Article révisé par les pairs
| Résumé : | I am delighted by and very grateful for the interest and men tal investment our paper bas elicited in the different commentators. In what follows, I wil! mainly address Pincus and Bonaventura's various comments, which I was much stimulated by, but I will start by reacting to one ofErdelyi's concerns. Indeed, echoing bis concern that the results are based on ODee. xperiment only, I want to add thatin the meantime another experiment, with a similar structure, bas been completed (Bazan et al., in preparation). In this new experiment, a subliminal prime such as, for example. DOOR was followed with a subliminal target consisting of a (phonological) palindrome of the prime (here ROAD) and either a distractor (e.g. LUNG) or a semantic equivalent (here, GATE). In this experiment we (twice) foood the same effect: namely, the more the subjects rated themselves as anxious, the more they chose the phonological palindrome as a target; the less they rated themseIves as anxious. the morethey avoided the phonological palindrome. Moreover, ERP (event-related potentials) indicators unequivocally show thai, though presented subliminally, the subjects registered the formal similarity between the prime and the palindrome target. |
