Elderly Priming Effects on Reaction Time, Grip Strength, and …shelf1.library.cmu.edu/HSS/2015/a1626123.pdf · 2015. 7. 16. · Zach Anderson Advisors: Dr. David Creswell, Dr. Roberta

1

ElderlyPrimingEffectsonReactionTime,GripStrength,andDrivingProficiencyCarnegieMellonUniversity

ZachAndersonAdvisors:Dr.DavidCreswell,Dr.RobertaKlatzky

2

Abstract

Elderlyprimingisatopicwithinpsychologycurrentlyunderintensescrutiny.Generallydefined,elderlyprimingistheideathatprimingstimulirelatingtotheelderlystereotypemakeonemorelikelytosubsequentlybehaveinwaysconsistentwiththisstereotype(e.g.,walkingslower).Thecurrentpaperteststhisphenomenonwiththepredictionthatelderlystereotypeprimingwillreducephysicalgripstrength,reactiontimes,anddrivingperformanceonasimulatortask.Inthisstudy,primingstimuliwerepresentedsupraliminallywithold/youngfaces.Amarginallysignificantincreaseinpeakgripstrengthandoverallgripstrengthfollowingourelderlyprimingmanipulationwasobserved,comparedtoyoungormixedfacescontrolconditions.Additionally,participantsexhibitedsignificantlyslowerresponsetimetopicturesofelderlyfacesinthefacialrecognitiontaskthanintheyoungormixedcondition.Ourhandgripresultssuggestthepresenceofanelderlyprimingeffect,however,nottheonewehadoriginallyhypothesized.Iproposeamodel,whichcombinesourphysicalresourcesmechanism(Klatzky&Creswell,2014)withamotivationprimingeffect.Thismotivationprimearises,asaresultofaparticipant’sawarenessofourdependentmeasure.Therefore,aselderlyprimingalterstheperceptionofparticipants,causinghimorhertofeelrelativelyweak,eachparticipantsqueezesthehandgripapparatusmorefirmlytocompensatefortheperceivedlossofgripstrength.

3

IntroductionSocialprimingisanareaofpsychologywhosereliabilityandimpactisunder

intensescrutiny(Abbott2013,Yong2012).Primingeffectshavebeendemonstratedonseveraloccasionsandhavebeenshowntoaffectmanydifferentbehaviors.OneparticularlyfamousexampleofthisisseeninBargh,Chen,Burrows(1996),whereexperimenterspresentedparticipantswithawordscramblingtaskembeddedwithelderlyprimingwords(i.e.Florida,old,grey)andshowedasignificantdecreaseinwalkingspeed.However,alongwiththesefindingscomeaseriesofnon‐replicationswhichhavecalledthisareaofpsychologyintoquestion(e.g.Doyen,Klein,Pichon,&Cleerermans,2012;Pashler,Coburn,&Harris,2012;Shanksetal.,2013).

Inthisstudy,wetestatheoretically‐basedapproachtounderstandingsocialprimingphenomena(Klatzky&Creswell,2014).Thisapproachinvolvestheincorporationofenvironmentalstimuliintoacognitiveweightedbidscalculator.Participants,whenpresentedwithstereotypicstimuli,experienceacognitivespreadingeffecttoothersymbolicnodesofcognition,whichareinsomewayconnectedtotheconceptbeingprimed.Thisgoesontoaffectaparticipant’senergystateattribution,whichthenmanifestsinthechangesinbehaviorormindsetobservedinpreviousstudies.Inthisstudy,wetestwhetheronetypeofpriming,elderlypriming,affectshandgripstrength,reactiontime,anddrivingproficiency. Primingwasoriginallystudiedastheactivationofnodalstructuresofassociatedideasorconceptswheretheactivationofonenodespreadtoallthosenodesconnectedtoit(e.g.,Dehaeneetal.,2001;Meyer&Schvaneveldt,1971;

4

Schacter&Buckner,1998).Thisearlymodelofpriminghasbeenrecentlyextendedtoincludeavarietyofdifferentsocialphenomena.Thesephenomenainvolvebothconsciousandnon‐consciouscomponentsandcanbeaffectedbystimuliwithinandwithoutourconsciousattention(Bargh,1994).Oneexampleofthisnewresearchfocusesonthejudgmentoffacesandhowfeaturesofafaceleadtoautomaticdeterminationsofhowtrustworthythefaceis(e.g.Todorovetal,2009;Willis,Todorov,2006).Anotherstudyshowsthatholdinghotdrinksmakesparticipantsmorelikelytoactinsociallywarmways(Williams&Bargh,2008)whileathirdshowstheeffectlemonscentedroomscanhaveonparticipantswhosecharitableactivitiesincreaseswhentheroomtheywaitinfeelscleaner(Liljenquist,Zhong,&Galinsky,2010).Thispreviousworkprovidesafoundationforprimingeffectsacrossavarietyofdifferentstimuliandprimingmanipulations.

Aarts,Custers,&Marien(2008)proposeaseparateparadigmforprimingeffects.Participantsintheirstudyaresubliminallypresentedwithexertionprimes(e.g.,exert,vigorous).Aftercompletingareactiontimetask,embeddedwithexertionprimingwords,participantsweretestedonthestrengthanddurationoftheirgrip.Resultsfromthisstudyrevealasignificantincreaseingripstrengthanddurationfollowingthepresentationofexertionprimingwords.Inadditiontothisclassicprimingmanipulation,experimentersinthisstudyaddoneextraconditioninvolvingthecouplingofpositivelyvalencedwordswiththeirprimingmanipulation.Thepurposeofthisadditionwastoaddanaspectofrewardanddemonstratehowchangesinmotivationworkintandemwithprimingeffects.

5

Resultsfromthisseparateconditionrevealsignificantlyincreasedgripstrengthanddurationwhencomparedtotheprime‐onlyconditionandthecontrolcondition.

Variousotherexamplesshowhowprimingeffectscanbeachievedusingsubliminal(Greenwaldetal,1998)orsupraliminalstimuli(Barghetal,1992;Fazioetal,1986).Furtheritissuggestedthattheseprimingeffectswillbereasonablyconsistentsolongasaparticipantremainunawareofexactlywhatconstructisbeingprimed(Bargh,1994).Thisseriesofworkestablishesawidevarietyofdifferentprimingparadigmsanddemonstratestheapplicabilityandflexibilityofprimingeffects. Perhapsthemostwell‐knownsocialprimingstudiesfocusontheelderly.Specifically,ithasbeenshownthatscrambledsentencescontainingelderlystereotypicwords(elderlypriming)makesparticipantswalkslower(Bargh,Chen,Burrows,1996).Forexample,intwoinitialstudies,detailedinBarghetal(1996),usedawordscramblingtasktoprimeparticipantswithtwoseparatestereotypes.Themostwellknowninvolvedtheimbeddingofelderlyprimes(i.e.Florida,old,grey)intorandomlyorganizedstringsofwords.Participantswereinstructedtoconstructcoherentsentencesinwhat,theyweretold,wasalanguagerelatedtest.Aftercompletingthistask,participantsweretoldthestudywasoverandtheywereallowedtoleave.Withouttheparticipant’sknowledgetheywerethentimedastheywalkedoutofthedoortothestudytoapredefinedendpoint.Thisprocessmadeupthisstudy’sprimarydependentmeasure,thewalkingspeedofparticipants.Resultsindicatethattheimbeddedelderlyprimeshadasignificantimpactonreducingwalkingspeedinparticipants.

6

Asecondstudy(Bargh,Chen&Burrows,1996)observedtheeffectofwordsprimingrudenessandpolitenessonthelikelihoodthataparticipantwillinterruptascriptedconversationbetweentheexperimenterandatrainedconfederate.Experimentersusedthesamewordscramblingtestfromthepreviousexperimenttopresenttheirprimingwords.Resultsrevealedasteplikeprogressionwiththoseprimedwithpolitenessbeingsignificantlylesslikelytointerrupttheconversationthanwerethecontrolgroupwhoweresignificantlylesslikelytointerruptthanwerethoseprimedwithrudewords.

Yet,morerecenteffortstoreplicatethesefindingshavemetwithmixedresults.Onestudy(Doyen, Klein, Pichon, & Cleerermans, 2012)soughttoexactlyreplicatethemethodsfromBargh,Chen,&Burrows(1996)inanelderlyprimingstudy.Insteadofaconfederate,alasertimingsystemwasusedtomeasurewalkingspeedasparticipantsleftthestudyroom.Resultsfromthisstudyrevealednosignificantresultsand,followingits’publication,theconceptofelderlyprimingandallpreviousworkinsocialprimingcameunderintensescrutiny(Bartlett,2013).Thecontroversysurroundingelderlyprimingissummedupinaseriesofnonreplications(e.g.Doyen, Klein, Pichon, & Cleerermans, 2012; Pashler, Coburn, & Harris, 2012; Shanks et al., 2013). This group of researchers, among others,

challenged the concept of elderly priming and suggested Bargh’s results were due

to poor experimental methods. However, if this is the case, why then do we see

various successful replications using the same types of primes (Chambon, 2009;

Cesario et al, 2006)?

7

In answer to this question, we posit an intersensory interaction theoretical

account to help explain when social priming effects are likely to occur.

Specifically, Klatzky & Creswell (2014) describes this intersensory interaction as

being an integration of a variety of “weighted bids” which is similar to the process

of estimating the weight of a cup sitting on a table. When a participant is asked to

judge this weight, several different sensory tools are at their disposal. First, they

might receive visual input and might realize that a bottle made of plastic might

weigh less than one made of metal. Next they might squeeze or pick up the cup to

gain an appreciation for the cup’s density and other dimensions. Each of these

different types of information receive a different “bid” and some “bids” carry

more weight than others. All of this information, along with their weights, are

then integrated and eventually calculate the estimation of that objects weight

which a participant may then report.

Elderly priming might work in a very similar way. The distinction between

elderly priming and the cup example is seen in the “weighing” process inherent in

this model. In elderly priming “weight” is attributed not to a series of sensory

information, as in the cup example, but to patterns of activation of associated

memories and heuristics which color each person’s unique view of the elderly

stereotype. This activation is thought to originate through the presentation of a

related environmental stimulus, such as an elderly stereotypic word in a sentence

unscrambling priming task.

8

We test this model in an elderly priming study.Thecurrentstudyemploysasupraliminalpresentationformat.Weusepicturesofelderlyfacestoactivatetheelderlystereotypeinataskwhichrequiresparticipantstodeterminethegenderofeachface.Dependentmeasuresforthisstudyinvolvehandgripstrength,responsetimetoeachgenderdetermination,andadrivingsimulation.Gripstrengthwasmeasuredinthreeways.Theseincludethepeakstrengthoftheparticipantsgrip,theoverallforcemeasuredwiththeintervalofthegripstrengthfunction,andafinalmeasureofaparticipantsabilitytoreachtheirinitialpeakgripstrength,measuredastheslopefromthebeginningofthesqueezetothefirstrecordedpeak.BuildingontheworkofBarghandcolleagueswepredictedtheparticipantsintheelderlyprimedconditionwouldactinwaysthatareconsistentwiththisstereotype(i.e.,slowertoreact,weakerhandgripstrength,andpoorerdrivingperformance).Specifically,Ihypothesizethattheelderlyprimingconditionwillexhibitweakerandlessresponsivegripthanthemixedandyoungconditions.Ihypothesizethatthe

Figure1:Energystatebidsareactivatedbyelderlyprimingwords.Thisactivationgoesontoaffectourenergystateattribution,manifestinginouralteredexertionlevel.

9

elderlyprimeconditionwillexhibitdecreaseddrivingproficiencywhencomparedtotheyoungandmixedconditions.Ihypothesizethatreactiontimewillbesignificantlyslowerinparticipantswhohavebeenprimedwiththeelderlystereotypewhencomparedtotheyoungandmixedcondition.

Method

ParticipantsandDesign

Thedesignofthecurrentexperimentwasawithinsubjectsone‐waydesignwiththreelevelsofourindependentvariable.Irecruited34participants,17malesand17females,fromtheCarnegieMellonUniversitycampus.Participantswerecompensatedwithoneresearchcredittowardintroductiontopsychologylevelcourseswitharesearchrequirement.Participantswererunthroughaonehourexperimentwhichwaspresentedasaseriesofunrelatedtasksthatthelabwasinterestedinusinginfuturestudies.Thesamplewas44.1%AsianAmerican,23.5%Caucasian,2.9%AfricanAmerican,5.9%Latino/Hispanic,and20.6%Other.Procedure

Uponentryintothestudyroom,participantscompleteinformedconsentandthenbeginaseriesoftaskswhicharebrokenupintothreeidenticalblocks,eachcorrespondingwiththeelderlyprimecondition,theyoungprimecondition,orthemixedcontrolcondition.Everyparticipantcompletedeachofthesethreeblocksandtheorder,whichtheywerepresentedwascounterbalancedacrossstudyparticipants.Bothexperimenterandsubjectwereblindtotheorderofconditions.

Eachblockconsistedofthreesubparts.Firstparticipantscompletedareactiontimetaskwheretheyidentifythegenderofpicturesdepictingdifferent

10

faces.Theycompletedthistaskonacomputerbypressing“1”ifthepicturedisplayedafemalefaceand“2”ifthepicturewasofamaleface.Eachconditionconsistedoffiftytotaltrialsandpulledpicturesfromthreeseparatesetsofpictures.Ourprimarymanipulationwastheageofthepictureswhichvarieddependingonwhichsetofpictureswasselected.Inoneconditionparticipantswereshownonlyelderlyfaces(Ages49andup).Inasecondcondition,participantswereshownonlyyoungfaces(Ages22andbelow).Inathirdconditionparticipantswerepresentedwitharandommixofbothagegroups.Therewerenorepeatedfacesinthisfinalconditionandeveryconditionwasmatchedforthenumberoffaces.Pictureswererandomlyselectedfromeachlistleadingtoequalrepetitionoffacesineachcondition.Thespeedwithwhicheachparticipantrespondedtoeachpictureaswellastheoverallnumberofcorrectresponseswererecorded.

PicturesforthistaskwerepulledfromtheneutralfacestimulidatabasefromtheParkAgingMindLaboratory(Minear&Park,2004).Thefortytotalpicturesselectedforthistaskwerechosenbasedupon,first,thepreviouslymentionedagerequirements,thenthegenderandethnicityofthepersondisplayedinthepicture.HalfofthefacespresentinthecurrentstudyarefemalefacesandtwentypercentofthefacespresentedareAfricanAmerican,theremainderbeingcomposedofCaucasianfaces.Picturesarematchedacrossconditionbasedongenderandethnicity.Eachconditionismatchedforthetwelvenewfacespresentedineachofthethreeconditionsofthestudy.

Followingthecompletionofone50‐trialsequence,participantsperformedagriptest,usingahanddynamometerwhichfitintotheirhandmuchlikethehandle

11

ofatennisracket.Eachgriptestconsistedofa2000ms“Ready”screenfollowedbya3000ms“Squeeze“screenandfinallya1000ms“Stop”screen.Aperiodofcalibrationtookplaceatthebeginningofthestudywheretheexperimenterinstructedparticipantstosqueezethedynamometerwithsimilartotheforcetheymightexertduringahandshake.Ifforcewasnotwithin0‐100Newtons,feedbackwasprovided.Participantswerethentoldtomimicthisgriptothebestoftheirabilitythroughouttheremaininghandgriptrials.Withineachblock,thesqueezetestoccurredthreetimes,onceafterthesequenceofoldfaces,onceaftertheyoung,andonceafterthemixed.Thevariablesofinterestwerethetotalforceexertedoverthreeseconds(measuredastheIntegralofthecurvegeneratedbythehandgripsoftware)andtheparticipant’speakgripstrength.DatawasrecordedandprocessedusingLoggerProsoftware.

FinallyparticipantswereaskedtocompleteabriefdrivingsimulationcompletedontheSpeedDreams2.0software.ThesimulationinvolvedtheRuudskogenRacetrack,whichparticipantsweretoldtocomplete“assafelyaspossible”.Thisfinaltaskinvolvesthreeprimarydependentmeasures,namely,thetimetocompletetherace,themaximumspeed,andarecklessnessscore.Thefinalmeasureiscalculatedbytheexperimenterasthesumofthenumberofcrashesandthenumberoftimestheparticipantgoesoffroadthroughoutthedurationoftherace.Thiscalculationwasmadebytheexperimenterwhowasblindtostudycondition.DataAnalysis

12

Handgripdataforthisstudywasaveragedacrossthethreesqueezesperformedineachblock.Thespanofa“squeeze”wasdefinedasstartingafterarecordedincreaseinstrengthofgreaterthanoneNewton,andendingoncetherestinggripstrengthhadagainbeenreached.Theintegralwastakenofeachfunctionwiththeconstraintsofthepreviouslydefinedgripaslimits.Peakwasdefinedasthemaximumstrengthachievedwithinthelimitsofthesqueeze.Reactiontimewasrecordedthrougheprimeoutput.Finallydrivingperformancewasmeasuredinmultipleways.OverallracecompletiontimeandtopspeedwererecordedfromSpeedDreams2.0dataoutput.Therecklessnessmeasurewasrecordedbyablindexperimenterwhocountedthenumberoftimesaparticipantdroveoffroadandthenumberoftimestheparticipantranintoawall.Thesetwomeasureswerethensummedcreatingtherecklessnessmeasure.Onesubjectwasremovedfromdataanalysisonthegroundsthattheyweresignificantlyweakerinthegripstrengthmeasure.

Results

Allhanddynamometerdata(peakgripstrengthandintegralgripstrength)showedsignificantpositiveskewinpreliminaryanalysesandwerelogtransformedpriortoanalysis.Itwaspredictedthatpeakgripstrengthwoulddecreasefollowingexposuretoelderlyfacescomparedtopeakstrengthfollowingthemixedandyoungconditions.TotestthishypothesisweconductedarepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithprimingconditionasthewithin‐subjectsindependentvariableconsistingofthreelevels.Wefoundasignificanteffectforprimingcondition,F(1,31)=4.02,p=0.05,η2= 0.12.Specifically,participantswhohadbeenexposedtoelderlyfaces(M=

13

1.68N,SE=0.04N)exhibitedhigherpeakgripstrengththandidthemixedcondition(M=1.63,SE=0.05)ortheyoungcondition(M=1.634,SE=0.04).Follow‐uppairwisecomparisonsrevealasignificantdifferencebetweentheelderlyandmixedconditions(p=0.03),aswellasasignificanteffectbetweentheelderlyandyoungconditions(p=0.05).

Itwaspredictedthattheoverallforceexertedinourgripstrengthmeasure,measuredastheintegraloftheforcefunction,woulddecreaseforparticipantsintheelderlycondition.TotestthishypothesisweconductedrepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithprimingconditionasthewithin‐subjectsindependentvariableconsistingofthreelevels.Wefoundamarginallysignificanteffectforprimingcondition,F(1,31)=3.973,p=0.055.Specifically,participantswhohadbeenexposedtoelderlyfaces(M=2.02,SE=0.04)exhibitedgreateroverallgripstrengththandidthemixedcondition(M=1.98,SE=0.04)ortheyoungcondition(M=1.97,SE=0.04).Pairwisecomparisonsrevealasignificanteffectbetweentheelderlyandmixedconditions,(p=0.04),aswellasamarginallysignificanteffectbetweentheelderlyandyoungconditions,(p=0.055).

Wepredictedrecklessnesstobesignificantlyhigherfollowingexposuretoelderlyprimescomparedtoexposuretoyoungprimeormixedprimeconditions.TotestthishypothesisweconductedarepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithprimingconditionasthewithinsubjectsindependentvariableconsistingofthreelevels.Contrarytothishypothesiswedidnotfoundasignificantprimingeffectforage,F(1,33)=0.35,p=0.56,η2= 0.01.Therewerenosignificantdifferenceinrecklessness

14

betweentheelderly(M=7.50,SE=.74),mixed(M=7.56,SE=0.81),andyoungconditions(M=7.03,SE=0.83).

Inasecondarymeasure,wepredictedthatthepresentationofelderlyfaceswouldresultinsignificantlyslowerreactiontimesinparticipantsinthefacialprimingtask.TotestthishypothesisweconductedarepeatedmeasuresANOVAwithprimeconditionasthewithinsubjectsindependentvariableconsistingofthreelevels.Consistentwiththishypothesiswefoundasignificanteffectforprimecondition,F(1,29)=4.15,p=0.05,η2= 0.12.Specifically,participantswereslowertomakegenderdiscriminationswhenexposedtothemixedcondition(M=738.10ms,SE=19.80ms)andtotheelderlycondition(M=722.602,SE=25.85),whilemakingthefastestgenderdiscriminationjudgmentswithyoungfaces(M=694.96ms,SE=25.36ms).Pairwisecomparisonsrevealasignificantdifferencebetweentheelderlyconditionandtheyoungcondition,(p=0.05),aswellasasignificantdifferencebetweenthemixedandyoungconditions,(p=0.006).

Discussion

Thestudyresultsarenotconsistentwithouroriginalhypothesesthatthesupraliminalpresentationofelderlyprimeswouldreducegripstrength,slowresponsetime,anddecreasedrivingproficiency.Resultsfromourmeasuresofoverallgripstrengthandpeakgripstrengthindicatesignificantdifferencesintheelderlyconditionwhencomparedtotheyoungandmixedconditions.Pairwisecomparisonsindicatesignificantlyincreasedoverallandpeakgripstrengthintheelderlyconditionwhencomparedwiththemixedandyoungconditions.

15

Atfirstglance,theseresultssupporttheideathatelderlypriminghasaneffectongripstrength.However,thiselderlyprimemanipulationappearsto,contrarytoouroriginalhypotheses,providemorephysicalresourcestoparticipants.Hulletal(2002)proposesthepowerofprimingarisesasaresultoftheselfrelevanceoftheprimingstimuli.Thisintegrationofsensorystimuli,theyargue,maythenhaveasignificanteffectonourperceptions.Throughthesechangesinperception,wordssuchasold,sicklyorgreyarethoughttoalterourbehavior.Hulletal(2002)alsomakesanimportantpointregardingonerequirementforprimingeffectstowork.Withinhismodelofpriming,supportedbyotherresearchers(Barghetal,2012),itisvitalfortheprimingmanipulationtonotrevealits’naturetotheparticipant.Therefore,whetherusingsubliminalorsupraliminalprimes,itisimportantfortheprimingmanipulationofagivenstudytoremainunknowntotheparticipant.

Thissenseofawarenessisthedistinguishingcharacteristicofthecurrentstudyandisafactorthatseparatesitfrompreviousworkinpriming(Barghetal,1996).Thisdifferencecouldbebehindthecounterintuitivefindingsseeninthecurrentstudy.ParticipantsinBarghetal(1996),completethewordscramblingtaskandbelievetheirperformanceonthattaskisthesolemeasurementofthestudy.Thetruedependentmeasureofthestudy(walkingspeed)isonlyrevealedtothemoncetheybelievetheyhavecompletedthestudyandareontheirwayoutofthebuilding.Thesurreptitiousnatureofthisdependentmeasureisfundamentallydifferentfromthehandgripmeasureinthisstudyasparticipantsareawarethey

16

arebeingtested.Itispossiblethatthisawarenessisleadingtoasortofsubconsciouscompensationeffectfollowingthepresentationofthefaceprimes.

Evidencecanbeseenforthiscompensationmechanisminliteraturepertainingtothecognitiveimpairmentassociatedwithalcoholimpairment.Withinthiswork,workhasbeendonewhichshowstheimpactenvironmentandcontextcanhaveonthemotordeficitsassociatedwithalcoholconsumption(Vogel‐Sprott,1992).Furthermore,whenthisenvironmentalstimulusinvolvesmonetaryreward,experimentersseeadrasticreductionintheimpairmentsfollowingtheconsumptionofalcohol(Vogel‐Sprott&Sdao‐Jarvie,1989).Itisgenerallyagreeduponthatthistoleranceforalcoholresultsfromanadaptive,compensatoryreactionthatworksagainstthedrugs’effect.These,drug‐compensatoryeffectshavebeentheoreticallylinkedtoanexpectedrewardingoutcomefollowingnon‐alcoholicperformance(Vogel‐Sprott&Sdao‐Jarvie,1989).Withinthecurrentstudy,itispossiblewearewitnessingasimilareffect,witharewardconsistingofexperimenterapprovalforgoodperformanceonstudytasks.

Klatzky&Creswell(2014)proposethataweightedbidsmodelisatworkintheelderlyprimingphenomenon.Withinthismodel,severalincomingsignalsarecoded,weighted,andthensummedaswecreatethecorrespondingperceptualexperience.Thecupexampleusedintheintroductioninvolvedlargelytactilesensationaswemadeanestimationofhowheavythecupmightbe.Characteristicsofthecupunderconsiderationincludedhowdensetheobjectfelt,whatmaterialthebottleappearedtobemadeof,andalsohowmuchforceneededtobeexertedwhenpickingupthecup.Itispossiblethattheseprocessesweresimilarlyatplayin

17

elderlyprimingwithelderlyprimingwordsactivatingourconceptoftheelderly,whichtheninterplayswithourselfconcepteventuallymanifestinginthealteredbehaviorseeninpreviouselderlyprimingstudies.Itispossiblethatthereisanaddedelementtothismodellinkedtoparticipantawarenessofbeingtestedandthecompensationeffectdiscussedpreviously.Forexample,theintroductionofanelderlyprimingstimulus,ifeffective,mightcreateasemiconsciousperceptionofareducedperceptionofavailablephysicalresources.Thisalterationmightthenbebroughttoconsciousawarenessatthebeginningofthegriptestsasparticipantsbecomeawareof,whatseemstobe,reducedstrengthintheirhand.Thisrealizationmightthencausethemtoovercompensatebysqueezingsignificantlyharderastheyattempttomakeupfortheapparentreductionintheirphysicalresources.

Onestudytestedtheaffectofexplicitachievementmotivationonmotivationprimingandfoundasignificanteffectfortheirachievementmanipulation(Engeser&Baumann,2014).Similartothephysicalresourcesmechanismproposedthecurrentstudy,Engeser&Baumannattributetheirsignificantincreaseinexplicitachievementmotivationasbeingactivatedbytheintroductionofself‐relevantachievementprimingstimuli.

ThisphysicalresourcescompensatoryaccountisalsoconsistentwithresultsfromAarts,Cluster&Marien(2008).Resultsofthisstudyrevealedincreasedgripstrengthuponthesubliminalpresentationofexertionprimesandthenfurtherincreaseingripstrengthwhenexertionprimeswerepairedwitharewardingstimulus.Experimentersinthisstudysuggesttheseresultsareduetoanincreaseinmotivation,linkedtothecouplingoftheprimingeffectandarewardbasedincrease

18

inmotivation.Thisincreaseinmotivationcomplementsthenatureoftheirexertionprimes,furtherincreasinggripstrength.Withintheseresults,liesthesamemotivationbasedincreaseinperformanceattherootoftheproposedmodelforthecurrentstudy.Thissynchronousactivityofexertionandachievementprimesisanareaofdistinctionwhencomparingresultstothecurrentstudy.WhereastheprimesinAartsetal(2008)worktogethertoincreaseeffectsize,ourelderlyprimeworksagainsttheparticipant’smotivationtoprovidegooddata.Thisoppositionmanifestsinthesmallandreversedeffectsizesdemonstratedinthisstudy.

Inadditiontothesignificanthandgripfindingsofthisstudy,wereportsignificantslowerresponsetimeinthegenderrecognitiontaskforelderly(andmixedfaces).Inthebeginningofthestudywehypothesizedthiseffectwouldoccur(namely,whenoneisprimedwithanelderlyface,itslowstheircorrespondingmovements,suchasreactiontime),however,thereareseveralpossibleexplanations.Firstitispossiblethatouryoungadultparticipantswerebetterabletoidentifygenderinthosefaces,whichweresimilartotheirownage.Thisfamiliarityeffectwouldlikelymanifestsimilarlytotheresultsseeninthisstudy.Second,elderlyfacesmightbelessdistinctivethanyoungfaces,resultinginslowerreactiontimes.Forexample,facialhairwaslessprevalentintheelderlypicturesanditispossiblethatthehairstylesseenintheelderlypicturesaremoregenderneutralthaninthecaseoftheconditionsincludingyoungerfaces.Finally,thiseffect,consistentwithouroriginalhypothesis,maybeduetoanelderlyprimingeffect.Thismeasureofreactiontimeistheclosestmeasurewehavetemporallytotheactualpresentationoftheelderlyprimes.Theseresultsmaythereforereflectthe

19

immediateincorporationoftheageconceptintoourproposedphysicalresourcesmodelofelderlypriming.Additionally,thereissomequestionastowhythemixedgrouprespondedmoreslowlythantheelderlygroup.Oneexplanationcouldbethatthecognitivemechanismbehindgenderdiscriminationcouldbesomewhatagedependent.Ifthiswerethecase,thentheswitchingbackandforthbetweenayoungandoldconceptcouldbecausingthereducedreactiontime.

Thequestionsexploredintheprimingliteratureextendtoenvelopourunderstandingofourownself‐conceptand,further,theconceptoffreewill.Whataspectsofourenvironmentandourcharacterformhowwethink,feel,andbehave?Thisstudyemphasizestheimportanceofawarenessinthegoverninghowwethinkaboutthesetypesofquestions.Althoughthisstudysuggestsourthoughtsandbehaviorscanbecontrolledbyenvironmentalstimulipresentedoutsideconsciousawareness,italsosupportsamodelbuiltonself‐control,governedbyourabilitytoattendtoandcriticallyconsiderthosepreconceptionsandattitudes,whichbecomeactivewithprimingmanipulations.

Futureworkinthisareamightexploretheeffectofmotivationandrewardonthevarioustypesofprimingmanipulations.Discoveringthelimitationsandextensionsofthisphysicalresourcesmechanismwillbeimportantinimprovingourunderstandingofprimingeffects.Additionalworkmightalsofocusonthedifferencesbetweendependentmeasuresrequiringparticipantattentionandthoseperformedwithouttheparticipants’awareness(e.g.,walkingspeed).Thistypeofresearchcouldprovideaclearerpictureofsocialprimingeffectsandourpresentresults.

20

ElderlyPeakGripStrength

MixedPeakGripStrength

YoungPeakGripStrength

ElderlyOverallGripStrength(Integral)

MixedOverallGripStrength(Integral)

YoungOverallGripStrength(Inegral)

MeanValue 115.37 

109.85 

104.29 

53.33 

50.76 

49.75 

StandardDeviation

55.11 

60.37 

53.77 

25.36 

29.36 

29.13 

Log10(Mean) 1.68 

1.63 

1.63 

2.02 1.98 

1.96 

Table1:Mean,standarddeviation,andlogtransformedvaluesforrelevanthandgripmeasures.

21

Figure2:Logtransformedpeakgripstrengthmeasuredastheaveragepeakstrengthofthreegriptestsineachofthreeconditions.

1.561.581.61.621.641.661.681.71.72

Elderly Mixed Young

log(New

tons)

PeakGripStrength

22

Figure3:Logtransformedoverallgripstrengthmeasuredastheaverageintegralofthreegriptestsineachofthreeconditions.

1.91.921.941.961.98

22.022.042.06

Elderly Mixed Young

log(New

tons)

OverallGripStrength

23

Figure4:Reactiontimeinthefacialrecognitiontaskaveragedacrossfiftytrials.

640660680700720740760

Elderly Mixed Young

ResponseTime(ms)

ReactionTimeinFacialRecognitionTask

24

ReferencesAarts,H.,Custers,R.,&Marien,H.(2008).PreparingandMotivatingBehaviorOutsideofAwareness.Science,319,1639.

Abbott,A.(2013).Disputedresultsafreshblowforsocialpsychology.Nature,497,16.

Bargh,J.A.,Chaiken,S.,Govender,R.,&Pratto,F.(1992).Thegeneralityoftheautomaticattitudeactivationeffect.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,62,893‐912.

Bargh,J.A.,Chen,M.,&Burrows,L.(1996).Automaticityofsocialbehavior:Directeffectsoftraitconstructandstereotypeactivationonaction.JournalOfPersonalityAndSocialPsychology,71(2),230‐244.doi:10.1037/0022‐3514.71.2.230

Bargh,J.A'.(1994).TheFourHorsemenofautomaticity.InR.S.Wyer&T.K.Srull(Eds.),Handbookofsocialcognition(pp.1‐40).Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.Bargh,J.A.,Schwader,K.L.,Hailey,S.E.,Dyer,R.L.,&Boothby,E.J.(2012).Automaticityinsocial‐cognitiveprocesses.TrendsInCognitiveSciences,16(12),593‐605.doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.10.002

Chambon,M.(2009)Embodiedperceptionwithothers’bodiesinmind:stereotypepriminginfluenceontheperceptionofspatialenvironment.J.Exp.Soc.Psychol.45,283–287.

Cesario,J.etal.(2006)Automaticsocialbehaviorasmotivatedpreparationtointeract.J.Pers.Soc.Psychol.90,893–910.

25

Dehaene,S.,Naccache,L.,Cohen,L.,Bihan,D.L.,Mangin,J.F.,Poline,J.B.,&Rivière,D.(2001).Cerebralmechanismsofwordmaskingandunconsciousrepetitionpriming.NatureNeuroscience,4,752–758.

Doyen,S.,Klein,O.,Pichon,C.‐L.,&Cleeremans,A.(2012).Behavioralpriming:It’sallinthemind,butwhosemind?PLoSONE,7(1),e29081.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029081

Engeser,S.,&Baumann,N.(2014).Doesachievementmotivationmediatethesemanticachievementprimingeffect?.JournalOfExperimentalPsychology:General,143(5),1861‐1874.doi:10.1037/a0036864

Fazio,R.H.,Sanbonmatsu,D.M.,Powell,M.C.,&Kardes,ER.(1986).Ontheautomaticactivationofattitudes.JournalofPerson‐alityandSocialPsychology,50,229‐238.

Fillmore,M.T.,&Vogel‐Sprott,M.(1997).Resistancetocognitiveimpairmentunderalcohol:Theroleofenvironmentalconsequences.ExperimentalAndClinicalPsychopharmacology,5(3),251‐255.doi:10.1037/1064‐1297.5.3.251

Greenwald,A.G.etal.(1998)Measuringindividualdifferencesinimplicitcognition:theImplicitAssociationTest.J.Pers.Soc.Psychol.74,1464–1480

Hull,J.G.,Slone,L.B.,Meteyer,K.B.,&Matthews,A.R.(2002).Thenonconsciousnessofself‐consciousness.JournalOfPersonalityAndSocialPsychology,83(2),406‐424.doi:10.1037/0022‐3514.83.2.406

Klatzky,R.L.,&Creswell,J.D.(2014).Anintersensoryinteractionaccountofprimingeffects—Andtheirabsence.PerspectivesOnPsychologicalScience,9(1),49‐58.doi:10.1177/1745691613513468

26

Liljenquist,K.,Zhong,C.,&Galinsky,A.D.(2010).Thesmellofvirtue:Cleanscentspromotereciprocityandcharity.PsychologicalScience,21(3),381‐383.doi:10.1177/0956797610361426

Meyer,D.E.,&Schvaneveldt,R.W.(1971).Facilitationinrecog‐nizingpairsofwords:Evidenceofadependencebetweenretrievaloperations.JournalofExperimentalPsychology,90,227–234.

Minear,M.,&Park,D.C.(2004).Alifespandatabaseofadultfacialstimuli.BehaviorResearchMethods,Instruments,andComputers,36,630–633.

Pashler,H.,Coburn,N.,&Harris,C.R.(2012).Primingofsocialdistance?Failuretoreplicateeffectsonsocialandfoodjudgments.PLoSONE,7(8),e42510.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042510

Shanks,D.R.,Newell,B.R.,Lee,E.H.,Balakrishnan,D.,Ekelund,L.,Cenac,Z.,...Moore,C.(2013).Primingintel‐ligentbehavior:Anelusivephenomenon.PLoSONE,8(4),e56515.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056515

Todorov,A.etal.(2009)Evaluatingfacesontrustworthinessafterminimaltimeexposure.Soc.Cogn.27,813–833

Vogel‐Sprott,M.(1992).Alcoholtoleranceandsocialdrinking:Learningtheconsequences.NewYork:GuilfordPress.

Vogel‐SprottM,Sdao‐JarvieK.Learningalcoholtolerance:thecontributionofresponseexpectancies.Psychopharmacology.1989;98:289–296.

Williams,L.E.andBargh,J.A.(2008)Experiencingphysicalwarmthpromotesinterpersonalwarmth.Science322,606–607

27

Willis,J.andTodorov,A.(2006)Firstimpressions:Makingupyourmindafter100msexposuretoaface.Psychol.Sci.17,592–598

Yong,E.(2012).Replicationstudies:Badcopy.Nature,485,298–300.