There is a growing interest in the phenomena of mind duality, one of the most intriguing
properties of human nature. A review of classic texts (Maslow, 1954; Reykowski, 1975;
Schneider and Shiffrin, 1977; Epstein, 1983) as well as more recent works (Gawronski
and Bodenhausen, 2006; Clore and Huntsinger, 2007; Kahneman, 2011; Evans and Stanovich,
2013; Gawronski and Creighton, 2013; Sherman et al., 2014; Strack and Deutsch, 2014)
shows that the authors refer to the distinctions between mental codes (affective vs.
intellectual), cognitive and evaluative processes (associative vs. propositional),
levels of consciousness, and regulatory systems (automatic vs. controlled). Advances
in neurobiological research help to understand interrelations between diverse brain
structures and regulative rules.
The alliance of psychology with neuroscience has become a standard in studies on emotions
understood as evaluative processes (Ekman and Davidson, 1994; LeDoux, 1996, 2012;
Oatley and Jenkins, 1996; Panksepp, 1998; Liberman, 2003; Sander and Scherer, 2009;
Linquist et al., 2012; Imbir et al., 2015). The research conducted in our laboratory
aims to differentiate between two evaluative systems: primary/automatic and reflective
(Jarymowicz, 2008; Jarymowicz and Imbir, 2015). On the basis of the neurobiological
and psychological models we assume that interactions between these two systems are
reciprocal. The purpose of this opinion article is to present some empirical arguments
related to the nonspecific impact of the reflective system on the automatic one.
Basic characteristics of two evaluative systems: primary/automatic and reflective
The theoretical framework of our studies is based mainly on Zajonc's idea of the primacy
of affect (Zajonc, 1980, 1984) and LeDoux's (1996) model of different roads of stimuli
to the amygdala (“the emotional computer”; Sander et al., 2003)—the subcortical and
the cortical ones. The research program attempts to define the specificity of the
two diverse evaluative systems, their functions, and their reciprocal relationships
(Jarymowicz, 2008, 2016; Jarymowicz and Imbir, 2015).
Our studies quoted below concern the primary automatic system generating evaluations
based on subcortical processes (LeDoux, 1996, 2012) and implicit cognition leading
to implicit appraisals (Sander and Scherer, 2009). Such affective reactions to stimuli
occur in a mindless manner. All their attributes—origin, content, and effects (Gawronski
et al., 2006)—can be totally implicit, that is introspectively unidentified (Greenwald
and Banaji, 1995). Since primary affects are diffusive (Zajonc, 1980), they often
influence explicit judgments concerning diverse objects, unrelated to unconscious
stimuli (Murphy and Zajonc, 1993).
The reflective evaluative system, based on deliberate thinking, requires effort and
is time- and energy-consuming. Moreover, evaluations can't be made without referring
to cognitive, verbalized evaluative standards (Reykowski, 1989) which serve as mental
bases for the object's appraisal in terms (often abstract ones) of good and evil.
The evaluative processes are developed as a result of comparison between the actual,
real circumstances and the conceptual, verbalized standards. Appraisals are made as
a consequence of: (1) search for appraisals' premises, (2) piecemeal analyses of the
object's properties, and (3) heterogeneous evaluations which, finally, reduce certainty
and extremity of judgments (Jarymowicz, 2016).
Numerous data show a nonspecific influence of implicit affective stimuli on explicit
judgments and behavior (e.g., Chen and Bargh, 1997; Berridge and Winkielman, 2003;
Ohme, 2007). The explanations are based on the data showing that primary diffusive
affects have an impact on subsequent explicit appraisals. Thus, verbalized judgments
can be dominated by previous, even unconscious affective reactions to unrelated stimuli.
Apparently this type of influence leads to numerous negative consequences. Hence,
an important question arises: which processes may reduce the primary, nonspecific
affective influence on thinking and judgments?
The main assumption: the reflective system changes the rules of evaluative processes
Researchers are familiar with the spectacular case of Phineas Gage (Damasio, 1994),
who, having suffered injury to the frontal lobes, lost the ability to control his
own impulsive reactions. Today there is no doubt that the prefrontal brain modifies
the processes evoked on the lower levels of the central nervous system (Gazzaniga,
2012). This implies, in psychological terms, that the impact of primary affective
reactions (for instance, negative affect due to expression of subliminally exposed
face) on judgments concerning unrelated objects (like Chinese signs) can be limited.
According to our hypothesis, the reduction of primary affects' influence can be due
not only to (1) a voluntary, reflective control over evaluative processes (when a
subject is motivated to weight her/his own words), but also to (2) a nonspecific activation
of the reflective system, which is connected with different rules of evaluation.
The results of gathered data show a specific influence of the subject's beliefs on
her/his automatic reactions to implicit stimuli. This means that thinking and reasoning
have an impact not only on the explicit knowledge and memory, but also on the implicit
information processing (Uleman and Bargh, 1989; Underwood, 1996; Chen and Bargh, 1997;
Holyoak and Morrison, 2005). However, can a nonspecific influence of the reflective
evaluative system on the automatic evaluative system actually be evidenced?
There are reasons to posit that development of the reflective mind changes the rules
of the entire mind's functioning. In particular, it can be assumed that the development
of the reflective evaluative system leads to a habitual disposition to seek verbalized
premises of one's own judgments. Also, its habitual character can result in relative
independence from the influence of irrelevant affective processes on evaluative thinking.
A series of our studies yielded some empirical evidence supporting these assumptions.
Methodology: the affective implicit priming paradigms and measurements of their effects
The implicit priming paradigm constructed by Murphy and Zajonc (1993) was applied
to all the studies mentioned below, although with some modifications. In the original
version, participants were requested to intuitively evaluate unknown Chinese ideograms—allegedly
“symbolizing human traits”—in terms of their negativity vs. positivity. Each sign
was primed with a neutral or affective subliminal stimulus (exposed for 12 ms), i.e.,
a photograph of a face showing a neutral, positive, or negative expression. In some
of our experiments, participants had to intuitively evaluate the extent to which a
given ideogram “represents a trait” characteristic to the self—to measure the so-called
Implicit Self-Reference Effect (Błaszczak and Imbir, 2012).
The original data analyses aimed at comparing the effects exerted by the type of experimental
conditions (neutral × negative × positive priming) on the explicit evaluation of a
neutral ideogram. This paradigm allows to show the impact of implicit affective priming
on neutral stimuli evaluations (Ohme, 2007; Karwowska and Kobylińska, 2014).
An important modification of the affective priming impact index was introduced by
Karwowska (2001), in order to differentiate between the participants who were more
or less resistant to the influence of implicit affective stimuli. A difference between
explicit appraisals made after exposure of negative or positive priming vs. the ones
generated in control conditions (priming with a neutral stimulus) was calculated for
each individual. The differences between appraisals following the affective vs. neutral
priming show that explicit appraisals of a neutral stimulus (Chinese ideogram) are
more or less neutral, and as such, relatively dependent upon/independent from the
implicit affective priming.
Nonspecific activation of the reflective system and registration of automatic reactions
to implicit stimuli
In a series of studies, Karwowska (Karwowska and Kobylińska, 2014) applied the implicit
affective priming paradigm. However, in the first stage of each study the author requested
that participants present arguments concerning some social problems beforehand. For
instance, they had to indicate positive and negative attributes of patriotism, or
to enumerate arguments for and against acceleration of adoption procedures for children.
The control groups dealt with a simple cognitive task: they had to compare pairs of
numbers and say, in each case, if both were identical or different.
Next, the participants were invited to “a study on intuition.” They were asked to
estimate the degree to which a trait (allegedly) symbolized by a given Chinese ideogram
was negative or positive. Each ideogram was primed with suboptimal exposition of a
photo of a face with neutral, negative, or positive expression. A repeated effect
was found: the participants who were subject to a prior, deliberative thinking stimulation
estimated neutral ideograms as significantly more neutral than the participants in
the control conditions. We called this effect the “Primary Affect's Independence Effect”
(PAI).
The PAI effect was measured in some studies aimed at identifying dispositional factors
determining resistance to diffusive irrelevant affective influence on judgments and
behavior (Jarymowicz, 2008). It was assumed that the relationships between automatic
and reflective regulative systems are applicable not only to the conditions in which
uncontrolled affective and controlled reflective processes are simultaneously stimulated.
Further, it was presumed that reflective mind development leads to a kind of habitual
readiness to seek evident evaluative judgment premises rather than guess what a given,
unknown object or reality condition means. Based on the latter assumption, correlations
between some selected dispositional factors and the PAI effect were predicted.
Dispositional factors as possible correlates of resistance to the implicit affect
influence on judgments
The studies' project was aimed to include some dispositional determinants of the PAI
effect. As it was assumed that some dispositions have to be connected with reflective
mind development, our interest fell on the determinants supposedly developed on the
basis of reflective thinking. Three determinants had been chosen—all selected from
our earlier personality research. (1) The first one—the Self-Others Schemata Distinctness–concerns
the difference between prototypical traits ascribed (independently) by a subject to
the self vs. to other people (Jarymowicz, 1987, 1991; Jarymowicz and Szuster, 2016).
(2) The second one—Evaluative Heterogeneity—refers to the ability to perceive negative
as well as positive attributes of the same object (Jarymowicz, 2016). (3) The third
one—Exocentric Altruism—is related to centration on others and understanding the perspective
of other people (Szuster, 2005; Szuster and Rutkowska, 2008).
All these variables are measured in a simple manner. The self-others schemata distinctness
variable is measured by comparing the traits consecutively indicated by the subject
as the most important for characterizing (a) other people and (b) the self. The evaluative
heterogeneity variable is measured by the proportion of negative and positive attributes
ascribed by the subject to a given object. The exocentric altruism is measured by
way of manifesting the subject centration on other persons' states.
Correlative studies: dispositional factors and reactions to the implicit affective
stimuli
The hypotheses predicted that the degree of influence of implicit affective priming
on estimation of Chinese ideograms will depend on the level of each of the dispositional
variables. The same data pattern was found in all the studies (Jarymowicz, 2008):
the higher the indices of self-distinctness, evaluative heterogeneity, or exocentric
altruism, the more neutral the explicit estimations of the neutral Chinese ideograms
(allegedly human traits) implicitly primed with photos of faces with negative or positive
expressions.
In another study (Jarymowicz, 2008), self-distinctness and the Implicit Self-Reference
Effect were measured. The result was consistent with the above-mentioned research:
the higher the indices of self-distinctness, the lower the degree of reference of
neutral, unknown Chinese ideograms primed with photos of unknown faces to the self.
Thus, all the gathered data indicate that self-others schemata distinctness, evaluative
heterogeneity, and exocentric altruism—as measurements of dispositional variables—correlate
positively with a kind of resistance to the influence of the implicit affective priming
on one's own judgments.
Conclusions
Numerous arguments allow to differentiate between the reflective evaluative system
connected with specific evaluative rules and the system evoking automatic affective
reactions. The empirical studies show that implicit affective stimuli can have a nonspecific
impact on explicit judgments. On the other side, the data mentioned above suggest
that resistance to implicit stimulation can be caused by the nonspecific impact of
the reflective system on the automatic one. The results were similar in the two types
of studies mentioned: those in which deliberative thinking stimulation was applied,
and those in which some reflective dispositions were measured.
In more general terms, it can be assumed that reflective system development leads
to changes in the system of principles controlling automatically evoked affects. In
particular, the data suggest that the reflective evaluative system may inhibit influence
of primary affective reactions on judgments.
Author contributions
MJ: Substantial contributions to the general assumptions, data analyses, and interpretations;
Draft and the final version of the Opinion Article (with the common approval of all
parts of texts by both authors). AS: Contribution to the part of design of studies
on the exocentric altruizm, data analyses, and interpretations; Draft and the final
version of the Opinion Article (with the common approval of all parts of texts by
both authors).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial
or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.