Subliminal words activate semantic categories (not automated motor responses)

Semantic priming by visually masked, unidentifiable (“subliminal”) words occurs robustly when the words appearing as masked primes have been classified earlier in practice as visible targets. It has been argued (Damian, 2001) that practice enables robust subliminal priming by automatizing learned associations between words and the specific motor responses used to classify them. Two experiments demonstrate that, instead, the associations formed in practice that underlie subliminal priming are between words and semantic categories. Visible words classified aspleasant or unpleasant in practice with one set of response key assignments functioned later as subliminal primes with appropriate valence, even when associations of keys with valences were reversed before the test. This result shows that subliminal priming involves unconscious categorization of the prime, rather than just the automatic activation of a practiced stimulus-response mapping.

[1]  B. Dosher The response-window regression method—Some problematic assumptions: Comment on Draine and Greenwald (1998). , 1998 .

[2]  Richard L. Abrams,et al.  Three Cognitive Markers of Unconscious Semantic Activation , 1996, Science.

[3]  S. C. Draine Analytic limitations of unconscious language processing , 1997 .

[4]  A. Greenwald New look 3. Unconscious cognition reclaimed. , 1992, The American psychologist.

[5]  David A. Balota,et al.  Automatic semantic activation and episodic memory encoding , 1983 .

[6]  S C Draine,et al.  Replicable unconscious semantic priming. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[7]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Distinguishing unconscious from conscious cognition--reasonable assumptions and replicable findings: reply to Merikle and Reingold (1998) and Dosher (1998) , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[8]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Imaging unconscious semantic priming , 1998, Nature.

[9]  Correcting for measurement error in detecting unconscious cognition: comment on Draine and Greenwald (1998) , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[10]  K I Forster,et al.  The Pros and Cons of Masked Priming , 1998, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[11]  A. Treisman Contextual Cues in Selective Listening , 1960 .

[12]  M. Klinger,et al.  Mechanisms of unconscious priming: I. Response competition, not spreading activation. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  G. Logan Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms? , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  J. Kihlstrom The cognitive unconscious. , 1987, Science.

[15]  John J. L. Morton,et al.  Interaction of information in word recognition. , 1969 .

[16]  K C Klauer,et al.  An unbiased errors-in-variables approach to detecting unconscious cognition. , 1998, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[17]  Distinguishing unconscious from conscious cognition—Reasonable assumptions and replicable findings: Reply to Merikle and Reingold (1998) and Dosher (1998). , 1998 .

[18]  M. Damian,et al.  Congruity effects evoked by subliminally presented primes: automaticity rather than semantic processing. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  Richard L. Abrams,et al.  Parts Outweigh the Whole (Word) in Unconscious Analysis of Meaning , 2000, Psychological science.

[20]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Do subliminal stimuli enter the mind unnoticed? Tests with a new method , 1997 .

[21]  E. Reingold,et al.  On demonstrating unconscious perception: comment on Draine and Greenwald (1998) , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[22]  E. Loftus,et al.  Is the unconscious smart or dumb? , 1992, The American psychologist.

[23]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Activation by marginally perceptible ("subliminal") stimuli: dissociation of unconscious from conscious cognition. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. General.