Effects on the Affect Misattribution Procedure are strongly moderated by influence awareness

Hughes, Sean; Cummins, Jamie; Hussey, Ian

doi:10.3758/s13428-022-01879-4

Cited by 15 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, some readers may wonder what the present results imply for the validity of the AMP as a measure of implicit evaluations. After all, the validity (and specifically the indirect nature) of the AMP has been questioned in past work (Bar-Anan & Nosek, 2012; Hughes et al, 2022). Moreover, in a multitrait–multimethod investigation of different direct and indirect measures of attitudes, unlike the other indirect measures included, the AMP showed similar loadings on the implicit and explicit latent constructs (Bar-Anan & Vianello, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do explicit and implicit evaluations shift? A preregistered meta-analysis of the effects of co-occurrence and relational information.

Kurdi¹,

Morehouse²,

Dunham³

2023

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on 660 effect sizes obtained from 23,255 adult participants across 51 reports of experimental studies, this meta-analysis investigates whether and when explicit (self-reported) and implicit (indirectly revealed) evaluations reflect relational information (how stimuli are related to each other) over and above cooccurrence information (the fact that stimuli have been paired with each other). Using a mixed-effects metaregression, relational information was found to dominate over contradictory co-occurrence information in shifting both explicit (mean Hedges' g = 0.97, 95% CI [0.89, 1.05], 95% PI [0.24, 1.70]) and implicit evaluations (g = 0.27, 95% CI [0.19, 0.35], 95% PI [−0.46, 1.00]). However, considerable heterogeneity in relational effects on implicit evaluation made moderator analyses necessary. Implicit evaluations were particularly sensitive to relational information (a) in between-participant (rather than within-participant) designs; when (b) co-occurrence information was held constant (rather than manipulated); (c) targets were novel (rather than known); implicit evaluations were measured (d) first (rather than last) and (e) using an affect misattribution procedure (rather than an Implicit Association Test or evaluative priming task); and (f) relational and co-occurrence information were presented in temporal proximity (rather than far apart in time). Overall, the present findings suggest that both implicit and explicit evaluations emerge from a combination of co-occurrence information and relational information, with relational information usually playing the dominant role. Critically, variability in these effects highlights a need to refocus attention from existence proof demonstrations toward theoretical and empirical work on the determinants and boundary conditions of the influences of co-occurrence and relational information on explicit and implicit evaluations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do explicit and implicit evaluations shift? A preregistered meta-analysis of the effects of co-occurrence and relational information.

Kurdi¹,

Morehouse²,

Dunham³

2023

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We do not share these concerns about the validity of the AMP. We believe that in its totality, available evidence overwhelmingly supports the construct validity of the AMP as a measure of implicit evaluations (for a review, see Payne & Lundberg, 2014), and the specific concerns raised by Bar-Anan and Nosek (2011) and Hughes et al (2022) have been laid to rest in followup work by Payne et al (2012) and Kurdi, Melnikoff, et al (2022). Moreover, we are generally of the view that susceptibility to relational information should not be used to judge the construct validity of measures of implicit evaluation.…”

Section: Additional Implications For Methods and Theorymentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Finally, some readers may wonder what the present results imply for the validity of the AMP as a measure of implicit evaluations. After all, the validity (and specifically indirect nature) of the AMP has been questioned in past work (Bar-Anan & Nosek, 2011;Hughes et al, 2022). Moreover, in a multitrait-multimethod investigation of different direct and indirect measures of attitudes, unlike the other indirect measures included, the AMP showed similar loadings on the implicit and explicit latent constructs (Bar-Anan & Vianello, 2018).…”

Section: Additional Implications For Methods and Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

How do explicit and implicit evaluations shift? A preregistered meta-analysis of the effects of co-occurrence and relational information

Kurdi¹,

Morehouse²,

Dunham³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on 660 effect sizes obtained from 23,255 adult participants across 51 reports of experimental studies, this meta-analysis investigates whether and when explicit (self-reported) and implicit (indirectly revealed) evaluations reflect relational information (how stimuli are related to each other) over and above co-occurrence information (the fact that stimuli have been paired with each other). Using a mixed-effects meta-regression, relational information was found to dominate over contradictory co-occurrence information in shifting both explicit (mean Hedges’ g = 0.97, 95-percent CI: [0.89; 1.05], 95-percent PI: [0.24; 1.70]) and implicit evaluations (g = 0.27, 95-percent CI: [0.19; 0.35], 95-percent PI: [ 0.46; 1.00]). However, considerable heterogeneity in relational effects on implicit evaluation made moderator analyses necessary. Implicit evaluations were particularly sensitive to relational information (a) in between-participant (rather than within-participant) designs; when (b) co-occurrence information was held constant (rather than manipulated); (c) targets were novel (rather than known); implicit evaluations were measured (d) first (rather than last) and (e) using an AMP (rather than an IAT or EPT); and (f) relational and co-occurrence information were presented in temporal proximity (rather than far apart in time). Overall, the present findings suggest that both implicit and explicit evaluations emerge from a combination of co-occurrence information and relational information, with relational information usually playing the dominant role. Critically, variability in these effects highlights a need to refocus attention from existence proof demonstrations toward theoretical and empirical work on the determinants and boundary conditions of the influences of co-occurrence and relational information on explicit and implicit evaluation.

show abstract

“…This argument is used to transcend debates about the nature of implicit attitudes. Thompson (2022) has raised these issues concerning triangulation arguments using evidence from the IAT and EPT, which are taken to be more related to measurement of implicit attitudes and biases than the AMP (Cummins et al, 2019; Hughes et al, 2021). She argued that triangulation is not necessarily successful in confirming the existence of a single construct and instead, researchers should use different methods to develop their understanding of a construct.…”

Section: Values and Justification In Psychometric Debatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing for implicit bias: Values, psychometrics, and science communication

Byrd

Thompson

2022

WIRES Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our understanding of implicit bias and how to measure it has yet to be settled. Various debates between cognitive scientists are unresolved. Moreover, the public's understanding of implicit bias tests continues to lag behind cognitive scientists'. These discrepancies pose potential problems. After all, a great deal of implicit bias research has been publicly funded. Further, implicit bias tests continue to feature in discourse about public-and private-sector policies surrounding discrimination, inequality, and even the purpose of science. We aim to do our part by reconstructing some of the recent arguments in ordinary language and then revealing some of the operative norms or values that are often hidden beneath the surface of these arguments. This may help the public learn more about the science of implicit bias. It may also help both laypeople and scientists reflect on the values, interests, and stakeholders involved in establishing, justifying, and communicating scientific research.

show abstract

Effects on the Affect Misattribution Procedure are strongly moderated by influence awareness

Cited by 15 publications

References 56 publications

How do explicit and implicit evaluations shift? A preregistered meta-analysis of the effects of co-occurrence and relational information.

How do explicit and implicit evaluations shift? A preregistered meta-analysis of the effects of co-occurrence and relational information.

How do explicit and implicit evaluations shift? A preregistered meta-analysis of the effects of co-occurrence and relational information

Testing for implicit bias: Values, psychometrics, and science communication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About