Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change.

Abstract

A central theme in recent research on attitudes is the distinction between deliberate, "explicit" attitudes and automatic, "implicit" attitudes. The present article provides an integrative review of the available evidence on implicit and explicit attitude change that is guided by a distinction between associative and propositional processes. Whereas associative processes are characterized by mere activation independent of subjective truth or falsity, propositional reasoning is concerned with the validation of evaluations and beliefs. The proposed associative-propositional evaluation (APE) model makes specific assumptions about the mutual interplay of the 2 processes, implying several mechanisms that lead to symmetric or asymmetric changes in implicit and explicit attitudes. The model integrates a broad range of empirical evidence and implies several new predictions for implicit and explicit attitude change.Keywords: attitude change, cognitive consistency, dual-process models, evaluative conditioning, implicit measures If eras of psychological research can be characterized in terms of general ideas, a major theme of the current era is probably the notion of automaticity. Many aspects of human behavior that have previously been assumed to have their roots in higher order processes of deliberate reasoning are now viewed as resulting from automatic processes that may occur spontaneously and outside of people's awareness or control (Bargh, 1997;Moors & De Houwer, 2006). This perspective is also dominant in contemporary research on attitudes, in which deliberate, "explicit" attitudes are often contrasted with automatic, "implicit" attitudes (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Petty, Fazio, & Briñol, in press;Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler, 2000; Wittenbrink & Schwarz, in press). Whereas the former are usually equated with deliberative, self-reported evaluations, the latter are typically inferred from people's performance on response latency measures, such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) or sequential priming tasks (Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995;Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997).Even though previous models effectively account for the differential impact of implicit and explicit attitudes on spontaneous and deliberate behavior (e.g., Strack & Deutsch, 2004;Wilson et al., 2000), theories of attitude change still face a considerable asymmetry in integrating the available evidence. Contemporary models of persuasion have been very successful in explaining the influence of different kinds of message cues on self-reported explicit evaluations (Chen & Chaiken, 1999;Kruglanski & Thompson, 1999;Petty & Wegener, 1999; for a review, see Visser & Cooper, 2003). However, changes in implicit attitudes are still largely unexplained. This shortfall has its roots in at least two conceptual issues. First, several models of attitude change do not distinguish between implicit and explicit attitudes in the first place but treat attitudes as a unitary construct (e.g., Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989...

Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions.

“…From the hundreds of studies conducted, we can conclude that implicit preferences (1) are related to, but distinct from, explicit preferences (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995;, (2) are constructed through different mechanisms than explicit preferences (De Houwer, Teige-Mocigemba, Spruyt, & Moors, 2009;Ranganath & Nosek, 2008;Ratliff & Nosek, 2011;Rydell & McConnell, 2006), and (3) have distinct mechanisms for change compared to explicit preferences (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006).…”

“…Indeed, significant progress has been made in the goal of identifying the processes underlying malleability and change in implicit evaluations (Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001;Mitchell, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003;Olson & Fazio, 2006;Rudman, Ashmore, & Gary, 2001; for reviews, see Blair, 2002;Dasgupta, 2009;Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006; Lai, Hoffman, & Nosek., 2013;.…”

“…Nowhere has this idea been more explored than in studies of racial prejudice in which people report egalitarian racial attitudes, but also implicitly prefer Whites compared to Blacks (Devine, 1989;Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997;Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995;. These studies have been influential because implicit racial preferences predict behaviors such as negative interracial contact (McConnell & Leibold, 2001), biases in medical decision-making (Green et al, 2007), and hiring discrimination (Rooth, 2010).From the hundreds of studies conducted, we can conclude that implicit preferences (1) are related to, but distinct from, explicit preferences (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995;, (2) are constructed through different mechanisms than explicit preferences (De Houwer, Teige-Mocigemba, Spruyt, & Moors, 2009;Ranganath & Nosek, 2008;Ratliff & Nosek, 2011;Rydell & McConnell, 2006), and (3) have distinct mechanisms for change compared to explicit preferences (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006).The study of implicit racial preferences has been driven by an interest in the basic mechanisms underlying social cognition, but also by an applied interest in social change: how can the expression of implicit racial preferences be reduced to mitigate subsequent discriminatory behavior? Indeed, significant progress has been made in the goal of identifying the processes underlying malleability and change in implicit evaluations (Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001;Mitchell, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003;Olson & Fazio, 2006;Rudman, Ashmore, & Gary, 2001; for reviews, see Blair, 2002;Dasgupta, 2009;Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006; Lai, Hoffman, & Nosek., 2013;.…”

The self-regulation of automatic associations and behavioral impulses.

“…Recently, a number of generalized dual-process models have been proposed that aim to provide comprehensive integrations across domain-specific dual-process models (e.g., Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006;Lieberman, Gaunt, Gilbert, & Trope, 2002;Smith & DeCoster, 2000;Strack & Deutsch, 2004). These models are not concerned with the specifics of how different types of automatic and controlled processes might be measured but rather are concerned with providing a broad framework for conceptualizing the distinction across content domains and measures.…”

Explicit- and Implicit Bullying Attitudes in Relation to Bullying Behavior

“…Implicit attitudes are impulsive, spontaneous, uncontrolled emotional reactions and evaluations. In contrast, explicit attitudes refer to deliberate, reflective, controlled, consciously self-reported evaluations (Gawronski and Bodenhausen 2006). Dualprocess models assume that there are two different modes of information processing that underlie implicit and explicit attitudes.…”