Implicit and explicit attitude tests are often weakly correlated, leading some theorists to conclude that implicit and explicit cognition are independent. Popular implicit and explicit tests, however, differ in many ways beyond implicit and explicit cognition. The authors examined in 4 studies whether correlations between implicit and explicit tests were influenced by the similarity in task demands (i.e., structural fit) and, hence, the processes engaged by each test. Using an affect misattribution procedure, they systematically varied the structural fit of implicit and explicit tests of racial attitudes. As test formats became more similar, the implicit-explicit correlation increased until it became higher than in most previous research. When tests differ in structure, they may underestimate the relationship between implicit and explicit cognition. The authors propose a solution that uses procedures to maximize structural fit.

A recent study of the affect misattribution procedure (AMP) found that participants who retrospectively reported that they intentionally rated the primes showed larger effect sizes and higher reliability. The study concluded that the AMP's validity depends on intentionally rating the primes. We evaluated this conclusion in three experiments. First, larger effect sizes and higher reliability were associated with (incoherent) retrospective reports of both (a) intentionally rating the primes and (b) being unintentionally influenced by the primes. A second experiment manipulated intentions to rate the primes versus targets and found that this manipulation produced systematically different effects. Experiment 3 found that giving participants an option to "pass" when they felt they were influenced by primes did not reduce priming. Experimental manipulations, rather than retrospective self-reports, suggested that participants make post hoc confabulations to explain their responses. There was no evidence that validity in the AMP depends on intentionally rating primes.

This article reports the development and psychometric properties of the Masculinity Contingency Scale (MCS), a measure designed to assess the extent that a man's self-worth is derived from his sense of masculinity. Across 4 studies, results provided support for this new measure's reliability and validity. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses provided support for a hierarchical model with a superordinate factor (masculinity contingency) and 2 factors that correspond to 2 subscales: MCS-Threat (self-worth is threatened by a lack of masculinity) and MCS-Boost (self-worth is boosted by confirmation of masculinity). Evidence for good reliability was demonstrated by high alpha coefficients and test-retest reliability. Evidence for convergent, discriminant, criterion-related, and incremental validity was demonstrated by testing the associations between the MCS and existing masculinity measures, sexism measures, homophobia, and trait self-esteem. The results indicated that, in general, high masculinity contingency scores were associated with negative social and personal outcomes. Furthermore, MSC-Threat scores were more strongly associated with these negative outcomes than MCS-Boost scores. These findings are discussed in light of the conceptual, methodological, and practical contributions of the MCS.

No abstract

No abstract