Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 463–468 | Cite as

Masked prime stimuli can bias “free” choices between response alternatives

Brief Reports

Abstract

Stimuli presented below the threshold of awareness can systematically influence choice responses determined by the instructed stimulus-response (S-R) mapping (task set). In this study, we investigated whether such stimuli will also bias a free choice between two response alternatives under conditions in which this choice subjectively appears to be internally generated and free. Participants had to respond to targets preceded by masked arrow primes. Left-pointing and right-pointing arrow targets required left or right responses, whereas randomly interspersed “free-choice” targets indicated that the participants were free to choose either response. Although masked primes could not be consciously discriminated, they systematically affected not only performance to arrow targets, but also the free choice between response alternatives. This demonstrates that apparently “free” choices are not immune to nonconsciously triggered biases. However, in blocks in which no specific S-R mapping was imposed, masked primes did not affect free-choice performance, indicating that these effects are not automatic but are determined by currently active task sets.

References

  1. Aron, A. R., Schlaghecken, F., Fletcher, P. C., Bullmore, E. T., Eimer, M., Barker, R., Sahakian, B. J., &Robbins, T. W. (2003). Inhibition of subliminally primed responses is mediated by the caudate and thalamus: Evidence from functional MRI and Huntington’s disease.Brain,126, 713–723.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cheesman, J., &Merikle, P. M. (1986). Distinguishing conscious from unconscious perceptual processes.Canadian Journal of Psychology,40, 343–367.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Le Clec’H, G., Koechlin, E., Mueller, M., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., van de Moortele, P.-F., &Le Bihan, D. (1998). Imaging unconscious semantic priming.Nature,395, 597–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eimer, M. (1999). Facilitatory and inhibitory effects of masked prime stimuli on motor activation and behavioral performance.Acta Psychologica,101, 293–313.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eimer, M., &Schlaghecken, F. (1998). Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 1737–1747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eimer, M., &Schlaghecken, F. (2002). Links between conscious awareness and response inhibition: Evidence from masked priming.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 514–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eimer, M., Schubö, A., &Schlaghecken, F. (2002). Locus of inhibition in the masked priming of response alternatives.Journal of Motor Behaviour,34, 3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gescheider, G. A. (1997).Psychophysics: The fundamentals (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Kihlstrom, J. F. (1999). The psychological unconscious. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 424–442). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  10. Klapp, S. T., &Hinkley, L. B. (2002). The negative compatibility effect: Unconscious inhibition influences reaction time and response selection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,131, 255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leuthold, H., &Kopp, B. (1998). Mechanisms of priming by masked stimuli: Inferences from event-related brain potentials.Psychological Science,9, 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mandler, G., Nakamura, Y., &Van Zandt, B. J. S. (1987). Nonspecific effects of exposure on stimuli that cannot be recognized.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 646–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marcel, A. J. (1983). Conscious and unconscious perception: Experiments on visual masking and word recognition.Cognitive Psychology,15, 197–237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Neumann, O., &Klotz, W. (1994). Motor responses to nonreportable, masked stimuli: Where is the limit of direct parameter specification? In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.),Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 123–150). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  15. Schlaghecken, F., &Eimer, M. (1997). The influence of subliminally presented primes on response preparation.Sprache & Kognition,16, 166–175.Google Scholar
  16. Schlaghecken, F., &Eimer, M. (2000). A central-peripheral asymmetry in masked priming.Perception & Psychophysics,62, 1367–1382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schlaghecken, F., &Eimer, M. (2001). Partial response activation to masked primes is not dependent on response readiness.Perceptual & Motor Skills,92, 208–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schlaghecken, F., &Eimer M. (2002). Motor activation with and without inhibition: Evidence for a threshold mechanism in motor control.Perception & Psychophysics,64, 148–162. September 28, 2001 May 13, 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WarwickCoventryEngland
  2. 2.Birkbeck CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations