Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the automaticity of relational stimulus processing

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While it is widely accepted that the semantic analysis of a stimulus can take place in an automatic fashion, it is typically assumed that non-automatic processes are required to process the relation of one stimulus relative to other stimuli. Nevertheless, there is evidence to support the idea that such relational stimulus processing can also take place under automaticity conditions. We examined this hypothesis further in four sequential priming experiments in which participants were asked to categorize target objects as larger or smaller than a reference object (i.e., a football or a car). Crucially, some primes were objects that were larger than the small reference object but smaller than the large reference object (e.g., a bike). Results showed that the impact of these primes upon target responding was dependent on the size of the reference object. When the size of the reference object was small, these primes facilitated responses towards large targets relative to small targets. Vice versa, when the size of the reference object was large, the same set of primes facilitated responses towards small targets relative to large targets. This result was obtained when the size of the reference object was manipulated block-wise (Experiments 1 and 3), trial-wise (Experiments 2 and 4), and even when the primes were presented near subjective recognition thresholds (Experiment 4). Taken together, our findings provide strong evidence for the hypothesis that complex relational stimulus processing can take place under automaticity conditions. A possible underlying mechanism is proposed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. One could argue that even the processing of a single stimulus is often relational, for instance, when determining the semantic category of that stimulus (i.e., relating the stimulus to a semantic category). In this regard, (subliminal) priming effects have repeatedly been observed on the basis of category membership (see Quinn & Kinoshita, 2008, for a discussion). We do not consider stimulus processing in these cases to be truly relational, as the observed priming effects are attributed to the processing of certain properties of one stimulus alone (i.e., the task-relevant category membership of the prime stimulus). In contrast, the definition of relational processing in this paper is restricted to the online comparison of the task-relevant features of two distinct stimuli.

  2. The luminance of pictures showing small objects was more pronounced than the luminance of pictures showing large objects, t(22) = 4.50, p < .001, or medium-sized objects, t(22) = 3.72, p < .005. Given that stimuli from different stimulus categories were presented equally often in response-compatible and response-incompatible conditions, none of our critical effects can be attributed to variations in luminance.

  3. None of the critical effects in this experiment nor in the subsequently reported experiments were dependent on the exclusion or inclusion of participants.

  4. An analysis of the error data revealed effects that mirrored the effects found in the reaction time data. It must be noted, however, that the overall error rates were too small to allow for parametric testing (i.e., <2.7 %), especially when taking into account the complexity of the resign design. We therefore decided not to report the error data in full detail.

  5. As pointed out by a reviewer, associative relatedness and/or (size-unrelated) semantic relatedness between the primes and the targets might have contributed to the priming effect observed on the standard trials. A similar interpretation can be ruled out for the critical trials, because (a) the stimulus materials used on congruent and incongruent trials were identical and (b) relational prime information was contingent upon the size of the reference objects only.

  6. As explained in the method section, the reference object was changed after four blocks and the order in which the two reference objects were used was counterbalanced across participants. We therefore examined whether target responding was affected by this counterbalancing factor. On critical trials there was evidence for a main effect of order, F(1, 62) = 4.61, p = .036, η 2 ρ  = 0.07. Overall, participants were faster to respond when the small reference object was used first compared to when the large reference object was used first (477 vs. 504 ms). Reassuringly, the RPE was not moderated by the order factor, F < 1, nor were any other effects on critical trials, all Fs < 1, all ps > .81. We therefore excluded the order factor from the analyses of Experiment 1. It may be noted, however, that there was some evidence that the counterbalancing factor did impact the prime × target interaction observed on the standard trials, F(1, 62) = 3.52, p = .065, η 2 ρ  = 0.05. The priming effect was larger when the small reference object was used first compared to when the large reference object was used first (20 vs. 11 ms). None of the other effects observed on the standard trials were qualified by the counterbalancing factor, all Fs < 1.40, all ps > .241.

  7. Experiment 2 was a replication of an earlier study, the results of which mimic those reported here. Specifically, we obtained a significant RPE of 16 ms, F(1, 56) = 12.69, p = .001, η 2 ρ  = 0.18, whereas the reference object × target interaction on the standard trials was non-significant, F(1, 56) = 1.73, p = .194, η 2 ρ  = 0.03. Crucially, we did not include neutral trials in this study. Therefore, the RPE was compared to the reference object × target interaction on standard trials to check for a possible inflation of the RPE. The three-way interaction between the size of the reference objects, the size of the targets, and the trial type failed to reach significance, F(1, 56) = 1.70, p = .197, η 2 ρ  = 0.03.

  8. It may also be noted that, in Experiment 1, the standard trials revealed a reliable main effect of the size of the reference objects whereas the same effect was unreliable in Experiment 2. Additional analyses provided no evidence for the hypothesis that the magnitude of this effect was reliably different in both experiments, F(1, 111) = 2.02, p = .16.

  9. As in Experiment 1, the reference object was changed after four blocks. The order in which the two reference objects were used as well as the color in which the majority of the stimuli were presented were counterbalanced across participants. None of the critical effects were moderated by the color of the stimuli on neither the critical nor the standard trials, all Fs < 1.43, all ps > .236. The color factor was thus excluded from further analyses. However, the order in which the reference objects were used did affect critical effects. The influence of the order of the reference object on the RPE just missed conventional significance levels, F(1, 66) = 3.96, p < .051, η 2 ρ  = 0.06. When participants first categorized targets relative to the small reference object, the mean RPE was 33 ms. Conversely, when participants were first presented with the large reference object, the mean RPE was 23 ms. Moreover, the order factor qualified the critical three-way interaction between color congruency, size of the reference object, and size of the targets on critical trials, F(1, 66) = 8.91, p = .004, η 2 ρ  = 0.12. The order factor was thus kept for the analysis of the critical trials.

References

  • Ansorge, U., & Heumann, M. (2003). Top-down contingencies in peripheral cuing: The roles of color and location. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(5), 937–948. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.5.937.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ansorge, U., Heumann, M., & Scharlau, I. (2002). Influences of visibility, intentions, and probability in a peripheral cuing task. Consciousness and Cognition, 11(4), 528–545. doi:10.1016/S1053-8100(02)00026-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ansorge, U., Kiefer, M., Khalid, S., Grassl, S., & König, P. (2010). Testing the theory of embodied cognition with subliminal words. Cognition, 116(3), 303–320. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ansorge, U., Kiss, M., & Eimer, M. (2009). Goal-driven attentional capture by invisible colors: Evidence from event-related potentials. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(4), 648–653. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.4.648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansorge, U., Kunde, W., & Kiefer, M. (2014). Unconscious vision and executive control: How unconscious processing and conscious action control interact. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 268–287. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.05.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ansorge, U., & Neumann, O. (2005). Intentions determine the effect of invisible metacontrast-masked primes: Evidence for top-down contingencies in a peripheral cuing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(4), 762–777. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.4.762.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, W. P. (1977). Encoding and processing of symbolic information in comparative judgments. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advantages in research and theory (Vol. 11, pp. 101–159). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barcelo, F., Escera, C., Corral, M. J., & Periáñez, J. A. (2006). Task switching and novelty processing activate a common neural network for cognitive control. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(10), 1734–1748. doi:10.1162/jocn.2006.18.10.1734.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Raymond, P., & Hymes, C. (1996). The automatic evaluation effect: Unconditional automatic attitude activation with a pronunciation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32(1), 104–128. doi:10.1006/jesp.1996.0005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., Schwader, K. L., Hailey, S. E., Dyer, R. L., & Boothby, E. J. (2012). Automaticity in social-cognitive processes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(12), 593–605. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.10.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Damian, M. F. (2001). Congruity effects evoked by subliminally presented primes: Automaticity rather than semantic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(1), 154–165. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.27.1.154.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Houwer, J., Teige-Mocigemba, S., Spruyt, A., & Moors, A. (2009). Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin, 135(3), 347–368. doi:10.1037/a0014211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Le Clec’H, G., Koechlin, E., Mueller, M., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., & Le Bihan, D. (1998). Imaging unconscious semantic priming. Nature, 395, 597–600. doi:10.1038/26967.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dijksterhuis, A., Smith, P. K., van Baaren, R. B., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2005). The unconscious consumer: Effects of environment on consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(3), 193–202. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1503_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downar, J., Crawley, A. P., Mikulis, D. J., & Davis, K. D. (2000). A multimodal cortical network for the detection of changes in the sensory environment. Nature Neuroscience, 3(3), 277–283. doi:10.1038/72991.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Draine, S. C., & Greenwald, A. G. (1998). Replicable unconscious semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(3), 286–303. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.127.3.286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everaert, T., Spruyt, A., & De Houwer, J. (2011). On the (un)conditionality of automatic attitude activation: The valence proportion effect. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 65(2), 125–132. doi:10.1037/a0022316.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 297–327. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145225.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 229–238. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.229.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory—A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermans, D., Crombez, G., & Eelen, P. (2000). Automatic attitude activation and efficiency: The fourth horseman of automaticity. Psychologica Belgica, 40, 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermans, D., Houwer, J. D., & Eelen, P. (1994). The affective priming effect: Automatic activation of evaluative information in memory. Cognition and Emotion, 8(6), 515–533. doi:10.1080/02699939408408957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herring, D. R., White, K. R., Jabeen, L. N., Hinojos, M., Terrazas, G., Reyes, S. M., & Crites, S. L. (2013). On the automatic activation of attitudes: A quarter century of evaluative priming research. Psychological Bulletin, 139(5), 1062–1089. doi:10.1037/a0031309.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiefer, M. (2002). The N400 is modulated by unconsciously perceived masked words: Further evidence for an automatic spreading activation account of N400 priming effects. Cognitive Brain Research, 13(1), 27–39. doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00085-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiefer, M., & Martens, U. (2010). Attentional sensitization of unconscious cognition: Task sets modulate subsequent masked semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(3), 464–489. doi:10.1037/a0019561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiefer, M., Sim, E.-J., & Wentura, D. (2015). Boundary conditions for the influence of unfamiliar non-target primes in unconscious evaluative priming: The moderating role of attentional task sets. Consciousness and Cognition,. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2015.01.010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klauer, K. C., Draine, S. C., & Greenwald, A. G. (1998a). An unbiased errors-in-variables approach to detecting unconscious cognition. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 51(2), 253–267. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.1998.tb00680.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klauer, K. C., Greenwald, A. G., & Draine, S. C. (1998b). Correcting for measurement error in detecting unconscious cognition: Comment on Draine and Greenwald (1998). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(3), 318–319. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.127.3.318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klauer, K. C., & Musch, J. (2001). Does sunshine prime loyal? Affective priming in the naming task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 54(3), 727–751. doi:10.1080/713755986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 7–49). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klauer, K. C., & Teige-Mocigemba, S. (2007). Controllability and resource dependence in automatic evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(4), 648–655. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klinger, M. R., Burton, P. C., & Pitts, G. S. (2000). Mechanisms of unconscious priming: I. Response competition, not spreading activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(2), 441–455. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.441.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility–A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253–270. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kunde, W., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition. Cognition, 88(2), 223–242. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00023-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kutner, M., Nachtsheim, C., Neter, J., & Li, W. (2005). Applied linear statistical models. Europe: McGraw-Hill Irwing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2001). Automatic appraisal of motivational valence: Motivational affective priming and Simon effects. Cognition and Emotion, 15(6), 749–766. doi:10.1080/02699930143000293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: A theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 297–326. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.297.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moors, A., De Houwer, J., & Eelen, P. (2004). Automatic stimulus-goal comparisons: Support from motivational affective priming studies. Cognition and Emotion, 18(1), 29–54. doi:10.1080/02699930244000462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moors, A., De Houwer, J., Hermans, D., & Eelen, P. (2005). Unintentional processing of motivational valence. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58(6), 1043–1063. doi:10.1080/02724980443000467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moors, A., Spruyt, A., & De Houwer, J. (2010). In search of a measure that qualifies as implicit. In B. Gawronski & B. K. Payne (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 19–37). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naccache, L., & Dehaene, S. (2001). Unconscious semantic priming extends to novel unseen stimuli. Cognition, 80(3), 215–229. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00139-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nosek, B. A., Hawkins, C. B., & Frazier, R. S. (2011). Implicit social cognition: From measures to mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(4), 152–159. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.005.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Parkhurst, D., Law, K., & Niebur, E. (2002). Modeling the role of salience in the allocation of overt visual attention. Vision Research, 42(1), 107–123. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00250-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1998). Does pizza prime coin? Perceptual priming in lexical decision and pronunciation. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(4), 401–418. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, W. M., & Kinoshita, S. (2008). Congruence effect in semantic categorization with masked primes with narrow and broad categories. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 286–306. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 510–532. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.510.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reynvoet, B., Gevers, W., & Caessens, B. (2005). Unconscious primes activate motor codes through semantics. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5), 991–1000. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.991.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2007). Defining task-set reconfiguration: The case of reference point switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 118–125. doi:10.3758/BF03194038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Severens, E., Lommel, S. V., Ratinckx, E., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2005). Timed picture naming norms for 590 pictures in Dutch. Acta Psychologica, 119(2), 159–187. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.01.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158–174. doi:10.1086/209205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spruyt, A. (2014). Attention please: Evaluative priming effects in a valent/non-valent categorisation task (reply to Werner and Rothermund, 2013). Cognition and Emotion, 28(3), 560–569. doi:10.1080/02699931.2013.832653.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spruyt, A., Clarysse, J., Vansteenwegen, D., Baeyens, F., & Hermans, D. (2010). Affect 4.0: A free software package for implementing psychological and psychophysiological experiments. Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift Für Experimentelle Psychologie), 57(1), 36–45. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spruyt, A., De Houwer, J., Everaert, T., & Hermans, D. (2012). Unconscious semantic activation depends on feature-specific attention allocation. Cognition, 122(1), 91–95. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spruyt, A., De Houwer, J., Hermans, D., & Eelen, P. (2007). Affective priming of nonaffective semantic categorization responses. Experimental Psychology (formerly “Zeitschrift Für Experimentelle Psychologie”), 54(1), 44–53. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.54.1.44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spruyt, A., Gast, A., & Moors, A. (2011). The sequential priming paradigm: A primer. In K. C. Klauer, C. Stahl, & A. Voss (Eds.), Cognitive methods in social psychology (pp. 48–77). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spruyt, A., Hermans, D., De Houwer, J., & Eelen, P. (2002). On the nature of the affective priming effect: Affective priming of naming responses. Social Cognition, 20(3), 227–256. doi:10.1521/soco.20.3.227.21106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spruyt, A., Hermans, D., Pandelaere, M., De Houwer, J., & Eelen, P. (2004). On the replicability of the affective priming effect in the pronunciation task. Experimental Psychology (formerly “Zeitschrift Für Experimentelle Psychologie”), 51(2), 109–115. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.51.2.109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spruyt, A., Houwer, J. D., & Hermans, D. (2009). Modulation of automatic semantic priming by feature-specific attention allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(1), 37–54. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spruyt, A., & Tibboel, H. (2015). On the automaticity of the evaluative priming effect in the valent/non-valent categorization task. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0121564. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121564.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. doi:10.1037/h0054651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, M., Hoenig, K., Grön, G., & Kiefer, M. (2013). Brain activation during masked and unmasked semantic priming: commonalities and differences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(12), 2216–2229. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00449.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Opstal, F., Gevers, W., Osman, M., & Verguts, T. (2010). Unconscious task application. Consciousness and Cognition, 19(4), 999–1006. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2010.05.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wentura, D., & Frings, C. (2008). Response-bound primes diminish affective priming in the naming task. Cognition and Emotion, 22(2), 374–384. doi:10.1080/02699930701446064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiers, R. W., Van Woerden, N., Smulders, F. T. Y., & De Jong, P. J. (2002). Implicit and explicit alcohol-related cognitions in heavy and light drinkers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(4), 648–658. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.111.4.648.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Niclas Heider, Adriaan Spruyt & Jan De Houwer

Authors
  1. Niclas Heider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adriaan Spruyt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan De Houwer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niclas Heider.

Ethics declarations

Funding

Preparation of this paper was supported by Methusalem Grant BOF09/01M00209 of Ghent University awarded to Jan De Houwer. The research was conducted while Adriaan Spruyt was a Postdoctoral Fellow of the Flemish Research Foundation (FWO—Vlaanderen).

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All participants gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heider, N., Spruyt, A. & De Houwer, J. On the automaticity of relational stimulus processing. Psychological Research 81, 99–118 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0735-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0735-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation