kilincsem

NLP igaz ??? az elmult 5 evben 100(!!!!) cikk jelent meg az elsevier gondozasaban melyek a sublimial szot tartalmazzak

Subliminalnext term anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanismsstar, open

Thomas Mussweilera, b, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author and Birte Englichb

aUniversity of Cologne, Germany
bPsychologie II, Universität Würzburg, Röntgenring 10, 97070 Würzburg, Germany

Received 24 June 2004. Available online 12 September 2005.


Abstract

Judgmental anchoring—the assimilation of a numeric estimate towards a previously considered standard—is an exceptionally ubiquitous effect that influences human judgment in a variety of domains and paradigms. Three studies examined whether anchoring effects even occur, if anchor values are presented subliminally, outside of judges’ awareness. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate such previous termsubliminalnext term anchoring effects: judges assimilated target estimates towards the subliminally presented anchor values. Study 3 further demonstrates that previous termsubliminalnext term anchors produced a selective increase in the accessibility of anchor-consistent target knowledge. The implications of these findings for the ubiquity of judgmental anchoring, its different underlying mechanisms, and comparative information processing are discussed.
Requirement for high-level processing in subliminalnext term learning

Aaron Seitz1, Christine Lefebvre2, Takeo Watanabe1 and Pierre Jolicoeur2

1Department of Psychology, Boston University, Boston MA 02215, USA
2Département de Psychologie, Université de Montréal, Montreal QC H3C 3J7, Canada.

Available online 19 September 2005.


Article Outline

Acknowledgements
Supplemental data
References




Enlarge Image (44K)
Figure 1. Attentional blink training task.
In the RSVP task, a series of 15–20 characters were presented in rapid succession with a stimulus onset asynchrony(SOA) of 100ms between letters. In the AB condition (top), a single intervening distractor (D) was presented between T1 and T2, producing a T1–T2 SOA of 200 ms. In the NoAB condition (bottom), seven intervening distractors (D1-7) were presented between T1 and T2, producing a T1–T2 SOA of 800 ms. On each trial, a random sequence of five dot patterns (arrows) with 5% coherent motion commenced with a SOA of 150 ms from T1 onset, with each direction presented for 200ms thereafter. For each subject, two different directions (white arrows) were randomly assigned to be paired with T2.

Enlarge Image (37K)
Figure 2. The attentional blink.
(A) Performance on T2 when T1 is correct, on lag 2 and lag 8, averaged over all participants and all sessions. The difference in performance between lag 8 and lag 2 is labeled blink magnitude. (B) Average magnitude of blink on each day of training (accuracy at 800 ms SOA minus accuracy at 200 ms SOA). The error bars represent standard error.

Enlarge Image (37K)
Figure 3. Performance of seven subjects on direction discrimination task before (dotted lines) and after (continuous lines) subliminal training.
(A) For the motion direction paired with T2 of the NoAB condition, improved performance after training is observed across all levels of tested motion coherence. (B) For the motion direction paired with T2 of the AB condition, no clear performance change was observed. The bars represent standard errors.

posted by kilincs @ 1:33 PM