Research suggests that stimuli that prime social concepts can fundamentally alter people’s behavior. However, most researchers who conduct priming studies fail to explicitly report double-blind procedures. Because experimenter expectations may influence participant behavior, we asked whether a short pre-experiment interaction between participants and experimenters would contribute to priming effects when experimenters were not blind to participant condition. An initial double-blind experiment failed to demonstrate the expected effects of a social prime on executive cognition. To determine whether double-blind procedures caused this result, we independently manipulated participants’ exposure to a prime and experimenters’ belief about which prime participants received. Across four experiments, we found that experimenter belief, rather than prime condition, altered participant behavior. Experimenter belief also altered participants’ perceptions of their experimenter, suggesting that differences in experimenter behavior across conditions caused the effect. Findings reinforce double-blind designs as experimental best practice and suggest that people’s prior beliefs have important consequences for shaping behavior with an interaction partner.
AndersonC.GalinskyA. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536.
2.
BarberT. X. (1978). Expecting expectancy effects: Biased data analyses and failure to exclude alternative interpretations in experimenter expectancy research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 388–390.
3.
BarghJ. A.ChartrandT. L. (2014). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In ReisH.JuddC. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 311–344). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
4.
DoyenS.KleinO.PichonC. L.CleeremansA. (2012). Behavioral priming: It’s all in the mind, but whose mind?PLOS ONE, 7(1), Article e29081. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029081
5.
DreisbachG.BoettcherS. (2011). How the social-evaluative context modulates processes of cognitive control. Psychological Research, 75, 143–151.
6.
EriksenB.EriksenC. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.
7.
FanE. T.GruenfeldD. H. (1998). When needs outweigh desires: The effects of resource interdependence and reward interdependence on group problem solving. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 45–56.
8.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
9.
FignerB.MackinlayR. J.WilkeningF.WeberE. U. (2009). Affective and deliberative processes in risky choice: Age differences in risk taking in the Columbia Card Task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 709–730. doi:10.1037/a0014983
10.
GalinskyA. D.GruenfeldD. H.MageeJ. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453–466. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.453
11.
GalinskyA. D.MageeJ. C.GruenfeldD. H.WhitsonJ. A.LiljenquistK. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450–1466. doi:10.1037/a0012633
12.
GalinskyA. D.MageeJ. C.InesiM. E.GruenfeldD. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068–1074. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x
13.
GuinoteA. (2007). Power affects basic cognition: Increased attentional inhibition and flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 685–697.
14.
HarrisC. R.CoburnN.RohrerD.PashlerH. (2013). Two failures to replicate high-performance-goal priming effects. PLOS ONE, 8(8), Article e72467. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072467
15.
HerrP. M.ShermanS. J.FazioR. H. (1983). On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 323–340.
16.
JaroszA. F.WileyJ. (2014). What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting Bayes factors. Journal of Problem Solving, 7, 2–9. doi:10.7771/1932-6246.1167
17.
JASP Team. (2017). JASP (Version 0.8.2) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://jasp-stats.org/
18.
JordanJ.SivanathanN.GalinskyA. D. (2011). Something to lose and nothing to gain: The role of stress in the interactive effect of power and stability on risk taking. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 530–558.
KleinO.DoyenS.LeysC.Magalhaes de Saldanha da GamaP. A.MillerS.QuestienneL.CleeremansA. (2012). Low hopes, high expectations: Expectancy effects and the replicability of behavioral experiments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 572–584. doi:10.1177/1745691612463704
21.
LoerschC.PayneB. K. (2012). On mental contamination: The role of (mis)attribution in behavior priming. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 30, 241–252.
22.
MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. D.GruenfeldD. H. (2007). Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 200–212. doi:10.1177/0146167206294413
23.
ManerJ. K.GailliotM. T.ButzD. A.PerucheB. M. (2007). Power, risk, and the status quo: Does having authority promote riskier or more conservative decision-making?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 451–462.
24.
MillerD. T.TurnbullW. (1986). Expectancies and interpersonal processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 233–256.
25.
NguyenH. H.RyanA. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1314–1334. doi:10.1037/a0012702
26.
OverbeckJ. R.ParkB. (2006). Powerful perceivers, powerless objects: Flexibility of powerholders’ social attention. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 227–243.
27.
PashlerH.CoburnN.HarrisC. R. (2012). Priming of social distance? Failure to replicate effects on social and food judgments. PLOS ONE, 7(8), Article e42510. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042510
28.
RosenthalR. (1994). Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological research. Psychological Science, 5, 127–134.
SchollA.SassenbergK. (2015). Better know when (not) to think twice: How social power impacts prefactual thought. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 159–170. doi:10.1177/0146167214559720
SheldrakeR. (1998). Experimenter effects in scientific research: How widely are they neglected?Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12(1), 73–78.
33.
ShermanR. A.RauthmannJ. F.BrownN. A.SerfassD. G.JonesA. B. (2015). The independent effects of personality and situations on real-time expressions of behavior and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 872–888. doi:10.1037/pspp0000036
34.
SmithP. K.BarghJ. A. (2008). Nonconscious effects of power on basic approach and avoidance tendencies. Social Cognition, 26, 1–24.
35.
SmithP. K.JostmannN. B.GalinskyA. D.van DijkW. W. (2008). Lacking power impairs executive functions. Psychological Science, 19, 441–447. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02107.x
36.
SmithP. K.TropeY. (2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 578–596. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.578
37.
SnyderM.StukasA. A.Jr. (1999). Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 273–303.
38.
StorbeckJ.CloreG. L. (2008). The affective regulation of cognitive priming. Emotion, 8, 208–215.
39.
VallacherR. R.WegnerD. M.SomozaM. P. (1989). That’s easy for you to say: Action identification and speech fluency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 199–208.
40.
WarrinerA. B.KupermanV.BrysbaertM. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1191–1207.
41.
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, 1063–1070.
42.
WheelerS. C.PettyR. E. (2001). The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: A review of possible mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 797–826.
43.
WillisG. B.Rodríguez-BailónR.LupiáñezJ. (2011). The boss is paying attention: Power affects the functioning of the attentional networks. Social Cognition, 29, 166–181.
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.
