Negative priming and stimulus familiarity: What causes opposite results?
There has been a discrepancy among past studies with regard to the relation between negative priming and familiarity of stimuli. That is, Malley and Strayer (1995; Strayer & Grison, 1999) reported that the more familiar the stimuli were, the larger negative priming became (i.e., a positive correlation), whereas DeSchepper and Treisman (1996; Treisman & DeSchepper, 1996) reported that the less familiar the stimuli were, the larger negative priming became (i.e., a negative correlation). These studies differ not only in their experimental tasks (identification vs. matching) but also in their respective manners of arranging unfamiliar stimuli (pure vs. mixed). In the present study, using an identical set of stimuli, we examined whether these factors caused the opposite results. An identification task with a pure arrangement produced a positive correlation, and a matching task with a mixed arrangement produced a negative correlation. These results suggest that the past opposing results are both replicable and that they have reflected the different causal mechanisms of negative priming.
- Dalrymple-Alford, E. C., &Budayr, B. (1966). Examination of some aspects of the Stroop color-word test.Perceptual & Motor Skills,23, 1211–1214.Google Scholar
- Fox, E. (1995). Negative priming from ignored distractors in visual selection: A review.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 145–173.Google Scholar
- Frith, U. (1974). A curious effect with reversed letters explained by a theory of schema.Perception & Psychophysics,16, 113–116.Google Scholar
- Houghton, G., &Tipper, S. P. (1994). A model of inhibitory mechanisms in selective attention. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.),Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 53–112). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Johnston, W. A., Schwarting, I. S., &Hawley, K. J. (1996). Novel pop-out, perceptual inhibition, and the stability-plasticity dilemma. In A. F. Kramer, M. G. H. Coles, & G. D. Logan (Eds.),Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention (pp. 315–335). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- MacDonald, P. A., Joordens, S., &Seergobin, K. N. (1999). Negative priming effects that are bigger than a breadbox: Attention to distractors does not eliminate negative priming, it enhances it.Memory & Cognition,27, 197–207.Google Scholar
- Malley, G. B., &Strayer, D. L. (1995). Effect of stimulus repetition on positive and negative identity priming.Perception & Psychophysics,57, 657–667.Google Scholar
- Neill, W. T., Lissner, L. S., &Beck, J. L. (1990). Negative priming insame-different matching: Further evidence for a central locus of inhibition.Perception & Psychophysics,48, 398–400.Google Scholar
- Neumann, E., &DeSchepper, B. G. (1992). An inhibition-based fan effect: Evidence for an active suppression mechanism in selective attention.Canadian Journal of Psychology,46, 1–40.Google Scholar
- Richards, J. T., &Reicher, G. M. (1978). The effect of background familiarity in visual search: An analysis of underlying factors.Perception & Psychophysics,23, 499–505.Google Scholar
- Tipper, S. P., Weaver, B., &Houghton, G. (1994). Behavioural goals determine inhibitory mechanisms of selective attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 809–840.Google Scholar
- Treisman, A., &DeSchepper, B. (1996). Object tokens, attention, and visual memory. In T. Inui & J. L. McClelland (Eds.),Attention and performance XVI: Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 15–46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Wang, Q., Cavanagh, P., &Green, M. (1994). Familiarity and pop-out in visual search.Perception & Psychophysics,56, 495–500.Google Scholar