Article
Reference
The Effect of Negative Implicit Affect, Prime Visibility, and Gender on Effort-Related Cardiac Response
FRAMORANDO, David, GENDOLLA, Guido H.E.
Abstract
Objectives: Based on the Implicit-Affect-Primes-Affect (IAPE) model (Gendolla, 2012, 2015), we investigated the effect of affect primes' visibility on effort-related cardiac response.
Methods: Participants worked on a cognitive “parity task” with integrated pictures of sad vs.
angry faces that were briefly flashed (25 ms) vs. clearly visible (780 ms). We recorded cardiac pre-ejection period (PEP) to assess effort mobilization. Results: As expected, PEP reactivity in the sadness-prime condition was stronger than in the anger-prime condition when the primes were briefly flashed, while the opposite pattern occurred when the affect primes were clearly visible. However, these effects only occurred for men, but not for women, as indicated by a significant prime x prime visibility x gender interaction. Conclusions: These findings provide new evidence for the role of prime visibility as a moderator of automatic effort mobilization—and suggest that this moderator effect applies especially to men.
FRAMORANDO, David, GENDOLLA, Guido H.E. The Effect of Negative Implicit Affect, Prime Visibility, and Gender on Effort-Related Cardiac Response. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 2018, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 354-363
DOI : 10.1007/s40750-018-0097-0
Available at:
http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:124305
Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
1 / 1
Running Head: Prime Visibility, Effort, and Gender
The Effect of Negative Implicit Affect, Prime Visibility, and Gender on Effort-Related Cardiac Response
David Framorando and Guido H. E. Gendolla University of Geneva, Switzerland
Revision of Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology manuscript AHBP-D-18-00014
Final accepted version of:
Framorando, D., & Gendolla, G.H.E. (2018). The effect of negative implicit affect, prime visibility, and gender on effort-related cardiac response. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 4, 354-363. doi: 10.1007/s40750-018-0097-0
Mailing Address: Guido H.E. Gendolla Geneva Motivation Lab FPSE, Section of Psychology University of Geneva
40, Bd. du Pont-d’Arve
CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland Telephone: +41 22 379 92 31 Fax: +41 22 379 92 16
E-mail: guido.gendolla@unige.ch
Abstract
Objectives: Based on the Implicit-Affect-Primes-Affect (IAPE) model (Gendolla, 2012, 2015), we investigated the effect of affect primes’ visibility on effort-related cardiac response.
Methods: Participants worked on a cognitive “parity task” with integrated pictures of sad vs. angry faces that were briefly flashed (25 ms) vs. clearly visible (780 ms). We recorded cardiac pre-ejection period (PEP) to assess effort mobilization.
Results: As expected, PEP reactivity in the sadness-prime condition was stronger than in the anger-prime condition when the primes were briefly flashed, while the opposite pattern occurred when the affect primes were clearly visible. However, these effects only occurred for men, but not for women, as indicated by a significant prime x prime visibility x gender interaction.
Conclusions: These findings provide new evidence for the role of prime visibility as a moderator of automatic effort mobilization—and suggest that this moderator effect applies especially to men.
(145 words)
Keywords: Implicit Affect, Effort, Automaticity, Cardiovascular response, Gender
Introduction
Pictures of facial expressions of emotions that are implicitly processed during cognitive tasks can systematically influence effort-related cardiovascular responses. In easy and moderately difficult tasks, participants mobilized higher effort when they were exposed to briefly flashed sadness or fear primes than when they processed anger or happiness primes (e.g., Chatelain & Gendolla, 2015; Gendolla & Silvestrini, 2011;
Lasauskaite, Gendolla, & Silvestrini, 2013; Silvestrini & Gendolla, 2011). Corresponding effects were recently found for the implicit activation of the aging vs. juvenility concept during cognitive performance (e.g., Zafeiriou & Gendolla, 2018). These findings support the predictions of the Implicit-Affect-Primes-Effort (IAPE) model (Gendolla, 2012,
2015), which posits that implicitly processed affective stimuli influence the effort people mobilize during cognitive tasks via their impact on experienced task demand.
The IAPE model holds that people learn that performing tasks is easier or more difficult in some affective states than in others. That way, performance ease and difficulty become features of individuals’ mental representations of different affective states: Sadness and fear are both associated with low coping potential and difficulty, while happiness and anger are both related to high coping potential and ease. Rendering this affect knowledge accessible during task performance should thus lead to
experiences of low or high task demand and determine the effort people mobilize in compliance with the principles of motivational intensity theory (Brehm & Self, 1989):
Effort rises proportionally with subjective demand as long as success is possible and the necessary effort is justified.
Prime Visibility
Typically, experiments testing the predictions of the IAPE model have used suboptimally presented (i.e. briefly flashed and masked) primes1, which should
automatically activate the performance ease and difficulty concepts as features of different emotions’ mental representations (e.g., Lasauskaite, Gendolla, Bolmont, &
Freydefont, 2017). Suboptimally presented affect primes should facilitate automatic effort mobilization and prevent controlled reactions. This fits with the idea that
automaticity only works if individuals regard their actually primed mental content as a valid basis for their behavior (e.g., Loersch & Payne, 2012; Wheeler, DeMarree, & Petty, 2007). For this, individuals have to be unaware that their thoughts have been influenced by external stimulation. Clearly visible affect primes that have nothing to do with a currently performed task do not fulfill this criterion. Thus, they should induce suspicion and result in behavior correction (Gendolla, 2015).
This reasoning is supported by recent studies that found that prime visibility moderates affect primes’ effect on effort mobilization (e.g., Chaillou, Giersch, Bonnefond, Custers, & Capa, 2015; Framorando & Gendolla, 2018; Lasauskaite Schüpbach, Gendolla,
& Silvestrini, 2014). More specifically, in contrast to suboptimally presented affect primes, clearly visible primes produced zero effects or prime-contrast effects,
supporting the idea of behavioral correction in the case of controlled prime processing.
However, this evidence is still sparse, and only one study investigated visibility effects of two different negative affect primes (Framorando & Gendolla, 2018).
Effort-Related Cardiovascular Response
According to Wright (1996), beta-adrenergic sympathetic impact on the heart increases with subjective demand as long as success is possible and justified. Beta- adrenergic activity becomes manifest in increased cardiac contractility and thus shortened cardiac pre-ejection period (PEP)—the time interval (in ms) between the onset of left ventricular depolarization and the opening of the left aortic valve (Berntson, Lozano, Chen, & Cacioppo, 2004). PEP becomes shorter as cardiac contractility force
increases and is sensitive to variations in perceived task demand (e.g., Richter, Friedrich,
& Gendolla, 2008), incentive (e.g., Richter & Gendolla, 2009), and combinations of both variables (e.g., Silvestrini & Gendolla, 2011). Accordingly, PEP is a sensitive and reliable index of effort (Kelsey, 2012). Nevertheless, it should always be assessed together with heart rate and blood pressure to control for possible preload (ventricular filling) or afterload (arterial pressure) effects on PEP (Sherwood et al., 1990).
The Present Experiment
Participants were exposed to sadness vs. anger-primes, which appeared very briefly flashed (i.e. suboptimally; 25 ms) vs. clearly visible (i.e. optimally; 783 ms) during a “parity task” (Wolford & Morrison, 1980). Based on the IAPE model (Gendolla, 2012), and previous research (Chatelain & Gendolla, 2015; Gendolla & Silvestrini, 2011), we expected stronger PEP responses, reflecting higher effort, in the sadness-
prime/suboptimal condition than in the anger-prime/suboptimal condition. Most relevant, this effect should be moderated by the prime visibility manipulation: In the optimal condition, we expected behavioral correction due to controlled prime
processing (Gendolla, 2015). This should either result in an attenuated affect prime effect (e.g., Chaillou et al., 2015; Verwijmeren, Karremans, Bernritter, Stroebe, &
Wigboldus, 2013), or even in a prime-contrast effect in the case of overcorrection (e.g., Lasauskaite Schüpbach et al., 2014). In either case, we expected a Prime x Prime Visibility interaction effect on PEP.
Method Participants and Design
We randomly assigned 124 university students (76 women, 48 men; average age 24 years)2 to the experimental conditions to collect valid data of at least 30 participants per condition of the Prime x Visibility between-persons design. Due to participant and
data loss (see Supplementary Material), the final samples were N = 116 for the HR and PEP measures, and N = 118 for the other measures.
Affect Primes
We used grey-scale, low contrast, low frequency front perspective face pictures of the Averaged Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces (AKDEF) database (Lundqvist &
Litton, 1998) as primes, showing averaged neutral (MNES, FNES), sadness (MSAS, FSAS), and anger (MANS, FANS) expressions (50% male, 50% female faces).
Apparatus and Physiological Measures
We assessed impedance cardiogram (ICG) and electrocardiogram (ECG) signals with a Cardioscreen 1000 system (medis, Ilmenau Germany; see Scherhag, Kaden, Kentschke, Sueselbeck, & Borggrefe, 2005, for a validation study) to monitor HR and PEP. Four pairs of electrodes (Ag/AgCl, Medis, Ilmenau, Germany) were placed on the left and right sides of participants’ neck and chest. The signals were amplified and digitalized (sampling rate 1000 Hz), and analyzed offline (50 Hz low pass filter) with BlueBox 2.V1.22 software (Richter, 2010). The first derivative of the change in thoracic impedance was calculated, and the resulting dZ/dt signal was ensemble averaged in 1- min intervals. B-point location was estimated based on the RZ interval of valid heart beat cycles (Lozano et al., 2007), visually inspected, and if necessary corrected as recommended (Sherwood et al., 1990). PEP (in ms) was determined as the interval between R-onset and B-point (Berntson et al., 2004). HR was determined on the basis of IBIs assessed with the Cardioscreen system. Additionally, we oscillometrically assessed SBP and DBP in 1-min intervals with a Dinamap ProCare monitor (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI; see Reinders, Reggiori, & Shennan, 2006 for a validation study). The blood pressure cuff was placed over the brachial artery above the elbow of participants’
non-dominant arm.
Procedure
The local ethics committee had approved this experiment. The experimenter was hired and unaware of both the hypotheses and the experimental conditions. Participants were seated in a comfortable chair, gave signed consent, and were equipped with the physiological sensors. After answering biographical questions (age, sex, etc.),
participants rated their affective state (2 sadness items: down, sad; 2 anger items: angry, irritated) on 7-point scales (1—not at all, 7—very much). To prevent suspicion, these affect measures were introduced as standard assessment because people enter the laboratory in different feeling states. Next, participants saw a hedonically neutral documentary film about Portugal (8 min) to assess cardiovascular baseline values, followed by a “parity task” (Wolford & Morrison, 1980) during which we assessed performance-related cardiovascular activity (5 min).
For the task, participants were instructed to respond correctly and as fast as possible. Each of the 36 trials consisted of a fixation cross (1000 ms), followed by a face picture (affect prime) that centrally appeared for 25 ms (suboptimal condition) vs. 783 ms (optimal condition), a grey random dot picture mask (133 ms) and a second fixation cross (1000 ms). Sad vs. angry faces were presented in 1/3 of the trials. In the other 2/3, neutral faces were presented to prevent habituation effects (Silvestrini & Gendolla, 2011). The second fixation cross was followed by a screen displaying two numbers located left and right of a neutral word (e.g. “13 trunk 19”) for 3000 ms. Participants had to decide whether the two numbers had the same parity or not by pressing respective response keys with the middle and index fingers of their dominant hand. Half of the trials had the same parity, the other half had not. Before the task, participants performed 8 practice trials in which they received correctness feedback. To avoid possible affective reactions (e.g., Kreibig, Gendolla, & Scherer, 2012) that could interfere with the affect
primes’ impact, no correctness feedback was given during the task. Participants only received the feedback “response entered”, or—in case of no response within 3000 ms—
the message “please answer more quickly”, appearing for 5 sec. minus participants’
reaction time. In the optimal condition, the message’s presentation was another 783 ms shorter to assure that the trials and the entire task had the same duration in all
conditions. The inter-trial interval randomly lasted 1000 to 3000 ms.
After the task, participants rated subjective task difficulty, success importance, and the same affect items as at the procedure’s onset (1—not at all; 7—very much).
Additionally, they indicated possible medication and their cardiovascular health status.
Finally, we ran a standardized funnel debriefing procedure inquiring participants about the study’s purpose and what they had seen during the trials. Participants who
mentioned “flickers” were asked to describe their content.
Results Cardiovascular Baselines
Cardiovascular baseline values were averages of the last five minutes of the habituation period (see Supplementary Material)—which proved high internal
consistency for all indices (Cronbach’s αs > .97). Cell means and standard errors appear in Table 1.
Cardiovascular Reactivity
Reactivity scores were created by subtracting participants’ baseline values from their five 1-min scores of cardiovascular activity during task performance. Preliminary analyses (outlined in the Supplementary Material) revealed significant time and gender effects. Consequently, we focused the analysis of cardiovascular reactivity on the first minute of task performance and included gender as independent variable. Moreover, ANCOVAs revealed a significant association between the DBP baseline and reactivity
scores, F(1,109) = 4.48, p < .037, ƞ2= .04. Consequently, we adjusted the DBP reactivity scores with regard to the baselines to avoid biases due to carry-over or initial values effects. No significant baseline-reactivity associations emerged for PEP, SBP, and HR (ps
> .24).
PEP Reactivity
A 2 (Prime) × 2 (Visibility) x 2 (Gender) between-persons ANOVA revealed a significant Gender main effect F(1,108) = 4.41, p = .038, η² = .04, 95% CI [0.102, 3.541], due to stronger PEP reactivity for women (M = -3.79, SE = 0.55) than for men (M = -1.93, SE = 0.66). In addition, the Prime x Visibility x Gender interaction was significant,
F(1,108) = 6.31, p = .013, η² = .06, 95% CI [1.840, 15.596], in absence of other ANOVA effects (ps > .337). We decomposed the three-way interaction by testing the Prime x Visibility interaction contrasts in both gender groups. This interaction contrast was significant for men, t(108) = 2.02, p = .046, η² = .04, 95% CI [0.087 ; 10.843], but not for women (p = .136), 95% CI [-1.034; 7.540]. As depicted in Figure 1, the Prime x Visibility interaction among men was due to opposite affect prime effects in the suboptimal and optimal prime presentation conditions. In the suboptimal condition, sadness primes led to stronger PEP reactivity than anger primes, which corresponds to the predictions of the IAPE model. This pattern was reserved in the optimal prime presentation condition.
Here, anger primes led to stronger PEP reactivity than sadness primes, suggesting a prime contrast effect due to behavior correction.
SBP, DBP, HR Reactivity, Task Performance, and Verbal Measures
Detailed analyses and descriptive statistics appear in the Supplementary Material. In brief, no significant effects emerged on HR, SBP, DBP (ps .084), reaction times, or response accuracy (ps . 057). The affect ratings yielded no effects that would speak for an affect prime effect on corresponding conscious feelings, but there was an
unexpected three-way interaction effect on rated success importance (p = .037).
Funnel Debriefing
No participant correctly guessed the study’s purpose. When describing a trial, only 8.6% (5) of the participants in the suboptimal-prime-presentation condition reported to have seen emotional faces, whereas 96.6% (57 participants) did so in the optimal prime-presentation condition. This suggests that the affect primes were, as intended, implicitly processed by the vast majority of participants in the suboptimal prime presentation condition, but clearly visible in the optimal condition.
Discussion
The present study provides new evidence for the role of prime visibility as moderator of affect primes’ impact on effort-related cardiac response—and suggests that this applies especially to men. Among men, suboptimally presented sadness primes led to stronger effort-related cardiac response in terms of PEP reactivity than
suboptimally presented anger primes, which corresponds to previous findings in the context of the IAPE model (e.g., Chatelain & Gendolla, 2015; Freydefont, Gendolla &
Silvestrini, 2012; Gendolla & Silvestrini, 2011). Most relevant, this affect prime effect was turned around when the primes were clearly visible. This suggests that the
automatic affect prime impact on effort mobilization was interrupted when men became aware of the priming procedure.
Unlike PEP, our main measure of effort, no significant effects emerged on SBP, DBP, and HR reactivity. This is line with the idea that PEP is the most sensitive noninvasive index of beta-adrenergic sympathetic impact on the heart (see Kelsey 2012). Most importantly, the present PEP effects were not accompanied by decreases in blood pressure or HR, making it implausible that PEP reactivity may have been caused by cardiac preload or vascular afterload effects instead of beta-adrenergic sympathetic
impact on cardiac contractility (see Sherwood et al., 1990).
We had expected that the conscious awareness of pictures showing emotional expressions, which had actually nothing to do with the cognitive task participants performed, should induce suspicion and thus result in behavior correction (Gendolla, 2015). If people prefer autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and basically believe to act in accordance with their own thoughts and decisions (Loersch & Payne, 2000), they should dislike being manipulated. Becoming aware of the presence of external stimuli—the affect primes—should induce the feeling of being manipulated and in turn motivate behavior correction in order to restore the feeling of freedom and autonomy (Brehm, 1966). This argumentation is in line with previous research that identified the
awareness of external knowledge activation as a moderator of prime effects on
evaluative judgments (e.g., Lombardi, Higgins, & Bargh, 1987; Murphy & Zajonc, 1993;
Rotteveel, Groot, Geutskens, & Phaf, 2001; Strack, Schwarz, Bless, Kübler, & Wänke, 1993) and decision-making (e.g., Loersch & Payne, 2012; Verwijmeren et al., 2013).
The present findings contribute to the emerging research on moderator variables of automaticity in the context of effort mobilization. They provide new and additional evidence for the significance of prime visibility as a moderator of automatic effort mobilization (e.g., Chaillou et al., 2015; Framorando & Gendolla, 2018; Lasauskaite Schüpbach et al., 2014)—and, most relevant, suggest that this moderator effect applies especially to men. We suspect that this significant role of gender is related to differences in the strength of psychological reactance (e.g., Seeman, Buboltz, Jenkins, Soper, &
Woller, 2004; Woller, Buboltz, & Loveland, 2007). If men resist more to external influences than women (e.g., Eagly, 1983; Maccoby, 1990), it is not surprising that the prime visibility manipulation was more effective for men than for women. However, given that the present study is the first that found that gender further moderates the
combined effect of affect primes and their visibility on effort-related cardiac response, we acknowledge that further research is needed to test the stability of this result and to better understand its underlying mechanisms. This is especially the case, because in the present sample the group of women was bigger than the group of men. Consequently, we interpret the present findings as first and preliminary evidence that prime visibility is a significant moderator of implicit affect’s effect on effort mobilization in men.
Conflict of Interest Statement
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Berntson, G. G., Cacioppo, J. T., & Quigley, K. S. (1993). Cardiac psychophysiology and autonomic space in humans: empirical perspectives and conceptual implications.
Psychological Bulletin, 114, 296–322. doi :10.1037/ 0033-2909.114.2.296 Berntson, G. G., Lozano, D. L., Chen, Y.-J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). Where to Q in PEP.
Psychophysiology, 41, 333–337. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2004.00156.x.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
Brehm, J. W., & Self, E. A. (1989). The intensity of motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 109–131. doi: 10.1146/ annurev.ps.40.020189.000545
Chaillou, A. C., Giersch, A., Bonnefond, A., Custers, R., & Capa, R. L. (2015). Influence of positive subliminal and supraliminal affective cues on goal pursuit in
schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 161, 291–298. doi:
10.1016/j.schres.2014.10.052
Chatelain, M., & Gendolla, G. H. E. (2015). Implicit fear and effort-related cardiac
response. Biological Psychology, 111, 73-82. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.08.009 Eagly, A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological
analysis. American Psychologist, 38, 971. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.38.9.971
Framorando, D., & Gendolla, G.H.E. (2018). Prime visibility moderates implicit anger and sadness effects on effort-related cardiac response. Biological Psychology, 135, 2014-210. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.04.007
Freydefont, L., Gendolla, G. H. E., & Silvestrini, N. (2012). Beyond valence: The
differential effect of masked anger and sadness stimuli on effort-related cardiac response. Psychophysiology, 49, 665–671. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01340.x Gendolla, G. H. E. (2012). Implicit affect primes effort: A theory and research on
cardiovascular response. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 86, 123–135.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.05.003
Gendolla, G. H. E. (2015). Implicit affect primes effort: Basic processes, moderators, and boundary conditions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 606-619. doi:
10.1111/spc3.12208
Gendolla, G. H. E., & Silvestrini, N. (2011). Smiles make it easier and so do frowns:
Masked affective stimuli influence mental effort. Emotion, 11, 320–328. doi:
10.1037/a0022593
Kelsey, R. M. (2012). Beta-adrenergic cardiovascular reactivity and adaptation to stress:
The cardiac pre-ejection period as an index of effort. In R. A. Wright & G. H. E.
Gendolla (Eds.), How motivation affects cardiovascular response: Mechanisms and applications (pp. 43–60). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kreibig, S. D., Gendolla, G. H. E., & Scherer, K. R. (2012). Goal relevance and goal
conduciveness appraisals lead to differential autonomic reactivity in emotional responding to performance feedback. Biological Psychology, 91, 365–375.
doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.08.007
Lasauskaite, R., Gendolla, G. H. E., Bolmont, M., & Freydefont, L. (2017). Implicit happiness and sadness are associated with ease and difficulty: Evidence from sequential priming. Psychological Research, 81, 321-331. doi: 10.1007/s00426- 015-0732-3.
Lasauskaite, R., Gendolla, G. H. E., & Silvestrini, N. (2013). Do sadness-primes make me work harder because they make me sad? Cognition and Emotion, 27, 158–165.
doi: 10.1080/02699931.2012.689756
Lasauskaite Schüpbach, R., Gendolla, G. H. E., & Silvestrini, N. (2014). Contrasting the
effects of suboptimally versus optimally presented affect primes on effort-related cardiac response. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 748-758. doi: 10.1007/s11031- 014- 9438-x.
Loersch, C., & Payne, B. K. (2012). On mental contamination: The role of (mis) attribution in behavior priming. Social Cognition, 30, 241–252. doi:
10.1521/soco.2012.30.2.241.
Lombardi, W. J., Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987). The role of consciousness in priming effects on categorization: Assimilation versus contrast as a function of awareness of the priming task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 411-429. doi:
10.1177/0146167287133009
Lozano, D. L., Norman, G., Knox, D., Wood, B. L., Miller, D., Emery, C. F., & Berntson, G. G.
(2007). Where to B in dZ/dt. Psychophysiology, 44, 113–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1469- 8986.2006.00468.x
Lundqvist, D., & Litton, J. E. (1998). The averaged Karolinska directed emotional faces—
AKDEF. Stockholm, Sweden: CD ROM from Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Psychology section, Karolinska Institutet.
Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American psychologist, 45, 513. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.45.4.513
Murphy, S. T., & Zajonc, R. B. (1993). Affect, cognition, and awareness: Affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 723–739. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.723
Reinders, A., Reggiori, F., & Shennan, A. H. (2006). Validation of the DINAMAP ProCare blood pressure device according to the international protocol in an adult population. Blood Pressure Monitoring, 11, 293-296.
doi:10.1097/01.mbp.0000217998.96967.fb
Richter, M. (2010). BlueBox 2 v1.22. [computer software]. University of Geneva.
Richter, M., Friedrich, A., & Gendolla, G. H.E. (2008). Task difficulty effects on cardiac activity. Psychophysiology, 45, 869-875. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00688.x Richter, M., & Gendolla, G. H. E. (2009). The heart contracts to reward: Monetary
incentives and pre-ejection period. Psychophysiology, 46, 451-457.
doi:10.1111/j.1469- 8986.2009.00795.x
Rotteveel, M., de Groot, P., Geutskens, A., & Phaf, R. H. (2001). Stronger suboptimal than optimal affective priming? Emotion, 1, 348-364. doi.org/10.1037/1528-
3542.1.4.348
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and wellbeing. American Psychologist, 55, 78–88. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Scherhag, A., Kaden, J. J., Kentschke, E., Sueselbeck, T., & Borggrefe, M. (2005).
Comparison of impedance cardiography and thermodilution-derived
measurements of stroke volume and cardiac output at rest and during exercise testing. Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy, 19, 141-147. doi: 10.1007/s10557-005- 1048-0
Seemann, E. A., Buboltz, W. C., Jenkins, S. M., Soper, B., & Woller, K. (2004). Ethnic and gender differences in psychological reactance: The importance of reactance in multicultural counselling. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 17, 167-176. doi : 10.1080/09515070410001728316
Sherwood, A., Allen, M. T., Fahrenberg, J., Kelsey, R. M., Lovallo, W. R., & Doornen, L. J. P.
(1990). Methodological guidelines for impedance cardiography. Psychophysiology, 27, 1–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1990.tb02171.x
Silvestrini, N., & Gendolla, G. H. E. (2011a). Do not prime too much: Prime frequency
effects of masked affective stimuli on effort-related cardiovascular response.
Biological Psychology, 87, 195–199. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.01.006 Strack, F., Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Kübler, A., & Wänke, M. (1993), Awareness of the
influence as a determinant of assimilation versus contrast. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 53–62. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420230105
Verwijmeren, T., Karremans, J. C., Bernritter, S. F., Stroebe, W., & Wigboldus, D. H. (2013).
Warning: You are being primed! The effect of a warning on the impact of subliminal ads. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 1124-1129.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.06.010
Wheeler, S. C., DeMarree, K. G., & Petty, R. E. (2007). Understanding the role of the self in prime-to-behavior effects: The active-self account. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 234-261. doi: 10.1177/1088868307302223
Wolford, G., & Morrison, F. (1980). Processing of unattended visual information. Memory
& Cognition, 8, 521-527. doi: 10.3758/BF03213771
Woller, K. M., Buboltz, W. C., & Loveland, J. M. (2007). Psychological reactance:
Examination across age, ethnicity, and gender. The American journal of psychology, 120, 15-24. doi: doi.org/10.1586/ern.09.62
Wright, R. A. (1996). Brehm's theory of motivation as a model of effort and
cardiovascular response. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 424-453). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Zafeiriou, A., & Gendolla, G. H. E. (2018). Implicit aging: Masked age primes influence effort-related cardiovascular response in young adults. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 4, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-017-0074-z
Footnotes
1 As in our previous research (e.g., Lasauskaite Schüpbach et al., 2014), we use the term suboptimal rather than subliminal, because the latter refers to stimulus presentations below individually determined thresholds of conscious perception.
2 The gender distribution reflects the higher interest of women to participate in the study coupled with constraints during the recruitment period.
Author Note
David Framorando and Guido H. E. Gendolla, Geneva Motivation Lab, FPSE,
Section of Psychology, University of Geneva, Switzerland. This research was supported by a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF 100014-162399)
awarded to Guido Gendolla. We thank Deniz Kilicel for her help as hired experimenter.
Please address correspondence to David Framorando or Guido H.E. Gendolla, Geneva Motivation Lab, Section of Psychology, University of Geneva, Bd. du Pont d’Arve 40, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland, or electronically to david.framorando@unige.ch or guido.gendolla@unige.ch.
Table 1
Means and standard errors (in parentheses) of the cardiovascular baseline values.
Men
Suboptimal Optimal
Sadness prime Anger prime Sadness prime Anger prime PEP 108.62(3.72) 105.32(2.85) 101.38(3.06) 101.27(3.88) SBP 109.25(4.22) 113.12(4.07) 97.80(2.56) 111.09(3.00) DBP 59.71(2.46) 60.70(3.00) 55.13(2.57) 61.96(1.74) HR 70.47(3.18) 69.82(3.95) 74.95(3.49) 71.53(3.30)
Women
Suboptimal Optimal
Sadness prime Anger prime Sadness prime Anger prime PEP 95.16(2.46) 104.21(2.44) 95.16(2.46) 98.68(2.89) SBP 98.51(2.23) 101.43(2.29) 101.68(1.73) 101.14(2.73) DBP 56.58(1.64) 57.34(1.98) 56.96(1.48) 56.23(1.88) HR 77.94(3.67) 74.71(3.05) 79.60(2.65) 75.98(2.79)
Note: PEP = pre-ejection period (in ms), SBP = systolic blood pressure (in mmHg), DBP = diastolic blood pressure (in mmHg), HR = heart rate (in beats/min). Cell ns 11 to 19.
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Cell means and ±1 standard errors of men’s cardiac pre-ejection period (PEP) reactivity (in ms) during the first minute of task performance.
Figure 1
