Implicit? What Do You Mean? A Comprehensive Review of the Delusive Implicitness Construct in Attitude Research

Abstract

<jats:p> This article provides a comprehensive review of divergent conceptualizations of the “implicit” construct that have emerged in attitude research over the past two decades. In doing so, our goal is to raise awareness of the harmful consequences of conceptual ambiguities associated with this terminology. We identify three main conceptualizations of the “implicitness” construct: the procedural conceptualization (implicit-as-indirect), the functional conceptualization (implicit-as-automatic), and the mental theory conceptualization (implicit-as-associative), as well as two hybrid conceptualizations (implicit-as-indirect-and-automatic, implicit-as-driven-by-affective-gut-reactions). We discuss critical limitations associated with each conceptualization and explain that confusion also arises from their coexistence. We recommend discontinuing the usage of the “implicit” terminology in attitude research and research inspired by it. We offer terminological alternatives aimed at increasing both the precision of theorization and the practical value of future research. </jats:p>

Moderators of intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups: A comprehensive test of predictions from system justification theory.

“…They argued 2 Throughout this paper, we use the term "implicit" in reference to indirect measurement tools ("implicit measures") and their behavioral outcomes ("implicit evaluations" and "implicit bias"). Thus, our use of the term "implicit" does not make assumptions about underlying mental representations or process characteristics (Corneille & Hütter, 2020). that members of disadvantaged groups feel intense social pressures to show ingroup pride, so they should be reluctant to openly endorse beliefs that disfavor the ingroup.…”

Age Invariance in Implicit Bias: Alternative Perspectives and Their Implications for the Development of Implicit Cognition

“…Schmitz,Teige-Mocigemba, & Voss, 2010) or higher order motivations or goals (e.g., Monteith, 1993;Moskowitz, Gollwitzer, Wasel, & Schaal, 1999). Consequently, the magnitude of an implicit bias score cannot be interpreted as a direct indication of an attitude or an attitude's strength because responses on implicit measures also reflect the influence of attitude-unrelated processes (Calanchini, Sherman, Klauer, & Lai, 2014;Corneille & Hütter, 2020). Control-oriented processes depend heavily on development: The age of three is typically seen as the beginning of very dynamic changes in executive functions in human development, but the different cognitive functions increasingly differentiate throughout early and middle childhood, follow neither linear nor parallel developmental pathways (e.g., Carlson, 2011), and reach mature levels at different periods in late adolescence or even adulthood (e.g., Chevalier & Clark, 2017;McAuley & White, 2011;Prencipe et al, 2011).…”

“…Reviewing the available developmental literature on "implicit bias" inevitably faces the difficulty of highly divergent theoretical conceptualizations of the implicit construct (e.g., Corneille & Hütter, 2020) and fuzzy criteria for labeling a measure as implicit (e.g., Nosek, 2011). This issue is amplified in the developmental domain because many authors use the term implicit without offering theoretical clarification, and the implied meaning has to be derived from their use of the concept and interpretations of measurement outcomes.…”

“…This issue is amplified in the developmental domain because many authors use the term implicit without offering theoretical clarification, and the implied meaning has to be derived from their use of the concept and interpretations of measurement outcomes. In our impression, most authors use a hybrid conceptualization of implicit-as-indirectly-measured and implicitas-related-to automatic processes (Corneille & Hütter, 2020), but they often treat automatic as synonymous with unconscious (Cvencek, Greenwald, & Melzhoff, 2011) or less conscious Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2006;Heipetz, Spelke, & Banaji, 2013;Newheiser & Olson, 2012), which we perceive as empirically unsupported simplification. Throughout this article, we therefore use the term implicit merely in reference to a class of indirect measurement tools that have become associated with this term (i.e., the Implicit Association Test and a variety of sequential priming measures) and the term implicit bias in reference to their behavioral outcomes, such as distribution and/or latency of response to ingroup and outgroup stimuli (De Houwer, 2006).…”

Liking as far as you like yourself: Exploring the Self-Referencing effect across multiple intersecting regularities and its relationship with self-esteem

“…In both experiments, direct and indirect SR effects were assessed via explicit ratings and the Implicit Association Test (IAT, Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). We added the IAT as it is assumed to reflect more automatic instances of evaluation that can influence behavior in unique ways (De Houwer, Teyge-Mocigemba, Spruyt, & Moors, 2009; but see Corneille & Hütter, 2020).…”