| Abstract/Results: | RESULTS:
Two studies exposed participants to separate sets of pictures in subliminal and extra-sensory ways. Messages intended to influence mood were also presented 5 times. An early memory was rated for valence as a measure of mood. Exposed pictures were paired with matched, unexposed pictures and participants were asked to say which they preferred. This tests the Mere Exposure Effect (MEE), assuming that the pre-exposed pictures will be preferred. We also assessed variables predicted to influence both effects, based upon prior findings and first sight theory.
In the first study (59 females, 19 males) the messages intended to affect mood were presented subliminally, in the second study they were presented extrasensorily (completely blocked). In the second study (75 females, 18 males), the relationships found to most strongly predict extrasensory and subliminal preferences in the first study were combined to test for confirmation.
In Study one, extrasensory response was expected to be affected by three facets of openness; anxiety, creativity, belief in ESP, tolerance for closeness and Liminal Orientation. Subliminal response was expected to vary in terms of Need for Structure, Need for Cognition, Liminal Orientation and Boredom Proneness. All relationships were expected to be stronger when mood had been manipulated to be more positive. Study two distinguished between pictures with human and non-human content.
Results for Study one found no overall MEE. Mood was influenced by the subliminal message. ESP response was significantly predicted by all 3 facets of openness, belief that ESP is possible, creativity, liminal orientation, tolerance of closeness, anxious vulnerability and need for structure. The strongest independent relationships were with a combined variable consisting of openness to fantasy, tolerance for merger, and (-) vulnerability. Subliminal response was predicted by Need for Cognition, Liminal Orientation and (-)Boredom Proneness. Only Liminal Orientation was independently predictive. Relationships were stronger when Ps had been induced to be in a positive mood, particularly with ESP.
In Study two, the extrasensory presentation of the mood-manipulation was not successful in affecting mood, so naturally-occurring mood was used instead. The composite variable intended to predict ESP response did so significantly. However, Liminal Orientation did not significantly predict subliminal response. As predicted, all relationships with ESP were stronger when mood was positive and when the target content was human. These things did not influence subliminal response.
|