Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
When Perception Trumps Reality: Perceived, not Objective, Meaning of Primes Drive Stroop Priming
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
(English)Manuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Is semantic priming driven by the objective or perceived meaning of the priming stimulus? This question is relevant as many studies suggest that the objective meaning of invisible stimuli can influence cognitive processes and behavior. In an experiment involving 66 participants, we tested whether the perceived meaning of misperceived stimuli may influence response times. Stroop priming, i.e., longer response times for incongruent versus congruent prime–target pairs, was observed in trials in which the prime was correctly identified. However, reversed Stroop priming was observed when the prime stimulus was incorrectly identified. Even in trials in which participants reported “no” prime percept and identified the primes at close to chance level (i.e., fulfilling both a subjective and objective definition of “subliminal”), Stroop priming corresponded to perceived, not objective, congruency. Under conditions traditionally claimed to be “subliminal,” this allows occasional weak percepts and mispercepts to be intermixed with no percepts.

National Category
Psychology (excluding Applied Psychology)
Research subject
Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-132208OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-132208DiVA: diva2:950583
Funder
Lars Hierta Memorial Foundation, FO2015-0940
Available from: 2016-08-01 Created: 2016-08-01 Last updated: 2016-08-10Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Subliminal or not?: An appraisal of semantic processing in the near absence of visual awareness
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Subliminal or not?: An appraisal of semantic processing in the near absence of visual awareness
2016 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Stimuli that cannot be perceived (i.e., that are subliminal) can still elicit neural responses in an observer, but can such stimuli influence behavior and higher-order cognition? Empirical evidence for such effects has periodically been accepted and rejected over the last six decades. Today, many psychologists seem to consider such effects well-established and recent studies have extended the power of subliminal processing to new limits. In this thesis, I examine whether this shift in zeitgeist is matched by a shift in evidential strength for the phenomenon.

This thesis consists of three empirical studies involving more than 250 participants, a simulation study, and a quantitative review. The conclusion based on these efforts is that several methodological, statistical, and theoretical issues remain in studies of subliminal processing. These issues mean that claimed subliminal effects might be caused by occasional or weak percepts (given the experimenters’ own definitions of perception) and that it is still unclear what evidence there is for the cognitive processing of subliminal stimuli. New data are presented suggesting that even in conditions traditionally claimed as “subliminal”, occasional or weak percepts may in fact influence cognitive processing more strongly than do the physical stimuli, possibly leading to reversed priming effects. I also summarize and provide methodological, statistical, and theoretical recommendations that could benefit future research aspiring to provide solid evidence for subliminal cognitive processing.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, 2016. 102 p.
Keyword
Subliminal priming, Signal detection theory, Bayesian statistics, Visual masking, Consciousness, Awareness, Unconscious processing, Semantic priming
National Category
Psychology (excluding Applied Psychology)
Research subject
Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-132211 (URN)978-91-7649-454-7 (ISBN)
External cooperation:
Public defence
2016-09-23, David Magnussonsalen (U31), Frescati Hagväg 8, Stockholm, 13:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Note

At the time of the doctoral defense, the following papers were unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 1: Manuscript. Paper 4: Manuscript.

 

Available from: 2016-08-31 Created: 2016-08-01 Last updated: 2016-08-31Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Sand, AndersNilsson, Mats E.
By organisation
Department of Psychology
Psychology (excluding Applied Psychology)

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Total: 50 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link