairs denoting the attention focus. Sub-

jects classified adjectives as representing a “broad” or a “nar-

row” focus, and responded faster after semantically congruent

S. HÜTTERMANN ET AL.

Figure 2.

Mean response times (+SD) as a function of group and above-threshold

target type in Experim ent 1.

rather than incongruent prime words.

Experiment 2

Experiment 1 allowed us to establish the short-term effec-

tiveness of semantic priming, since each target was immedi-

ately preceded by a prime. Experiment 2 assessed possible

long- term effects by presenting first a block of prime words

referring to a given attention focus, and then a block of target

words referring to either attention focus in a mixed order. To

minimize a washout of priming effects during the target block,

the target words were presented subliminally, and were associ-

ated with choice responses regarding their position rather than

their meaning. To ensure that subjects watched all primes

alertly and to harmonize experimental procedures, prime words

were associated with the same choice responses as the target

words. In consequence, the prime and target blocks differed

only with respect to semantics (same focus versus mix of two

foci), but not with respect to the required responses.

Method

Participants

Thirty-two university students (20 females and 12 males)

between the ages of 20 and 29 (Mage = 23.59 years; SD = 2.59

years) took part in the study. Written informed consent was

obtained from each subject prior to participation. They were

right-handed, healthy, and have not participated in related re-

search before.

Procedures

Participants sat at a distance of about 45 cm from a 15” PC

monitor, such that the visual angle of the display was about 27˚

vertical × 34˚ horizontal. They were told that the experiment

determined the speed at which people are able to react to flash-

es of light.

Prime and target words were chosen from the same word sets

as in Experiment 1, and were presented with the same size. In a

first block, words from one given set were displayed in a ran-

dom sequence, and in a second block, words from both sets in a

mixed sequence. Each word was presented for 32 ms either 8

cm above or 8 cm below a fixation dot (of about 3 cm diameter)

in the screen center. Due to the brevity of presentation, subjects

were not aware that words were displayed and merely noticed

flashes of light. Words were presented about every four seconds.

Participants were instructed to release a central key and depress

a key above it if they saw the flicker above the fixation dot, or

depress the key below it if they saw the flicker below the fixa-

tion dot. Each block consisted of 28 words, with 20 s rest break s

between blocks. Participants were randomly subdivided into

Group N’, primed with adjectives representing a narrow focus,

and Group B’, primed with adjectives describing a broad focus

of attention.

Data Analysis

The response time of a given trial was defined as the interval

between word presentation and release of the central key. The

mean response time to targets representing a narrow focus was

calculated for each participant separately from that to targets

representing a broad focus of attention. The outcome was sub-

mitted to a two-way ANOVA with the between-factor Group

(N’, B’) and the within-factor Target (narrow, broad).

Results and Discussion

All participants reported retrospectively that they had only

perceived flashes of light above or below the fixation dot, and

no words. ANOVA yielded no significant effects of Group

(F1,30 = .618, p = .438) or Target (F1,30 = .067, p = .797), but a

significant Group × Target interaction (F1,30 = 14.503, p < .001,



2 = .326): Figure 3 illustrates that Group N’ primed with a

narrow focus responded faster to targets with a narrow rather

than to a broad focus, while the opposite was the case for

Group B’ primed with a broad focus.

These data show in accordance with Experiment 1 that se-

mantic priming of target words denoting the attention focus is

possible. Moreover, they document that this priming persists

for more than just the fraction of a second: since the second

block took about 162 s and priming effects were significant for

the block means, we conclude that priming persisted for 81 s

(1/2 block) or more.

General Discussion

Although a number of studies used semantic priming to in-

duce different mental states, none of them attempted to induce a

broad or narrow focus of attention, possibly because the

chances of success were considered to be low. The present

Figure 3.

Mean response times (+SD) as a function of group and subliminal

target type in Experim ent 2.

130

S. HÜTTERMANN ET AL.

research addressed this issue for the first time. In Experiment 1,

participants decided whether above-threshold target words cha-

racterized a narrow or a broad focus of attention after they were

primed with semantically related or unrelated words. In Ex-

periment 2, subjects had to react as fast as possible to sublimi-

nal targets after they were primed with words denoting a nar-

row or broad focus. Overall, the data suggest that responses to

target words of the primed category were faster than those to

the non-primed category; this difference amounted to about 31

ms in Experiment 1, and to about 10 ms in Experiment 2. Two

explanations for the greater effect in Experiment 1 are con-

ceivable. First, primes were presented above threshold rather

than subliminally, and thus might have activated the lexical

network (see Introduction) more efficiently. Second, primes

were presented in each trial rather than in separate blocks, and

their effects therefore did not decay with the passage of time.

It should be noted that the present study used words to prime

the attention focus, and used again words to confirm the suc-

cess of priming. It would be desirable in subsequent work to

validate priming effects in other ways, e.g., using visuo-spatial

or manual-skill tasks, in order to find out whether the effects of

priming extend beyond the semantic domain. If so, it might be

interesting to explore the utility of semantic priming in every-

day scenarios such as car driving. Dense traffic requires often-

times a broad focus of attention to deal with many parallel ac-

tivities on the road, but sometimes it requires a narrow focus to

process a challenging event—such as an animal on the road—in

great detail (Nideffer, 1976). An intelligent driver assistance

system could identify potential hazards ahead, and apply se-

mantic priming to direct the driver’s attention accordingly. This

might be more effective than an unspecific warning sound

which alerts the drivers but doesn’t modify their mental proc-

essing characteristics.

Another exemplary area of application is marketing. Several

studies (e.g., Karremans, Stroebe, & Claus, 2006; Klink, 2009)

found that subliminal advertising influences consumer choice.

Semantic priming of attention could be used to induce a broad

focus such that consumers place a higher weight on the overall

characteristics of a product, or a narrow focus such that they

mainly consider product details.

REFERENCES

Bargh, J. D., & Chartrand, T. (2000). The mind in the middle: A prac-

tical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis, & C.

M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and per-

sonality psychology (pp. 253-285). Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.

Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social

behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on

action. Journal of P e rsonality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-244.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230

Bueno, S., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2008). The activation of semantic

memory: Effects of prime exposure, prime-target relationship and

task demands. Memory & Cognition, 36, 882-898.

doi:10.3758/MC.36.4.882

Karremans, J. C., Stroebe, W., & Claus, J. (2006). Beyond Vicary’s

fantasies: The impact of subliminal priming and brand choice. Jour-

nal of Experimental Social P s y c ho l o gy, 42, 792-798.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.002

Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., & Hoffmann, J. (2007). Mechanisms of sub-

liminal response priming. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3,

307-315. doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0032-1

Klauer, K. C., Eder, A. B., Greenwald, A. G., & Abrams, R. L. (2007).

Priming of semantic classifications by novel subliminal prime words.

Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 63-83.

doi:10.1016/j.concog.2005.12.002

Klauer, K. C., & Musch, J. (2003). Affective priming: Findings and

theories. In J. Musch, & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of

evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 7-50).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Klink, R. R. (2009). Gender differences in new brand name response.

Marketing Letters, 20, 313-326.

doi:10.1007/s11002-008-9066-x

Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recogniz-

ing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval op-

erations. Journal of Experimental Psyc hology , 90, 227-234.

doi:10.1037/h0031564

Naccache, L., Gaillard, R., Adam, C., Hasboun, D., Clémenceau, S.,

Baulac, M., Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (2005). A direct intracranial

record of emotions evoked by subliminal words. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences, 1 02 , 7713-7717.

doi:10.1073/pnas.0500542102

Nideffer, R. M. (1976). Test of attentional and interpersonal style.

Journal of Personality a nd Social Psychology, 34, 394-404.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.3.394

Radel, R., Sarrazin, P., & Pelletier, L. G. (2009). Evidence of sublimi-

nally primed motivational orientations: The effects of unconscious

motivational processes on the performance of a new motor task.

Journal of Sport and Exercise P s yc holo gy, 31, 651-674.

Rossell, S. L., & Nobre, A. C. (2004). Semantic priming of different

affective categories. Emotion, 4, 354-36 3.

doi:10.1037/1528-3542.4.4.354

Werheid, K., Alpay, G., Jentzsch, I., & Sommer, W. (2005). Priming

the processing of facial affect: Event-related potentials reveal early

detection of emotional expression. International Journal of Psycho-

physiology, 55, 209-219. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2004.07.006

Appendix A

Word Set 1

nahe [close], genau [strict], akkurat [accurate], speziell [spe-

cial], einzeln [sole], subtil [subtle], komprimiert [compressed],

gründlich [thorough], intensiv [intense], umfriedet [enclosed],

gradlinig [linear], direkt [direct], klein [small], exakt [exact],

detailliert [detailed], schmal [slim], präzise [precise], gezielt

[specific], kurz [short], beschränkt [limited].

Word Set 2

weit [far], ungefähr [approximate], global [global], allgemein

[universal], vielfach [multiple], ausgedehnt [broad], offen

[open], generell [general], üblich [common], geräumig [spa-

cious], entfernt [distant], lang [long], groß [big], pauschal

[blanket], umfassend [comprehensive], weltweit [all-round],

verteilt [distributed], umfangreich [large], grob [rough], total

[total].