Can we undo our first impressions? The role of reinterpretation in reversing implicit evaluations.

Abstract

Little work has examined whether implicit evaluations can be effectively “undone” after learning new revelations. Across 7 experiments, participants fully reversed their implicit evaluation of a novel target person after reinterpreting earlier information. Revision occurred across multiple implicit evaluation measures (Experiments 1a and 1b), and only when the new information prompted a reinterpretation of prior learning versus did not (Experiment 2). The updating required active consideration of the information, as it emerged only with at least moderate cognitive resources (Experiment 3). Self-reported reinterpretation predicted (Experiment 4) and mediated (Experiment 5) revised implicit evaluations beyond the separate influence of how thoughtfully participants considered the new information in general. Finally, the revised evaluations were durable three days later (Experiment 6). We discuss how these results inform existing theoretical models, and consider implications for future research.

Easier done than undone… by some of the people, some of the time: The role of elaboration in explicit and implicit group preferences

“…In contrast, like individuals low in PNS, participants who were allowed to review the evidence were able to align their implicit preferences more closely with their explicit evaluations. These results both provide an important conceptual replication of prior work (Wyer, 2010; see also Mann & Ferguson, 2015) and add new evidence in support of elaboration as a mechanism through which associative knowledge structures can be effectively changed.…”

“…Only when participants were able to re-visit the original behavioral descriptions and re-evaluate it in light of the new category label were they successful in updating their implicit evaluations. Thus, re-elaborating on what one knows about another person may be an alternative route to forming new associations.Recent research by Mann and Ferguson (2015) supports this hypothesis. In a series of studies, participants formed initial (implicit and explicit) evaluations of a target based on a series of descriptions, and then learned counter-attitudinal information that either did or did not suggest an alternative interpretation of the original material.…”

“…Recent research by Mann and Ferguson (2015) supports this hypothesis. In a series of studies, participants formed initial (implicit and explicit) evaluations of a target based on a series of descriptions, and then learned counter-attitudinal information that either did or did not suggest an alternative interpretation of the original material.…”

“…As in the Wyer (2010) research described above, participants successfully revised their implicit evaluations of the target only if they were encouraged to re-interpret the information on which they had based their initial impressions. Crucially, Mann and Ferguson reported additional evidence that indicated that revision of implicit evaluations following re-interpretation was driven by the extent to which participants re-elaborated on the original information.The general consensus from this line of research is that changing implicit attitudes or impressions is difficult and may only occur under conditions that directly focus on building new associations between a target and its evaluation (through classical conditioning, e.g., Rydell et al, 2010; building new counter-attitudinal associations, e.g., Petty & Brinol, 2010; or through re-evaluating existing information, e.g., Mann & Ferguson, 2015; Wyer, 2010).What, then, is the likelihood that associations will be revised under more typical conditions (i.e., conditions in which we likely find ourselves on a day-to-day basis)? The aforementioned research by Wyer (2010) suggests that changing implicit attitudes may not be as unlikely as one might imagine given the bulk of evidence reviewed above.…”

“…The general consensus from this line of research is that changing implicit attitudes or impressions is difficult and may only occur under conditions that directly focus on building new associations between a target and its evaluation (through classical conditioning, e.g., Rydell et al, 2010; building new counter-attitudinal associations, e.g., Petty & Brinol, 2010; or through re-evaluating existing information, e.g., Mann & Ferguson, 2015;Wyer, 2010).…”