Priming — exposure to a stimulus that influences responses to a subsequent, related stimulus — has been widely studied in laboratory settings but rarely examined in ecological cultural contexts such as museums. This exploratory study investigated whether different priming modalities influence museum experiences across learning, affect, and pro-environmental attitudes. At the Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan, 161 visitors were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: visual, semantic, visuo-semantic priming or a no priming control condition. One-way ANOVA revealed no overall effect of priming condition on learning; however, exploratory pairwise comparisons indicated that the visuo-semantic condition produced higher learning scores than the visual condition alone (Cohen's d = 0.54, 95% CI [0.13, 0.95]). Unexpectedly, the control condition reported higher recycling intentions and intrinsic motivation than the visual priming condition. Overall, the findings suggest selective differences between priming modalities and underscore both the potential and the limits of applying cognitive principles in cultural settings.
BambergerY.TalT. (2007). Learning in a personal context: Levels of choice in a free choice learning environment in science and natural history museums. Science Education, 91(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20174
4.
BanziA. (2022). Attention, memory, and learning in museums. In The brain-friendly museum (pp. 37–57). Routledge.
5.
BanziA.FolgieriR. (2012) EEG-based BCI data analysis on visual-perceptual priming in the context of a museum of fine Arts. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on distributed multimedia systems, DMS 2012, August 9–11, 2012, Eden Roc Renaissance, Miami Beach, FL, USA (pp. 75–78). Knowledge Systems Institute 2012.
6.
BarghJ. A. (2016). Awareness of the prime versus awareness of its influence: Implications for the real-world scope of unconscious higher mental processes. Current Opinion in Psychology, 12, 49–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.006
7.
BarghJ. A.ChartrandT. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462.
8.
Ben-ShacharM. S.LüdeckeD.MakowskiD. (2020). Effectsize: Estimation of effect size indices and standardized parameters. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(56), 2815. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02815
9.
BertoR. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001
BrieberD.LederH.NadalM. (2015). The experience of art in museums: An attempt to dissociate the role of physical context and genuineness. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 33(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237415570000
12.
BrieberD.NadalM.LederH.RosenbergR. (2014). Art in time and space: Context modulates the relation between art experience and viewing time. PLOS ONE, 9(6), e99019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099019
13.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
14.
CagriA.AydinliB.BakarF., Bakar, F., & Alboga, Y. (2011). Preparing attitude scale to define students’ attitudes about environment, recycling, plastic and plastic waste. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 1(3), 179–191. Available: https://izlik.org/JA55YW87GJ
15.
ChiricoA.PizzolanteM.BorghesiF.BartolottaS.SarcinellaE. D.CipressoP.GaggioliA. (2023). “Standing up for earth rights”: Awe-inspiring virtual nature for promoting pro-environmental behaviors. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 26(4), 300–308. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2022.0260
16.
ChiricoA.ScuratiG. W.MaffiC.HuangS.GraziosiS.FerriseF.GaggioliA. (2021). Designing virtual environments for attitudes and behavioral change in plastic consumption: A comparison between concrete and numerical information. Virtual Reality, 25, 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00442-w
CoffeeK. (2007). Audience research and the museum experience as social practice. Museum Management and Curatorship, 22(4), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647770701757732
19.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed). Routledge.
20.
ColombettiG. (2014). The feeling body: Affective science meets the enactive mind. MIT press.
21.
CrawfordJ. R.HenryJ. D. (2004). The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43(3), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1348/0144665031752934
22.
DienerE.EmmonsR. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(5), 1105–1117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.1105
23.
DillardJ. P.ShenL. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815
24.
DingY.SunJ.LeungX. Y.LiuS. (2025). Museum experience and revisit intention: the impact of multitasking. Tourism Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-08-2024-0692
25.
DuncanC. (1995). Civilizing rituals: Inside public art museums. Routledge.
26.
FalkJ. H.DierkingL. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Rowman & Littlefield.
27.
FalkJ. H.DierkingL. D. (2016). The museum experience revisited. Routledge.
28.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
29.
FergusonM. J.BarghJ. A. (2004). Liking is for doing: The effects of goal pursuit on automatic evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 557–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.557
FolgieriR.BanziA. (2012, May 9–11). Preliminary results on priming based tools to enhance learning in museums of fine arts [Paper presentation]. Electronic Imaging & the Visual Arts: EVA 2012, Florence, 142–147.
34.
FoxJ.WeisbergS. (2019). An R companion to applied regression (3rd ed.). Sage.
35.
GlassG. V.PeckhamP. D.SandersJ. R. (1972). Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance. Review of Educational Research, 42(3), 237–288. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543042003237
Harmon-JonesE.BastianB.Harmon-JonesC. (2016). The discrete emotions questionnaire: A new tool for measuring state emotions. PLOS ONE, 11(8), e0159915. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159915
38.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 139–183). North-Holland.
39.
HauptmannB.KarniA. (2002). From primed to learn: The saturation of repetition priming and the induction of long-term memory. Cognitive Brain Research, 13(3), 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00124-0
40.
HerrP. M. (1986). Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1106–1115. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1106
41.
Hooper-GreenhillE. (2000). Museums and the interpretation of visual culture. Routledge.
42.
HubertyC. J.MorrisJ. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105(2), 302–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.302
43.
KaplanR.KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.
44.
KaplanS. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
45.
KaschakM. P.KuttaT. J.JonesJ. L. (2011). Structural priming as implicit learning: Cumulative priming effects and individual differences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(6), 1133–1139. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0157-y
KeltnerD.HaidtJ. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17(2), 297–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930302297
48.
KingE.SmithM. P.WilsonP. F.StottJ.WilliamsM. A. (2023). Creating meaningful museums: A model for museum exhibition user experience. Visitor Studies, 26(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2022.2129944
49.
KirchbergV.TröndleM. (2012). Experiencing exhibitions: A review of studies on visitor experiences in museums. Curator: The Museum Journal, 55(4), 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2012.00167.x
50.
KlauerK. C.MuschJ. (2003). Affective priming: Findings and theories. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 7–49). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
51.
KorpelaK. M.HartigT. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0018
52.
KronrodA.GrinsteinA.WathieuL. (2012). Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive?Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0416
53.
KühnapfelC.FingerhutJ.BrinkmannH.GansterV.TanakaT.SpeckerE.PelowskiM. (2023). How do we move in front of art? How does this relate to art experience? Linking movement, eye tracking. Emotion, and Evaluations in a Gallery-Like Setting. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 42(1), 86–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374231160000
54.
LederH.BelkeB.OeberstA.AugustinD. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811
55.
LeinhardtG.KnutsonK. (2004). Listening in on museum conversations. Rowman Altamira.
LiangY.KeeK. F.HendersonL. K. (2018). Towards an integrated model of strategic environmental communication: Advancing theories of reactance and planned behavior in a water conservation context. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2018.1437924
58.
LoerschC.PayneB. K. (2011). The situated inference model: An integrative account of the effects of primes on perception, behavior, and motivation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 234–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406921
59.
LumberR.RichardsonM.SheffieldD. (2017). Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PLOS ONE, 12(5), e0177186. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177186
60.
MarkleG. L. (2013). Pro-environmental behavior: Does it matter how it’s measured?Development and validation of the pro-environmental behavior scale (PEBS). Human Ecology, 41, 905–914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9614-8
61.
MastandreaS.BartoliG.BoveG. (2009). Preferences for ancient and modern art museums: Visitor experiences and personality characteristics. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(3), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013142
62.
MayerR. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 41, pp. 85–139). Academic Press.
MenardoE.BrondinoM.PasiniM. (2020). Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Italian version of the pro-environmental behaviours scale (PEBS). Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(7), 6907–6930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00520-3
65.
MessengerK. (2021). The persistence of priming: Exploring long-lasting syntactic priming effects in children and adults. Cognitive Science, 45(6), e13005. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13005
66.
MidwayS.RobertsonM.FlinnS.KallerM. (2020). Comparing multiple comparisons: Practical guidance for choosing the best multiple comparisons test. PeerJ, 8, e10387. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10387
67.
MoldenD. C. (2014). Understanding priming effects in social psychology: What is “social priming” and how does it occur?Social Cognition, 32(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2014.32.1.1
MulhollandP.WolffA.KilfeatherE.MaguireM.O’DonovanD. (2016). Modelling museum narratives to support visitor interpretation. Artificial Intelligence for Cultural Heritage, 3–22. http://www.cambridgescholars.com/artificial-intelligence-for-cultural-heritage
70.
NeelyJ. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In BesnerD.HumphreysG. W. (Eds.), Basic processes in Reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264–336). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
71.
PaivioA. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford university press.
72.
PaivioA. (2007). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
PelowskiM.MarkeyP. S.ForsterM.GergerG.LederH. (2017). Move me, astonish me… delight my eyes and brain: The Vienna integrated model of top-down and bottom-up processes in art perception (VIMAP) and corresponding affective, evaluative, and neurophysiological correlates. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 80–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.02.003
75.
PerruchetP.PactonS. (2006). Implicit learning and statistical learning: One phenomenon, two approaches. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(5), 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.03.006
76.
OrbellS.VerplankenB. (2015). The strength of habit. Health Psychology Review, 9(3), 311–317.
77.
QuickB. L.StephensonM. T. (2007). Further evidence that psychological reactance can be modeled as a combination of anger and negative cognitions. Communication Research, 34(3), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207300427
78.
QuickB. L.StephensonM. T. (2008). Examining the role of trait reactance and sensation seeking on perceived threat, state reactance, and reactance restoration. Human Communication Research, 34(3), 448–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00328.x
79.
R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
80.
Rehn-GroenendijkJ.SchusterK.MüllerH.ChrysikouE. (2023). A process to foster pathology-related effects of design primes - how orthopedic patients might benefit from design features that influence health behaviour intention. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1211563. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1211563
81.
RevelleW. (2024). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (R package version 2.4.3). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
82.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (2008). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (3rd ed). McGraw-Hill.
SaffranJ. R. (2001). The use of predictive dependencies in language learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(4), 493–515. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2759
SandellR. (2003). Social inclusion, the museum and the dynamics of sectoral change. Museum and Society, 1(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.29311/mas.v1i1.13
87.
SchacterD. L.BucknerR. L. (1998). On the relations among priming, conscious recollection, and intentional retrieval: Evidence from neuroimaging research. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 70(1-2), 284–303. https://doi.org/10.1006/nlme.1998.3854
88.
SchnallS.HaidtJ.CloreG. L.JordanA. H. (2008). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1096–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208317771
89.
SchnotzW.BannertM. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8
SchultzP. W.ShriverC.TabanicoJ. J.KhazianA. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00022-7
92.
SchwanS.DutzS.DregerF. (2018). Multimedia in the wild: Testing the validity of multimedia learning principles in an art exhibition. Learning and Instruction, 55, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.10.004
ShiotaM. N.KeltnerD.JohnO. P. (2006). Positive emotion dispositions differentially associated with big five personality and attachment style. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760500510833
96.
SilviaP. J. (2010). Confusion and interest: The role of knowledge emotions in aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017081
97.
SilviaP. J. (2012). Human Emotions and Aesthetic Experience: An overview of empirical aesthetics. In Arthur P. Shimamura, and Stephen E. Palmer (eds), Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience (pp. 250–275). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732142.003.0058
98.
SmithJ. K. (2014). The museum effect: How museums, libraries, and cultural institutions educate and civilize society. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.
99.
Smith-SebastoN. J.D'CostaA. (1995). Designing a Likert-type scale to predict environmentally responsible behavior in undergraduate students: A multistep process. The Journal of Environmental Education, 27(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1995.9941967
100.
SpeckerE.ForsterM.BrinkmannH.BoddyJ.PelowskiM.RosenbergR.LederH. (2020). The Vienna art interest and art knowledge questionnaire (VAIAK): A unified and validated measure of art interest and art knowledge. Psychology of aesthetics. Creativity, and the Arts, 14(2), 172. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000205
SwellerJ. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Academic Press.
103.
SwellerJ. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Academic Press.
104.
TaştepeT. (2017). A study to develop an attitude scale for recycling among high school student. Eğitim Kuram ve Uygulama Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3, 01–13. https://izlik.org/JA34ET22TA
105.
TerracianoA.McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr (2003). Factorial and construct validity of the Italian positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.19.2.131
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
108.
WeingartenE.ChenQ.McAdamsM.YiJ.HeplerJ.AlbarracinD. (2016). On priming action: Conclusions from a meta-analysis of the behavioral effects of incidentally-presented words. Current Opinion in Psychology, 12, 53–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.015
109.
WheelerS. C.PettyR. E. (2001). The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: A review of possible mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 127(6), 797–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.797
110.
WickensC. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220210123806
WinkielmanP.BerridgeK. C.WilbargerJ. L. (2005). Unconscious affective reactions to masked happy versus angry faces influence consumption behavior and judgments of value. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271309
114.
WolfeJ. M.HorowitzT. S. (2017). Five factors that guide attention in visual search. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(3), 0058. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0058
115.
WoltzD. J. (2010). Long-term semantic priming of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(6), 1510–1528. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021039
116.
WoollamsA. M.TaylorJ. R.KarayanidisF.HensonR. N. (2008). Event-related potentials associated with masked priming of test cues reveal multiple potential contributions to recognition memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(6), 1114–1129. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20076
WryobeckJ.ChenY. (2003). Using priming techniques to facilitate health behaviours. Clinical Psychologist, 7(2), 105–108.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
