I have recently run two studies which employ a mindset priming paradigm. A “Bolstering mindset” was procedurally primed by asking participants to write 3 short essays proving their opinion on various favourable propositions that they would agree with and thus reaffirm (i.e. Bolster). Past research by Xu & Wyer (2012) has found that this “bolstering mindset” carryovers to inflate perceptual evaluations of unrelated adverts (advert attractiveness, advert persuasiveness etc) and elevate reported behavioural variables (willingness to volunteer for future research, amount willing to pay for the product).
Interestingly, my results only find that behavioural variables are influenced by the priming. Is there any theoretical reason why the priming procedure would affect behavioural measures BUT not perceptual measures?
Any ideas would be most helpful.
Yours sincerely
Brian
I always find it interesting when studies find different results. My first question is about your method. How did you measure perception versus behavior? It's not uncommon for participants to feign good behavior, or intended good behavior. If you measured behavioral persuasion by participants willingness to volunteer, then they may have simply responded in a way that they believed would make them look favorable.
The timing of the different measurements may play a role, too. If the perception and behavior measures were obtained at different times in the experiment, then there could be some sort of time-dependent influence. For example, in my own research I've found that participants' emotional states vary significantly depending on when the emotion is measured following an unexpected shift takes place in a dydadic interaction.
Hi Jay,
Thank you very much for your thoughts. I had not considered that a time delay between measures or social influence factors might be issues in explaining these effects. I will have to give these expalinations serious thought.
While the perceptual variables (ad persuasiveness, ad appeal, and product attractiveness) were measured immediately after the priming manipulation (as the questions appeared at the beginning of the questionnaire for the second, ostensibly unrelated study), the behavioural measures would have been measured a few minutes later as participants finished the questionnaire. This might point to goal priming which tends to increase prime strength over time. Hmmmm.
In a previous study, I have replicated the results of Xu & Wyer (2012) using an episodic recall task. I asked participants to recall occasions when they counterargued or bolstered before they evaluated the ostensibly unrelated advert. The results indicate that perceptual and behavioural variables were influenced by the priming. The results corresponded with those of Xu & Wyer but they were achieved using an episodic recall task rather than a procedurally priming manipulation (inducing bolstering or counterarguing in real time by asking participants to give their opinions of (un) favourable topics). Xu & Wyer posit that the carryover effects of cognitive procedures (an increase in counterarguing or bolstering thoughts) are responsible for the results. However, my results suggest that the valence of the thoughts do not mediate the carryover effects. I am wondering if perhaps this might be explained by the activation of a “production” (highly efficient cognitive procedures which require little or no thought).
In the last 2 studies, I have reverted to the procedural priming procedure used by Xu and Wyer to induce the bolstering mindset. I have found the priming only influences the behavioural variables which is interesting. Like my previous study, and contrary to the findings of Xu and Wyer, I am not finding that the valence of thoughts mediate the effects (which is strange).
Yours sincerely,
Brian
Hi Brian,
The previous study that you mention seems very interesting; I'd love to be able to read your previous study if it's been published in a manuscript!
I have some ideas and suggested research that might be helpful for your interpretation and theory, but wish to make sure I understand the results from your previous study first. From what I read here, you found that:
1. The counterargument versus bolstering priming influenced participants' behavior (presumably bolstering increases willingness to volunteer or amount to pay; counterargument reducing such?).
2. However, the valence (positivity versus negativity) of the evaluations was not linked to this process?
Many thanks for clarification.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Social Psychology