Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-qdpjg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T18:58:35.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Automatic threat processing shows evidence of exclusivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2023

David S. March Open the ORCID record for David S. March [Opens in a new window] ,
Michael A. Olson  and
Lowell Gaertner
David S. March
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA [email protected] https://psy.fsu.edu/faculty/marchd/march.dp.php
Michael A. Olson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA [email protected] [email protected] https://psychology.utk.edu/faculty/gaertner.php
Lowell Gaertner
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA [email protected] [email protected] https://psychology.utk.edu/faculty/gaertner.php
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

De Neys argues against assigning exclusive capacities to automatic versus controlled processes. The dual implicit process model provides a theoretical rationale for the exclusivity of automatic threat processing, and corresponding data provide empirical evidence of such exclusivity. De Neys's dismissal of exclusivity is premature and based on a limited sampling of psychological research.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e131
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bargh, J. A., & Ferguson, M. J. (2000). Beyond behaviorism: On the automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 925–945.10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.925CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fazio, R. H. (2007). Attitudes as object–evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25, 603–637.10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.603CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hermans, D., De Houwer, J., & Eelen, P. (2001). A time course analysis of the affective priming effect. Cognition & Emotion, 15, 143–165.10.1080/02699930125768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, D. S., Gaertner, L., & Olson, M. A. (2017). In Harm's way: On preferential response to threatening stimuli. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1519–1529.10.1177/0146167217722558CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
March, D. S., Gaertner, L., & Olson, M. A. (2018a). On the prioritized processing of threat in a dual implicit process model of evaluation. Psychological Inquiry, 29, 1–13.10.1080/1047840X.2018.1435680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, D. S., Gaertner, L., & Olson, M. A. (2018b). Clarifying the explanatory scope of the dual implicit process model. Psychological Inquiry, 29, 38–43. doi: doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2018.1435622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, D. S., Gaertner, L., & Olson, M. A. (2022). On the automatic nature of threat: Physiological and evaluative reactions to survival-threats outside conscious perception. Affective Science, 3, 135–144. doi: doi.org/10.1007/s42761-021-00090-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed