Automaticity of Everyday Life
Lectures 5 & 6:
Automaticity of Everyday Life
Bargh, J.A., & Chartrand, T.L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of
being. American Psychologist, 54, 462-479.
Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J.A. (2001). The perception-behavior
expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 1-40.
Lakin, J.L., Jefferis, V.E., Cheng, C.M., & Chartrand, T.L. (2003). The
chameleon effect as social glue: Evidence for the evolutionary significance
of nonconscious mimicry. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 145-162.
Lecture 5 – Behavioural Priming
Lecture 6 – Nonconscious Mimicry
Varieties of Automatic Behaviour
Action Priming
Interpersonal Mimicry
Automaticity:
A Framework For Thinking About Mental Life
• the case of the daydreaming driver!
• components of mental life
automatic vs. controlled processes (Bargh, 1989)
• 4 ‘horsemen’ of automaticity
awareness
intention
efficiency
control
The Ecology of Automaticity
• So what exactly is an automatic process?
• Are we aware of the causes of behavior?
Awareness
3 ways in which we may be unaware of a mental process
Awareness
• we may be unaware of the presence of a stimulus (e.g., subliminal
priming).
• we may be unaware of the way in which a stimulus has been
interpreted or categorized.
• we may be unaware of factors (e.g., stimulus appraisal) that influence
our behaviour.
So what role does awareness play in the elicitation of behaviour?
Intentionality:
• the intentionality aspect of automaticity refers to how much control we
have over our thoughts and behaviour. Intentionality has to do with
whether we are in control of the instigation of a process.
So do intentions give rise to our everyday actions and behaviours? Might
our behavior be purposive, yet unintended?
Efficiency:
• the efficiency component of automaticity refers to the extent to which
a mental process demands attentional resources for its execution. To
the extent that it does, it may not occur when the attentional demands
of a situation are high (e.g., dual tasking)
So is everyday behaviour efficient or can it be disrupted by concurrent
tasks?
Controllability:
• controllability generally refers to the extent to which one is aware of
the impact of a stimulus and whether one is able to counteract (i.e.,
control) the effect of the stimulus on one’s behaviour.
So is everyday action controllable?
The Lights Are On:
But is There Anybody Home?
“much of everyday life - thinking, feeling, and doing - is automatic in that it
is driven by current features of the environment (i.e., people, objects,
behaviors of others, settings, roles, norms, etc.) as mediated by automatic
cognitive processing of those features, without any mediation by conscious
choice or reflection.”
Bargh (1997, p. 2)
If-Then Conditionals
• the power of if-then conditionals (Anderson, 1992; Bargh, 1989)
• if X (i.e., environmental feature), then Y (i.e., action)
red light - then - brake
elderly person - then - ?
The Perception-Behaviour Link
• principle of ideomotor action (James, 1890)
thinking (consciously) about an action activates the tendency to engage
in the behaviour (e.g., getting out of bed).
Common Coding Hypothesis
• representing action tendencies in the mind
• common coding hypothesis (Prinz, 1990)
one’s mental representations (e.g., vanilla ice cream) contain not only
related semantic information (e.g., cold, tasty), but also applicable
behavioral information (e.g., eat with fudge sauce). Thus, when the
representation is activated, accessible action tendencies guide one’s
behaviour in particular directions.
So can behavior be elicited automatically?
Automatic Action:
Some Early Evidence
Do aggressive cues make people aggressive?
Carver et al. (1983)
• ‘shocking’ the confederate
in a first study, allegedly unrelated to the critical
experiment, the concept of hostility was primed for some
participants. Then, in what was purportedly an unrelated
experiment, participants were told to give shocks to another
person (confederate) when he or she gave an incorrect
answer to a question. Those primed with hostility-related
words gave longer shocks to the confederate than did nonprimed participants
• ouch! but do these effects emerge in other domains?
Automatic Action:
(Bargh et al., 1996)
• Expt 1 - Priming Trait Constructs
Phase 1: scrambled sentence task - prime ‘rudeness’ or ‘politeness’ or
neither construct.
assertive
rude
disturb
patient
polite
respectful
Phase 2: walk down the hall to take part in an
unrelated experiment, but the experimenter is
talking to someone (for a maximum of 10 mins)
How many participants interrupt the conversation?
Rude prime
Polite prime
=
=
67%
16%
Priming the Elderly
• Expt 2 - Priming Stereotypes
Phase 1 - scrambled sentence task
forgetfulawkward
Florida
California
bingo
tricky
(category)
(control)
• Phase 2 - walking down the hall (40 feet)
time taken to make the journey
elderly condition = 8.26s
control condition = 7.30s
Thus, elicitation of action associated with the elderly. But there’s
more!!!
Invisible Faces
• Expt 3 - Priming Affective Responses
color-counting task (pre-tested as boring)
subliminal priming - black or white faces
masking stimulus (odd/even number of circles)
130th trial - error message appears on the screen
the task must be repeated
participants are videotaped
How did participants respond to being told that the task
must be repeated?
rated hostility (5-point scale)
white faces = 2.13
black faces = 2.79
Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?
Dijksterhuis & Van Knippenberg (1998)
The Professor and the Secretary
• Priming Stereotypes (Expt 1)
Phase 1: thought listing (5 mins)
professor
secretary
control
Phase 2: 42 Trivial Pursuit Questions
Who painted La Guernica?
(A) Dali, (B) Miro, (C) Picasso, or (D) Velasquez
Task Performance
professor
secretary
control
=
=
=
59.5%
46.4%
49.9%
How Stupid Can You Be?
• Strength of Priming
Phase 1 - Thought Listing
soccer hooligan (2 or 9 mins)
control (no prime)
Which country hosted the 1990 World Cup?
(A) USA, (B) Mexico, (C) Spain, or (D) Italy
Task Performance
soccer hooligan (2 mins) =
soccer hooligan (9 mins) =
control (no prime)
=
48.6%
43.1%
49.9%
Thus, strength of the effect is moderated by the nature of the priming
experience.
Silence in the Library:
Aarts & Dijksterhuis (2003)
• Priming Silence (Expt 1)
Phase 1: picture description task
library (you will visit) – ‘library goal’ prime
railway platform (you will visit) – ‘control goal’ prime
library (you will not visit) – ‘no-goal library’ prime
Phase 2: Lexical Decision Task (accessibility of words related to silence)
library-goal prime = 524 ms
control-goal prime = 578 ms
no-goal library prime = 568 ms
• Producing Silence (Expt 2)
Phase 1: picture description task
library (you will visit) – ‘library goal’ prime
railway platform (you will visit) – ‘control goal’ prime
library (you will not visit) – ‘no-goal library’ prime
Phase 2: Pronounce 10 words (record voice intensity dB(A))
library-goal prime = 83.16 dB
control-goal prime = 84.48 dB
no-goal library prime = 84.62 dB
Automatic Action:
Some Boundary Conditions
Automatic Action and Inaction
• lets ‘prime’ kissing (who do you kiss?)
• architecture of cognition
resolving conflict (Norman & Shallice, 1986)
regulating automatic action
leaving the movies
kissing the boss
inhibition
A Few Words From William James
“we have so many ideas that do not result in action. But it will be seen that in
every such case, without exception, that is because other ideas present
simultaneously rob them of their impulsive power.”
James (1890, p. 525)
Help, I Need Somebody:
Macrae and Johnston (1998)
• Phase 1 - Scrambled Sentence Task
helpfulness
no-prime
• Phase 2 - The Clumsy Experimenter
regular pens
leaking pens
• did participants offer assistance?
Prime
regular pens
Helping
93.7%
Control
68.7%
leaking pens
6.2%
12.5%
Expt 2:
On Resisting Assisting
• Phase 1 - Scrambled Sentence Task
helpfulness
no-prime
• Phase 2 - Moving To The Next Experiment
running on schedule
5 mins behind schedule
• did participants offer assistance (regular pens)?
Prime
on time
Helping
100%
Control
75%
running late
12.5%
12.5%
Summary
Things Worth Knowing
1.
2.
What is automaticity?
Process and consequences of behavioral priming.
Next Week
1. Interpersonal Mimicry