Communication Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MONAHAN, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by ZUCKERMAN, C. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Communication Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, 81-110 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/009365099026001005
© 1999 SAGE Publications

Intensifying the Dominant Response

Participant-Observer Differences and Nonconscious Effects

JENNIFER L. MONAHAN

CYNTHIA E. ZUCKERMAN

Two studies examined the effects of initial nonconscious affective responses on subsequent evaluations made by conversational participants and observers. Participants either first engaged in a subliminal priming task to induce a positive or negative affective response toward a confederate or were in a control (no priming) condition. After the priming task, participants either engaged in an interaction with the confederate or watched the interaction on videotape and then evaluated the confederate. The confederate used an uninvolved interaction style in Study 1 (N = 240) and a more involved style in Study 2 (N = 180). Results for conversational participants suggest that the nonconscious negative prime made the involved interaction seem more positive and the uninvolved interaction seem more negative. As predicted, results were stronger for participants than for observers and were stronger for negative rather than positive nonconscious affect.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 The Harvard International Journal of Press/PoliticsHome page
P. A. Stewart and J. N. Schubert
Taking the "Low Road" with Subliminal AdvertisementsA Study Testing the Effect of Precognitive Prime "RATS" in a 2000 Presidential Advertisement
International Journal of Press/Politics, October 1, 2006; 11(4): 103 - 114.
[Abstract] [PDF]