Psychology
2012. Vol.3, No.2, 128-131
Published Online February 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.32019
128
Semantic Priming of Attention Focus: Evidence for Short- and
Long-Term Effects
Stefanie Hüttermann1, Daniel Memmert1, Otmar Bock2
1Institute of Cognitive and Team/Racket Sport Research, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany
2Institute of Physiology and Anatomy, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Received December 1st, 2011; r evised January 11th, 2012; accept ed J anua ry 27th, 2012
Research on subliminal priming documents that our brain can understand words, interpret facial expres-
sions and decode symbols even without realizing them consciously. Thus, words presented for merely a
few ms can shorten the response times to semantically related target words, if compared to words with
opposite meaning (e.g., Klauer & Musch, 2003). While most previous semantic priming studies used se-
mantic prime-target pairs of affective valence, the present study explored for the first time semantic
priming effects for prime-target pairs characterizing an attentional focus. In Experiment 1, a subliminally
presented prime word was followed by an above-threshold target word such that both words denoted a
broad attention focus, both denoted a narrow focus, or one word denoted a broad and the other a narrow
focus. Subjects had to judge the focus of the target words, and we found their response times to be shorter
when the prime-target pairs were semantically congruent rather than incongruent. In Experiment 2, a
block of subliminally presented prime words, all denoting a broad or all a narrow focus of attention, was
followed by a block of subliminally presented target words denoting a broad or a narrow focus in a mixed
sequence. Subjects had to judge the position of each prime or target, and we found their target response
times to be shorter when the target was semantically congruent rather than incongruent with the preceding
prime block. We concluded that semantic priming is effective, that it works for primes denoting the atten-
tion focus, and that it persists for more than just a fraction of a second.
Keywords: Semantic Priming; Attention Focus; Subliminal Priming
Introduction
Subliminal priming refers to the fact that stimuli of which
subjects are not aware can nevertheless influence their behavior
(Radel, Sarrazin, & Pelletier, 2009). This influence can mani-
fest as facilitation of responses that are congruent with the
prime, and/or as degradation of responses that are incongruent
with it (Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971). As an example, subjects
primed with smiling faces subsequently detected a happy face
faster than an angry one, and vice versa (Werheid, Alpay,
Jentzsch, & Sommer, 2005). Besides figural primes such as
faces, another popular category are semantic primes, i.e., words
which are presented too briefly for conscious perception, but
whose meaning nevertheless influences subsequent responses
(e.g., Klauer & Musch, 2003). The semantic primes in most
previous studies were words that denoted affective valence;
they were found to reduce the reaction times to subsequent
words of the same valence below those to words of the opposite
valence (Klauer, Eder, Greenwald, & Abrams, 2007; Naccache
et al., 2005; Rossell & Nobre, 2004). The present research ex-
pands this work to adjectives representing a broad or a narrow
focus of attention; to our knowledge, there has been no attempt
in the past to explore the effectiveness of semantic priming for
prime-target pairs denoting subjects’ attention focus.
The efficiency of semantic priming has been attributed to the
existence of a lexical network (Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971)
which stores semantically similar words in neighboring loca-
tions (Bueno & Frenck-Mestre, 2008): a word that is not con-
sciously perceived can nevertheless pre-activate the pertinent
region of the lexical network, and thus facilitate responses to
subsequent words that activate similar network locations (e.g.,
Kiesel, Kunde, & Hoffmann, 2007). In analogy to previous
semantic priming studies, we reasoned that subjects who were
subliminally primed with words relating to a narrow focus of
attention would subsequently respond faster to target words that
relate to a narrow rather than to a broad focus of attention,
while the opposite would be the case for subjects who were
subliminally primed with words relating to a broad focus of
attention. Primes and targets are paired trial-by-trial in Experi-
ment 1 to explore immediate effects, and block-by-block in
Experiment 2 to eval uate lasting effects.
Experiment 1
Method
Participants
Thirty university students (12 females and 18 males) between
the ages of 19 and 28 (Mage = 23.50 years; SD = 2.74 years)
took part after signing an informed consent statement. They
were right-handed, healthy, and have not participated in related
research before. The study was carried out in accordance with
the Helsinki Declaration of 1975.
Materials and Stimuli
Primes and targets were chosen from a set of 20 adjectives
describing a narrow attentional focus, and from a set of 20 ad-
jectives describing a broad focus of attention. The choice was

S. HÜTTERMANN ET AL.
made by common consent of two persons who were given a
larger list of adjectives. The word sets are shown in Appendix
A. The adjectives were comprised of small letters with an av-
erage height of 0.8 cm. Since the longest adjective had thirteen
letters, all other words were prolonged to thirteen letters by
leading and trailing “+” characters.
Procedure
Participants sat at a distance of about 45 cm from a 15” PC
monitor, such that the visual angle of the display was about 27˚
vertical × 34˚ horizontal. They were told that the experiment
concerned the speed at which people are able to affectively
categorize various stimulus words. The presented words should
be evaluated as quickly as possible as either describing a nar-
row or a broad focus of attention.
Each trial began with a masking stimulus (dot of about 3 cm
diameter), which appeared on the screen center for 500 ms.
Following the procedure of Bargh and Chartrand (2000), a
prime word was then displayed for only 32 ms such that par-
ticipants should merely detect a flicker on the screen. The
prime was followed by another dot mask for 50 ms. Then, the
target word was presented. Participants were instructed to press
a response key with one hand if the target was describing a
narrow focus of attention, and another key with the other hand
if the target was characterizing a broad focus of attention. The
target remained on the screen until the participant responded.
Prime and target were congruent on some trials (e.g. Figure 1,
top), and incongruent on other trials (e.g. Figure 1, bottom).
Participants were randomly subdivided into Group N, which
was primed only with adjectives representing a narrow focus,
and Group B, which was primed with adjectives describing a
broad focus. The primes from either list were selected by a
random process, and some words were therefore presented more
often than others. Target words for both groups were selected
from both lists under the constraint that prime and target were
always different words, and that each subject received target
words from both lists in equal proportions. Since an experi-
mental session lasted 56 trials (with 20 s rest breaks after each
14 trials), each subject received 56 prime words from one list,
paired with 28 target words from the same list and 28 from the
other list. One half of the subjects was instructed to use their
left hand for indicating “narrow” and their right hand for indi-
cating “broad”, while the opposite was the case for the other
half.
Data Analysis
We defined the response time on a given trial as the interval
between target appearance and key press. The mean response
time of each participant to targets representing a narrow or a
broad focus, respectively, was submitted to a two-way analysis
of variance ANOVA with the between-factor Group (N, B) and
the within-factor Target (narrow, broad).
Results and Discussion
All participants reported retrospectively that they had only
perceived a flicker between the two masks. When confronted
with the fact that words had been presented between masks,
they all negated having seen them.
ANOVA yielded no significant effects of Group (F1,28 = .001,
p = .979) or Target (F1,28 = 1.707, p = .202), but a significant
Group × Target interaction (F1,28 = 69.854, p < .001, 
2 = .714):
Figure 1.
Sequence of events in a congruent (top) and in an incongruent trial
(bottom) in Experiment 1.
as Figure 2 illustrates, Group N responded faster to targets
representing a narrow focus than to those representing a broad
focus while the opposite held for Group B, i.e., each group
responded faster in the primed category.
Experiment 1 confirms the effectiveness of semantic priming:
responses to target words were faster when the target was pre-
ceded by a semantically congruent rather than incongruent sub-
liminal prime word. While previous studies mostly explored the
effect of affectively congruent or incongruent primes on evalu-
ation responses to positive or negative valenced targets, the
present work is, to our knowledge, the first investigating the
effect of prime-target pairs denoting the attention focus. Sub-
jects classified adjectives as representing a “broad” or a “nar-
row” focus, and responded faster after semantically congruent

S. HÜTTERMANN ET AL.
Figure 2.
Mean response times (+SD) as a function of group and above-threshold
target type in Experim ent 1.
rather than incongruent prime words.
Experiment 2
Experiment 1 allowed us to establish the short-term effec-
tiveness of semantic priming, since each target was immedi-
ately preceded by a prime. Experiment 2 assessed possible
long- term effects by presenting first a block of prime words
referring to a given attention focus, and then a block of target
words referring to either attention focus in a mixed order. To
minimize a washout of priming effects during the target block,
the target words were presented subliminally, and were associ-
ated with choice responses regarding their position rather than
their meaning. To ensure that subjects watched all primes
alertly and to harmonize experimental procedures, prime words
were associated with the same choice responses as the target
words. In consequence, the prime and target blocks differed
only with respect to semantics (same focus versus mix of two
foci), but not with respect to the required responses.
Method
Participants
Thirty-two university students (20 females and 12 males)
between the ages of 20 and 29 (Mage = 23.59 years; SD = 2.59
years) took part in the study. Written informed consent was
obtained from each subject prior to participation. They were
right-handed, healthy, and have not participated in related re-
search before.
Procedures
Participants sat at a distance of about 45 cm from a 15” PC
monitor, such that the visual angle of the display was about 27˚
vertical × 34˚ horizontal. They were told that the experiment
determined the speed at which people are able to react to flash-
es of light.
Prime and target words were chosen from the same word sets
as in Experiment 1, and were presented with the same size. In a
first block, words from one given set were displayed in a ran-
dom sequence, and in a second block, words from both sets in a
mixed sequence. Each word was presented for 32 ms either 8
cm above or 8 cm below a fixation dot (of about 3 cm diameter)
in the screen center. Due to the brevity of presentation, subjects
were not aware that words were displayed and merely noticed
flashes of light. Words were presented about every four seconds.
Participants were instructed to release a central key and depress
a key above it if they saw the flicker above the fixation dot, or
depress the key below it if they saw the flicker below the fixa-
tion dot. Each block consisted of 28 words, with 20 s rest break s
between blocks. Participants were randomly subdivided into
Group N’, primed with adjectives representing a narrow focus,
and Group B’, primed with adjectives describing a broad focus
of attention.
Data Analysis
The response time of a given trial was defined as the interval
between word presentation and release of the central key. The
mean response time to targets representing a narrow focus was
calculated for each participant separately from that to targets
representing a broad focus of attention. The outcome was sub-
mitted to a two-way ANOVA with the between-factor Group
(N’, B’) and the within-factor Target (narrow, broad).
Results and Discussion
All participants reported retrospectively that they had only
perceived flashes of light above or below the fixation dot, and
no words. ANOVA yielded no significant effects of Group
(F1,30 = .618, p = .438) or Target (F1,30 = .067, p = .797), but a
significant Group × Target interaction (F1,30 = 14.503, p < .001,

2 = .326): Figure 3 illustrates that Group N’ primed with a
narrow focus responded faster to targets with a narrow rather
than to a broad focus, while the opposite was the case for
Group B’ primed with a broad focus.
These data show in accordance with Experiment 1 that se-
mantic priming of target words denoting the attention focus is
possible. Moreover, they document that this priming persists
for more than just the fraction of a second: since the second
block took about 162 s and priming effects were significant for
the block means, we conclude that priming persisted for 81 s
(1/2 block) or more.
General Discussion
Although a number of studies used semantic priming to in-
duce different mental states, none of them attempted to induce a
broad or narrow focus of attention, possibly because the
chances of success were considered to be low. The present
Figure 3.
Mean response times (+SD) as a function of group and subliminal
target type in Experim ent 2.
130

S. HÜTTERMANN ET AL.
research addressed this issue for the first time. In Experiment 1,
participants decided whether above-threshold target words cha-
racterized a narrow or a broad focus of attention after they were
primed with semantically related or unrelated words. In Ex-
periment 2, subjects had to react as fast as possible to sublimi-
nal targets after they were primed with words denoting a nar-
row or broad focus. Overall, the data suggest that responses to
target words of the primed category were faster than those to
the non-primed category; this difference amounted to about 31
ms in Experiment 1, and to about 10 ms in Experiment 2. Two
explanations for the greater effect in Experiment 1 are con-
ceivable. First, primes were presented above threshold rather
than subliminally, and thus might have activated the lexical
network (see Introduction) more efficiently. Second, primes
were presented in each trial rather than in separate blocks, and
their effects therefore did not decay with the passage of time.
It should be noted that the present study used words to prime
the attention focus, and used again words to confirm the suc-
cess of priming. It would be desirable in subsequent work to
validate priming effects in other ways, e.g., using visuo-spatial
or manual-skill tasks, in order to find out whether the effects of
priming extend beyond the semantic domain. If so, it might be
interesting to explore the utility of semantic priming in every-
day scenarios such as car driving. Dense traffic requires often-
times a broad focus of attention to deal with many parallel ac-
tivities on the road, but sometimes it requires a narrow focus to
process a challenging event—such as an animal on the road—in
great detail (Nideffer, 1976). An intelligent driver assistance
system could identify potential hazards ahead, and apply se-
mantic priming to direct the driver’s attention accordingly. This
might be more effective than an unspecific warning sound
which alerts the drivers but doesn’t modify their mental proc-
essing characteristics.
Another exemplary area of application is marketing. Several
studies (e.g., Karremans, Stroebe, & Claus, 2006; Klink, 2009)
found that subliminal advertising influences consumer choice.
Semantic priming of attention could be used to induce a broad
focus such that consumers place a higher weight on the overall
characteristics of a product, or a narrow focus such that they
mainly consider product details.
REFERENCES
Bargh, J. D., & Chartrand, T. (2000). The mind in the middle: A prac-
tical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis, & C.
M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and per-
sonality psychology (pp. 253-285). Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social
behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on
action. Journal of P e rsonality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-244.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230
Bueno, S., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2008). The activation of semantic
memory: Effects of prime exposure, prime-target relationship and
task demands. Memory & Cognition, 36, 882-898.
doi:10.3758/MC.36.4.882
Karremans, J. C., Stroebe, W., & Claus, J. (2006). Beyond Vicary’s
fantasies: The impact of subliminal priming and brand choice. Jour-
nal of Experimental Social P s y c ho l o gy, 42, 792-798.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.002
Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., & Hoffmann, J. (2007). Mechanisms of sub-
liminal response priming. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3,
307-315. doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0032-1
Klauer, K. C., Eder, A. B., Greenwald, A. G., & Abrams, R. L. (2007).
Priming of semantic classifications by novel subliminal prime words.
Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 63-83.
doi:10.1016/j.concog.2005.12.002
Klauer, K. C., & Musch, J. (2003). Affective priming: Findings and
theories. In J. Musch, & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of
evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 7-50).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Klink, R. R. (2009). Gender differences in new brand name response.
Marketing Letters, 20, 313-326.
doi:10.1007/s11002-008-9066-x
Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recogniz-
ing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval op-
erations. Journal of Experimental Psyc hology , 90, 227-234.
doi:10.1037/h0031564
Naccache, L., Gaillard, R., Adam, C., Hasboun, D., Clémenceau, S.,
Baulac, M., Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (2005). A direct intracranial
record of emotions evoked by subliminal words. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 1 02 , 7713-7717.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0500542102
Nideffer, R. M. (1976). Test of attentional and interpersonal style.
Journal of Personality a nd Social Psychology, 34, 394-404.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.3.394
Radel, R., Sarrazin, P., & Pelletier, L. G. (2009). Evidence of sublimi-
nally primed motivational orientations: The effects of unconscious
motivational processes on the performance of a new motor task.
Journal of Sport and Exercise P s yc holo gy, 31, 651-674.
Rossell, S. L., & Nobre, A. C. (2004). Semantic priming of different
affective categories. Emotion, 4, 354-36 3.
doi:10.1037/1528-3542.4.4.354
Werheid, K., Alpay, G., Jentzsch, I., & Sommer, W. (2005). Priming
the processing of facial affect: Event-related potentials reveal early
detection of emotional expression. International Journal of Psycho-
physiology, 55, 209-219. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2004.07.006
Appendix A
Word Set 1
nahe [close], genau [strict], akkurat [accurate], speziell [spe-
cial], einzeln [sole], subtil [subtle], komprimiert [compressed],
gründlich [thorough], intensiv [intense], umfriedet [enclosed],
gradlinig [linear], direkt [direct], klein [small], exakt [exact],
detailliert [detailed], schmal [slim], präzise [precise], gezielt
[specific], kurz [short], beschränkt [limited].
Word Set 2
weit [far], ungefähr [approximate], global [global], allgemein
[universal], vielfach [multiple], ausgedehnt [broad], offen
[open], generell [general], üblich [common], geräumig [spa-
cious], entfernt [distant], lang [long], groß [big], pauschal
[blanket], umfassend [comprehensive], weltweit [all-round],
verteilt [distributed], umfangreich [large], grob [rough], total
[total].