The Historical Origins of Priming as the Preparation of Behavioral Responses: Unconscious Carryover and Contextual Influences of Real-World Importance

Contrary to the recent assertions of skeptics of behavioral priming effects, the concept of priming was not introduced by the Meyer and Schvaneveldt (M-S, 1971) study of brief semantic spreading activation effects (perceptual-interpretation priming); it was originally introduced by Karl Lashley (1951) as a mechanism to increase the probability of a behavioral response (behavioral priming). The priming of the response was Lashley's solution to the problem of smooth behavioral response sequencing. Moreover, the initial priming demonstrations in experimental psychology, which predated M-S by many years, were of carryover effects from one experimental task to another—the same priming paradigm commonly employed in social psychology since the pioneering study of Higgins, Rholes, and Jones (1977). These priming effects were thus of considerably longer duration than the fleeting spreading activation effects obtained by M-S in the lexical decision task. Priming and accessibility effects of which the individual is unaware are commonplace in tasks involving higher mental processes, across diverse areas of psychological research, and often take the original form of carryover effects of task or emotional state to an unrelated subsequent context. In addition, behavioral priming is a natural and ecological phenomenon, as imitation and mimicry effects of perceiving another's behavior on one's own behavioral tendencies are clear manifestations of behavioral priming effects in the real world. These and other natural priming effects have now been demonstrated to have practical and applied importance in everyday life, such as in therapeutic interventions for addictions, increasing production in the workplace, and providing useful and effective “nudges” to a happier and healthier life.