Implicit Consistency Processes in Social Cognition: Explicit‐Implicit Discrepancies Across Systems of Evaluation

Abstract

What happens when our automatic evaluations conflict with our attitudes that we can reflect on and articulate? In this paper, we review some processes by which explicit implicit evaluative discrepancies (EIEDs) arise and can impact our thoughts, feelings, and behavior, using a dual-systems perspective on attitudes to explain the psychological processes underlying these evaluative inconsistencies. EIEDs emerge when differential positive and negative evaluations toward attitude objects reside in systems of knowledge governed by language and reasoning (i.e., explicit evaluations) and systems of knowledge that are association-based (i.e., implicit evaluations). We discuss factors that produce EIEDs, including the influence of extrapersonal associations on attitudes, temporal, and qualitative differences in encountering attitude-relevant information, and the differential influence of processing goals. Finally, we discuss consequences of holding EIEDs, including their impact on behaviors toward attitude objects, enhanced elaboration and scrutiny of social information, motivated reasoning, errant affective forecasting, and self-regulatory success and failure.

Effects of Ratemyprofessors.com and University Student Evaluations of Teaching on Students’ Course Decision-Making and Self-Efficacy

“…This is an interesting finding considering that students reported that they would consider university SET more seriously than RMP evaluations. This incongruity between students' explicit attitude and implicit response toward university SET aligns with social psychological findings indicating that individuals frequently possess inconsistent attitudes (Shoda et al, 2014). Although explicit attitudes may be easier to verbalize (e.g., "I would consider university SET more seriously"), inconsistent implicit attitudes still exert a strong influence on behavior (e.g., consider university SET and RMP evaluations equally seriously) (Karpen et al, 2012).…”

The Relationship of Self-efficacy and Explicit and Implicit Associations on the Intention–Behavior Gap

“…31 Researchers have argued that EIEDs can hinder self-regulatory mechanisms for behaviour. 32,33 Therefore, achieving goal-directed movements such as the translation of intentions into action may be affected by discrepancies between explicit and implicit motives for exercise engagement. 34 The majority of research on implicit processes related to exercise intentions has been done within already exercising populations.…”

“…Researchers have also argued that discrepant explicit and implicit evaluations result in less behaviour when self-regulatory mechanisms are low 32,33 . Research in dietary behaviours has found that the influence of explicit processes on dietary behaviour are reduced when selfregulation is depleted, whereas the effects of implicit processes are increased 42 .…”

“…Indeed, within the M-PAC model reflexive processes (i.e., implicit evaluations) are expected to have reciprocal relationships with both self-regulatory and reflective (i.e., explicit evaluations) processes. In addition, implicit and explicit processes predict in the moment behaviours 33 . As such, the EIEDs may have been related to the decision to act when the time came, while explicit process may have been more salient during the decision to enrol in the exercise program, as people decided on the reasons to engage in exercise or not.…”

Talking about it: Stories as paths to healing after violence.

“…What kind of relationship-in the case of domestic violence-is this coparenting or trying to salvage a marriage? At the within-person level, we seem to have a capacity and tolerance for internal inconsistency of which we are not aware (Shoda, McConnell, & Rydell, 2014), but less tolerance for internal inconsistency of which we are aware (Festinger, 1957). So, the more we are aware of competing narratives within ourselves, the greater the press to organize those competing narratives.…”