THINK OF A RED BALLOON…

is an often used example of cognitive priming, in which people can’t help thinking of something that has just been brought up, or catches their attention. This blog looks at research into cognitive priming and stereotypes and the subsequent effects words have on us.

Bargh, Chen and Burrows (1996) conducted several experiments that ‘primed’ participants with words and examined the effect of word priming on participants (the dependent variable). For example one of the first experiments looked at priming rudeness. Participants in this study were given words to unscramble (either relating to a rudeness, politeness or neutral condition) and then told after they had finished to go to the waiting researcher in another room. Those given the rudeness word puzzle, and therefore those primed with rudeness were expected to interrupt a confederate conversation more than those with either the politeness or rudeness condition. This was timed by a second confederate and is the dependent variable of this particular study.

The result showed that those primed with rudeness interrupted significantly faster than those in the other two conditions and this priming effect has been found in similar studies relating to old age and more socially sensitive with ethnicity stereotypes.

One methodological criticism I can draw already across these experiments is that all the participants involved were university undergraduates, as such the studies have little external validity in that the behaviour of the students cannot be generalised to many other groups within the population, and the experimental conditions do not truly reflect real life occurences.

While I assume the research is statistically sound (using complicated things I don’t understand yet, such as ANOVA’s and MANOVA’s) The researchers point out that there research has several issues, which may have affected the outcome of results.

One such issue is a ceiling effect with the first study, which occurred because of a time limit set in which the participants were expected to interrupt. 21 out of 34 participants did not interrupt within the ten minutes, which means there is the possibility they may have interrupted after the ten minutes had elapsed, resulting in this ceiling effect which could of strongly effected the data.

Other issues include participant variables across all three of the studies conducted by Bargh, Chen and Burrows (1996). For example some personality types/people may be more prone to interrupting anyway, depending on factors such as mood or even upbringing. The students may not have wanted to interrupt someone they respect, or whom they think is important. I know personally that if I were in that situation I would not want to interrupt a researcher or lecturer mid conversation. We cannot ignore socioeconomic, age, or ethnicity factors playing apart in these studies either

A reader’s digest-esque summary of the Bargh, Chen and Burrows studies (1996) can be found here:

http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/01/stereotypes-why-we-act-without-thinking.php

And after that post, here’s something a little more light hearted (also consider the priming effect the song has on you?)

References:

Bargh, J.A., Chen, M. & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of Social Behaviour: Direct Effects of Trait Construct  and Stereotype Activation on Action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-244.