MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Priming Effects in Explicit and Implicit Memory for Textual Advertisements

2005· article· fr· W2063197114 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les effets d’une amorce sur les mémoires implicite et explicite à propos d’un produit placé dans un texte ont été mis à l’épreuve sous deux conditions, l’une où l’attention était orientée vers (encodage intentionnel) ou détournée du produit (encodage incident). Dans la première expérience, les caractéristiques positives d’un produit avaient plus de chances que les négatives d’être restituées, ce qui a conduit à un effet d’assimilation dans une condition témoin. Par contre, lorsque les particularités du produit étaient en amorec, le rappel explicite des caractéristiques négatives augmentait, débouchant sur un effet de contraste. L’impact de l’amorce était limitéà la condition d’encodage intentionnel, ce qui signifiait un effacement de l’information incompatible avec l’amorce. Dans la deuxième expérience, les épreuves de mémoires implicites perceptuelle et sémantique ont montré des effets d’amorce équivalents suite à l’encodage du produit, qu’il soit intentionnel ou incident. Par suite et contrairement à la mémoire explicite, la mémoire implicite du produit n’était pas conditionnée par l’attention. L’identification de ces limites de l’amorçage est utile aux gens de marketing qui envisagent ce consevoir une publicité exploitant les mémoires explicite et implicite d’un produit. The effects of priming on explicit and implicit memory about a product placed within a narrative were tested under conditions in which attention was drawn to (intentional encoding) or away from (incidental encoding) the product. In Experiment 1, positive features of a product were more likely to be recalled than negative features leading to an assimilation effect in a baseline condition. When the product characteristic was primed, however, explicit recall of the negative features increased resulting in a contrast effect. The impact of priming was restricted to the intentional encoding condition reflecting resolution of information incongruent with the prime. In Experiment 2, perceptual and semantic implicit memory tests revealed equivalent priming effects following both intentional and incidental encoding of the product. Thus, unlike explicit memory, implicit memory for the product was not limited by attention. Recognition of these boundary conditions of priming informs marketers intending to design advertising that taps explicit and implicit memory for a product.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it