The attractiveness-positivity link: Let’s contextualize it

The statement “what is beautiful is good” reflects a persuasive heuristic that may be supported either by a general association of attractiveness with positivity or by a specific association with the perceived credibility of an attractive source. In one study (N = 58), we approach this question using an explicit and an implicit measure (Stroop Task) to assess whether attractiveness is more likely associated with valenced words when these are related (vs. unrelated) to credibility. Results show that this effect occurs but only for the implicit measure. When the word-face associations were made at an explicit level, we found a general association between positivity and attractiveness, unrestricted to the dimension of credibility. We discuss how these results inform about attractiveness as a shortcut to judgments of validity.     

Good to Bad or Bad to Bad? What is the relationship between valence and the trait content of the Big Two?

In this article we directly assessed the relationship between valence and relevant traits of the Big Two dimensions (i.e., communion and agency). Drawing on previous research, we expected that the relationship with valence would be less monotonous and more variable in direction across agency-related traits, compared to communion-related traits. In three repeated measures studies we assessed the perceived valence of each trait dimension on a continuum of seven points. Studies 1 and 2 defined each continuum verbally. In Study 3 each continuum was defined by facial features. Results across these studies show that valence is linearly and more consistently related with communion-related traits than with agency-related traits. Within agency, however, competence established a positive linear relationship with valence, whereas dominance showed a target-sensitive relationship with valence: quadratic in evaluation of trait concepts, and negative and linear in face evaluation. We discuss the implications of these data for Big Two-related research.     

Prior source exposure and persuasion: further evidence for misattributional processes

To assess the persuasive impact of prior source exposure, two studies paired persuasive messages with a source to whom participants had previously been exposed subliminally, explicitly, or not at all. In Experiment 2, participants' attention also was drawn to information that potentially undermined the implications of any reaction to re-exposure. Compared to no exposure, prior subliminal exposure increased the source's persuasiveness, an effect not mediated by source liking. Explicit exposure increased source persuasiveness to the extent that the source was liked more and only absent a recall cue. Results favored misattributional accounts of prior exposure effects.     

Both associative activation and thematic extraction count,but thematic false memories are more easily rejected

The main aim of this study was to analyse the roles played by associative activation and thematic extraction in the explanation of false memories using the Deese, Roediger, McDermott (DRM) paradigm. Associative lists with two different types of critical items (CIs) were used: one, the associative CI, corresponded to the word most strongly primed by the associates in the list and another, the thematic CI, was the word that best described the theme of the list. Following three different types of encoding instructions (standard, warning or strategic), false recognition for these two types of CIs was analysed in either self-paced or speeded response recognition tests. The results showed considerable levels of false memories for both types of CIs. Even without the quality of being “good themes”, associative CIs produced high levels of false recognition, which suggests that associative activation plays a prominent role in false memory formation. More interestingly, thematic CIs were more prone to be edited out, reinforcing the argument that thematic identifiability has a major role in the rejection of false memories.