A multi-method multi-trait test of the dual-attitude perspective.

Abstract

The dual-attitude perspective posits that it is useful for research and theory to assume two distinct constructs: explicit and implicit attitudes (or automatic and deliberate evaluation). Much evidence supports this perspective, but some important tests are missing, casting doubts on studies that relied on the perspective for inference. We used a multimethod multitrait design to extensively test the validity of the dual perspective. The dataset (N = 24,015) included measurements of attitudes in 3 domains (race, politics, the self) with 7 indirect measures, and at least 3 self-report measures for each attitude domain. The dual-attitude model fit the data better than a single-attitude model. Six of the 7 indirect measures were related to the implicit construct more than to the explicit construct. The evidence supports the dual-attitude perspective, bolsters the validation of 6 indirect measures, and clears doubts from countless previous studies that used only one indirect measure to draw conclusions about implicit attitudes. (PsycINFO Database Record

Understanding Implicit Bias: Putting the Criticism into Perspective

“…For example, the IAT measures implicit bias in terms of participants' relative speed or accuracy in categorizing pairings of concepts, whereas the AMP measures neither speed nor accuracy and instead treats bias in terms of participants' intentional judgments (misattributions) about the pleasantness of stimuli (for a discussion, see Gawronski and De Houwer ). Given the AMP's slower pace and reliance on untimed deliberate judgments, we find unsurprising the recent evidence suggesting that the AMP is more closely related to explicit measures than it is to other implicit measures (Bar‐Anan and Nosek ; Bar‐Anan and Vianello ; cf. Payne and Lundberg ).…”

“…It is likely that the best predictions will be achieved by combining both types of measure. For example, using a large dataset ( N = 24,015), Bar‐Anan and Vianello () incorporated seven different implicit measures and three different explicit measures, on three distinct topics (race, politics, and the self), and found that a dual‐construct model fits the data better than a single‐construct model . Indeed, even in the case of political attitudes, for which self‐report measures are strongly predictive of political behavior, implicit measures have incremental validity.…”

“…Both systematic construct variance and systematic measurement error contribute to internal consistency. Bar‐Anan and Vianello () use a multitrait, multimethod approach to, among other things, begin to disentangle the roles of (1), (2), and (3) in implicit and explicit measures. Note, however, that for any given manipulation that causes a change on an implicit measure, the effect could be related more to (2) than (1), that is, changing the score without changing the construct of interest (by analogy, think of concerns in education about merely ‘teaching to the test’).…”

The Relation Between Evaluation and Racial Categorization of Emotional Faces

“…However, it is notable that the relation between self-report and the RCB lessened when the AMP was added as a predictor, suggesting that some of the AMP's predictive validity comes from sensitivity to deliberate processes. This possibility is compatible with evidence that the AMP, unlike other indirect measures, is equally related to direct and indirect evaluation measures (Bar-Anan & Vianello, 2018). Because the RCB is related to both deliberate and automatic evaluation, it is difficult to know whether good predictive validity is evidence of superior measurement for automatic processes or for deliberate processes missed by the self-report measure.…”

A New Attitudinal Integral-Model to Explain Green Purchase Intention

“…Scholars have established the existence of a dual-attitude structure [34,35] that differentiates between implicit, or unconscious, attitudes and explicit, or conscious, attitudes. Whereas implicit attitudes are highly stable and resistant to change, explicit attitudes are more malleable and can change quickly [34,36].…”