Double dissociation between implicit and explicit personality self-concept: The case of shy behavior.

Asendorpf, Jens B.; Banse, Rainer; Mücke, Doris

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.380

Cited by 576 publications

(605 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

521

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This combination of a small correlation between the implicit and explicit measures of extraversion, and a heterotrait-monomethod correlation between two reliable IAT measures is what is expected on the basis of the reliable contamination hypothesis. However, besides interindividual differences in task-switching costs, several other factors may have contributed to the low implicit-explicit correlation obtained in Experiment 3, such as balancing of compatibility order (Asendorpf et al, 2002), and differences in the constructs tapped by implicit and explicit measures (Bosson et al, 2000;Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler, 2000). Additionally, procedural variations like a relatively long response-stimulus interval of 800 ms and the incorporation of task-repetition trials may have played a role.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Method-Specific Variance in the Implicit Association Test.

Mierke¹,

Klauer²

2003

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

232

307

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

can be used to assess interindividual differences in the strength of associative links between representational structures such as attitude objects and evaluations. Four experiments are reported that explore the extent of method-specific variance in the IAT. The most important findings are that conventionally scored IAT effects contain reliable interindividual differences that are method specific but independent of the measures' content, and that IAT effects can be obtained in the absence of a preexisting association between the response categories. Several techniques to decrease the impact of method-specific variance are evaluated. The best results were obtained with the D measures recently proposed by A. G. Greenwald, B. A. Nosek, and M. R. Banaji (2003).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Correlations above .30 have been obtained in a smaller number of studies (e.g., Asendorpf et al, 2002;Banse et al, 2001;McConnell & Leibold, 2001). …”

Section: Psychometric Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Method-Specific Variance in the Implicit Association Test.

Mierke¹,

Klauer²

2003

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

232

307

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Past research has shown that implicit measures predict relatively automatic aspects of behavior that occur outside of conscious control, including spontaneous nonverbal behavior; in contrast, explicit measures better predict more consciously controlled behaviors, such as speech (e.g., Asendorpf, Banse, & Mücke, 2002;Dovidio et al, 2002;McConnell & Leibold, 2001). Although the current task involved the decoding rather than encoding of nonverbal signals, it nevertheless involved an on-line, dynamic perceptual judgment that required a rapid assessment of a changing stimulus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facing Prejudice

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The human face is central to social interaction and thus is of primary importance in social perception. Considering the inherently social nature of face perception, surprisingly little research has investigated the influence of social attitudes on the decoding of facial affect. Stereotypes clearly influence how people interpret the behavior of others. For instance, Duncan (1976) showed that ambiguous behavior was interpreted more negatively when performed by a Black actor than when it was performed by a White actor. Similarly, Sagar and Schofield (1980) found that ambiguously hostile behaviors were rated as more hostile when performed by a Black rather than White actor. Thus, cultural stereotypes tend to bias interpretations of ambiguous behaviors of Black targets in a negative manner.Given these biases in behavioral interpretation, one might expect that stereotypes would also influence the interpretation of facial affect.

show abstract

“…For example, Gollwitzer et al (2007) used an IAT to assess implicit (selfrelated) aggression attitudes and found a relation between these attitudes and aggressive behavior. In this study we used two newly developed varieties of the IAT: a general IAT on bullying (similar to self-concept IATs, e.g., Asendorpf et al 2002) and a movie-primed IAT on bullying. A prime is a stimulus presented to participants preceding a test.…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Explicit- and Implicit Bullying Attitudes in Relation to Bullying Behavior

Goethem

Scholte

Wiers

2010

J Abnorm Child Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main aim of this study was to examine whether an assessment of implicit bullying attitudes could add to the prediction of bullying behavior after controlling for explicit bullying attitudes. Primary school children (112 boys and 125 girls, M age=11 years, 5 months) completed two newly developed measures of implicit bullying attitudes (a general Implicit Association Test on bullying and a movie-primed specific IAT on bullying), an explicit bullying attitude measure, and self reported, peer reported, and teacher rated bullying behavior. While explicit bullying attitudes predicted bullying behavior, implicit attitudes did not. However, a significant interaction between implicit and explicit bullying attitudes indicated that in children with relatively positive explicit attitudes, implicit bullying attitudes were important predictors of bullying behavior. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.Keywords Explicit bullying attitudes . Implicit bullying attitudes . Interaction explicit and implicit bullying attitudes . Bullying School bullying is a large societal problem and is already evident among primary school children. Studies on this population show that 3-27% of the children bully, and 9-32% are bullied once a week or more (Berger 2007). Bullying has also been shown to have large negative consequences for the well-being of victims and bullies (Berger 2007;Scholte et al. 2007), which stresses the importance of targeting bullying behavior together with the factors that are related to bullying.Various factors have been found to contribute to the extent to which children bully other children. Research evidence indicates that social factors such as group membership and peer pressure, as well as individual, personal factors such as physical strength, aggressiveness, and empathy influence bullying (Rigby 2004). Another often studied individual factor is children's attitudes towards bullying. Attitudes are predictors of all kinds of spontaneous and deliberate social and non-social behavior (e.g., Glasman and Albarracin 2006) including bullying behavior (Salmivalli and Voeten 2004). Attitudes can be defined as general and enduring, concrete or abstract evaluations of a person, group, or issue and can be based on beliefs, emotions and behavior (cf. Petty and Cacioppo 1986).In attitude research, a distinction is made between implicit attitudes and explicit attitudes. 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. According to these models more automatic, impulsive, associative processes underlie implicit attitudes and more controlled, reflective processes underlie explicit During the research project on implicit and explicit bullying attitudes all authors were working at ...

show abstract

Double dissociation between implicit and explicit personality self-concept: The case of shy behavior.

Cited by 576 publications

References 65 publications

Method-Specific Variance in the Implicit Association Test.

Method-Specific Variance in the Implicit Association Test.

Facing Prejudice

Explicit- and Implicit Bullying Attitudes in Relation to Bullying Behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About