| Question | Answer | Flap 3 |
| Bargh 4 horsemen of automaticity | awareness, intention, efficiency, control | (blank) |
| Awareness | Unaware of stimulus/effects on processing or behaviour | (blank) |
| Intentionality | Do you want to start a process | (blank) |
| Control | if aware of stimulus can you STOP its effects? | (blank) |
| Efficiency | Cognitively demanding = might not occur under cognitive strain | (blank) |
| 3 levels of automatic behaviour | preconscious, postconscious & goal-directed | pre = notice stimulus but not effects, post = results from previous concious processing, goal = intent + consent, considering the self) |
| Automaticity good? | Auto responses can be more accurate (Wilson & Schooler, 1991), frees up cog space | (blank) |
| Bargh (1989) | recons we're always on auto pilot, with "if X then Y" | where X is environment cue and Y is behaviour |
| James (1890) | thinking conciously about an action activates action tendancies associated with that action making them more accessible | Guiding behaviour in that particular direction |
| Carver et al (1983) | Perception-action interface | Shocking the confederate. Ppts primed w hostility gave longer shocks to others when they answered questions wrongly |
| Bargh, Chen & Burrows (1996) | Perception-behaviour interface, | Prime with politeness/rudeness. Wait for experimenter to finish a concersation. Ppl primed with rude far more likely to interrupt |
| Dijksterhuis & Van Knippenberg (1998) | Percept-behaviour interface | ppts primed with professor do better than control in trivia persuit questions, those primed with secretary do worse than control. |
| Dijksterhuis & Van Knippenberg (1998) 2 | prime with elderly coridoor (Bargh?!?!) | (blank) |
| Bargh (1993) | Perception-behaviour interface | Subliminaly prime with black v white faces, do boring dot task then "oh no i've lost the data, will you do it again?", black primed = more aggressive facial gestures & rude towards experimenter |
| If everything is automatic, why don't we act on all our ideas? | boundary effect | eg Kissing experiment - we don't do it for many reasons eg. tendancy, current environment, morals etc |
| William James (1890) | boundary effect | we don't do it cos other ideas rob them of their power. |
| Norman and Shallice (1986) | Boundary effect, accesibility & activation of schema | behaviour controlled by automatic activation of schemas when everything is going to plan, but then change to supervisory attentional system when something novel happens. A schema will be selected if it reaches activation threshold and isn't inhibited. |
