Biomedical subjects

A G Greenwald

Publications and source records attributed to A G Greenwald.

17 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1992

New look 3. Unconscious cognition reclaimed.

Recent research has established several empirical results that are widely agreed to merit description in terms of unconscious cognition. These findings come from experiments that use indirect tests for immediate or long-term residues of barely perceptible-but-unattended, or attended-but-forgotten events. Importantly, these well-established phenomena--insofar as they occur without initially involving focal attention--are limited to relatively minor cognitive feats. Unconscious cognition is now solidly established in empirical research, but it appears to be intellectually much simpler than the sophisticated agency portrayed in psychoanalytic theory. The strengthened position of unconscious cognitive phenomena can be related to their fit with the developing neural network (connectionist) theoretical framework in psychology.

Attention↗

PubMed1990

Visual masking and unconscious processing: differences between backward and simultaneous masking?

Visual masking procedures are considered to have great potential for studying information processing that occurs outside of consciousness. Unfortunately, effects that indicate processing of masked word stimuli have been both difficult to obtain and, once obtained, difficult to replicate. The present seven experiments failed to obtain an effect of lexicality (word vs. nonword targets) on detection that was recently reported by Doyle and Leach (1988). Whereas Doyle and Leach had used backward binocular masking, most of the present experiments used simultaneous dichoptic masking. Doyle (1990) recently suggested that the effect of lexicality on detection (coupled with an effect of knowledge of results, which was also not obtained in the present research) could explain why Greenwald, Klinger, and Liu (1989) found no evidence for detectability of masked words that were nevertheless analyzed semantically. The differences of the present findings from those of Doyle and Leach (1988) not only confirm the uncertainty of generalizing across masking procedures, but also indicate that Greenwald et al.'s "detectionless processing" interpretation remains viable.

Adult↗

PubMed1989

Unconscious processing of dichoptically masked words.

In three experiments, the subjects' task was to decide whether each of a series of words connoted something good (e.g., fame, comedy, rescue) or bad (stress, detest, malaria). One-half second before the presentation of each such target word, an evaluatively polarized priming word was presented briefly to the nondominant eye and was masked dichoptically by either the rapidly following (Experiment 1) or simultaneous (Experiments 2 and 3) presentation of a random letter-fragment pattern to the dominant eye. (The effectiveness of the masking procedure was demonstrated by the subjects' inability to discriminate the left vs. right position of a test series of words.) In all experiments, significant masked priming effects were obtained; evaluative decisions to congruent masked prime-target combinations (such as a positive masked prime followed by a positive target) were significantly faster than those to incongruent (e.g., negative prime/positive target) or noncongruent (e.g., neutral prime/positive target) combinations. Also, in two of the three experiments, when subjects were at chance accuracy in discriminating word position, their position judgments were nevertheless significantly influenced by the irrelevant semantic content (LEFT vs. RIGHT) of the masked position-varying words. The series of experiments demonstrated that two very different tasks--speeded judgment of evaluative meaning and nonspeeded judgment of word position--yielded statistically significant and replicable influences of the semantic content of apparently undetectable words. Coupled with previous research by others using the lexical decision task, these findings converge in establishing the reliability of the empirical phenomenon of semantic processing of words that are rendered undetectable by dichoptic pattern masking.

Adult↗

PubMed1989

The generation effect extended: memory enhancement for generation cues.

The generation effect is the greater memorability of a response that is actively produced (e.g., in answering a question from memory) than one that is more passively produced (as in reading the answer). The present three experiments addressed a question that is critical to the theoretical interpretation of the generation effect: Is memory enhanced for the cues that are used to elicit generated responses? Using incidental learning procedures, Experiments 1 and 2 gave an affirmative answer (although the effect was substantially weaker than the generation effect for responses). Enhancement of memory for generation cues was observed both in a within-subject/within-list design (reading and generation items within the same trial blocks; Experiment 1) and in a between-subjects design (reading and generation tasks for different groups of subjects; Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, memory enhancement for generation cues was used to produce a previously unobtained result--a generation effect for nonsense responses under incidental learning conditions. These findings provide critical evidence required by theories that interpret the generation effect in terms of enhanced processing of the cue-response item.

Cues↗

PubMed1988

In search of reliable persuasion effects: III. The sleeper effect is dead. Long live the sleeper effect.

The sleeper effect in persuasion is a delayed increase in the impact of a message that is accompanied by a discounting cue. Despite a long history, the sleeper effect has been notoriously difficult to obtain or to replicate, with the exception of a pair of studies by Gruder et al. (1978). We conducted a series of 16 computer-controlled experiments and a replication of the Gruder et al. study to demonstrate that a sleeper effect can be obtained reliably when subjects (a) note the important arguments in a message, (b) receive a discounting cue after the message, and (c) rate the trustworthiness of the message communicator immediately after receiving the discounting cue. These operations are sufficiently different from those used in earlier studies to justify a new differential decay interpretation of the sleeper effect, in place of the dissociation hypothesis favored by most previous sleeper effect researchers. According to the differential decay interpretation, a sleeper effect occurs when message and discounting cue have opposite and near-equal immediate impacts that are not well-integrated in memory. The effect occurs, then, if the impact of the discounting cue decays faster than that of the message.

Adult↗

PubMed1988

Attention, rehearsal, and memory for serial order.

In three experiments, subjects attended to one of two simultaneous nine-digit sequences, presented binaurally in different voices (one male, one female). Substantial repetition effects (defined as gains in immediate memory performance for previously presented sequences relative to novel ones) were found for two exposure conditions: (a) one that required reproduction of the full sequence on each exposure (Experiment 1), and (b) one that required recall of a different two-digit subsequence on each exposure (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, the following conditions produced no repetition effects, even though tests had substantial power to detect small effects: 10 consecutive presentations in the unattended voice; 4 prior presentations in a task that required attention to each digit as it was presented (but not to digit order); and 4 prior presentations in a task that required attention to digit order during their presentations. These results, together with those of previous studies, support the conclusion that repetition effects on immediate memory occur only with procedures that encourage covert rehearsal of full-sequence order on each exposure. These findings also limit the generality of others' conclusions that event order is automatically encoded for attended events, and extend previous findings showing unattended exposures to be without effect on recall measures.

Attention↗

PubMed1986