Memory & Cognition

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 369–379 | Cite as

Negative priming and stimulus familiarity: What causes opposite results?

Article

Abstract

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. DeSchepper, B., &Treisman, A. (1996). Visual memory for novel shapes: Implicit coding without attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fox, E. (1995). Negative priming from ignored distractors in visual selection: A review.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 145–173.Google Scholar
  4. Frith, U. (1974). A curious effect with reversed letters explained by a theory of schema.Perception & Psychophysics,16, 113–116.Google Scholar
  5. Grison, S., &Strayer, D. L. (2001). Negative priming and perceptual fluency: More than what meets the eye.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 1063–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Houghton, G., Tipper, S. P., Weaver, B., &Shore, D. I. (1996). Inhibition and interference in selective attention: Some tests of a neural network model.Visual Cognition,3, 119–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnston, W. A., Hawley, K. J., Plewe, S. H., Elliott, J. M. G., &DeWitt, M. J. (1990). Attention capture by novel stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,119, 397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Kane, M. J., May, C. P., Hasher, L., Rahhal, T., &Stoltzfus, E. R. (1997). Dual mechanisms of negative priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,23, 632–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Loula, F., Kourtzi, Z., &Shiffrar, M. (2000). Surface segmentation cues influence negative priming for novel and familiar shapes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 929–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Malley, G. B., &Strayer, D. L. (1995). Effect of stimulus repetition on positive and negative identity priming.Perception & Psychophysics,57, 657–667.Google Scholar
  14. May, C. P., Kane, M. J., &Hasher, L. (1995). Determinants of negative priming.Psychological Bulletin,118, 35–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Milliken, B., Joordens, S., Merikle, P. M., &Seiffert, A. E. (1998). Selective attention: A reevaluation of the implications of negative priming.Psychological Review,105, 203–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Milliken, B., Tipper, S. P., &Weaver, B. (1994). Negative priming in a spatial localization task: Feature mismatching and distractor inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 624–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neill, W. T. (1977). Inhibitory and facilitatory processes in selective attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 444–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Neill, W. T., &Valdes, L. A. (1992). Persistence of negative priming: Steady state or decay?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 565–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neill, W. T., &Valdes, L. A. (1996). Facilitatory and inhibitory aspects of attention. In A. F. Kramer, M. G. H. Coles, & G. D. Logan (Eds.),Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention (pp. 77–106). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Neill, W. T., Valdes, L. A., &Terry, K. M. (1995). Selective attention and the inhibitory control of cognition. In F. N. Dempster & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.),Interference and inhibition in cognition (pp. 207–261). San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Neill, W. T., Valdes, L. A., Terry, K. M., &Gorfein, D. S. (1992). Persistence of negative priming: II. Evidence for episodic trace retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 993–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Reicher, G. M., Snyder, C. R. R., &Richards, J. T. (1976). Familiarity of background characters in visual scanning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,2, 522–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Strayer, D. L., &Grison, S. (1999). Negative identity priming is contingent on stimulus repetition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 24–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tipper, S. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,37A, 571–590.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Tipper, S. P. (2001). Does negative priming reflect inhibitory mechanisms? A review and integration of conflicting views.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,54A, 321–343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Wang, Q., Cavanagh, P., &Green, M. (1994). Familiarity and pop-out in visual search.Perception & Psychophysics,56, 495–500.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cognitive and Behavioral Science, Graduate School of Arts and SciencesUniversity of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations