Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience 2018
DOI: 10.1002/9781119170174.epcn412
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Implicit Social Cognition

Abstract: This chapter provides an overview of theories, methods, key findings, and controversies in research on implicit social cognition. We start by introducing the conceptual origins of implicit social cognition, definitions of the term “implicit,” and the most important measurement instruments. We further review research on dissociations between implicit and explicit measures, the prediction of behavior, and factors that cause systematic variation on implicit measures (formation and change of mental representations… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 158 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Second, merely identifying a CS (such as during some implicit evaluation task) can cause subjects to derive CS-valence links unrelated to explicitly provided CS-US information (cf., the misattribution effect—Jones et al., 2009). This means that any (explicit/implicit) measure of CS valence could potentiate the derivation of CS valences unrelated to task demands (Jones et al., 2009; Hahn and Gawronski, 2018). For fairness, the same argument applies to CS evaluations reported here since we did not assess whether subjects misattributed valences to CS.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, merely identifying a CS (such as during some implicit evaluation task) can cause subjects to derive CS-valence links unrelated to explicitly provided CS-US information (cf., the misattribution effect—Jones et al., 2009). This means that any (explicit/implicit) measure of CS valence could potentiate the derivation of CS valences unrelated to task demands (Jones et al., 2009; Hahn and Gawronski, 2018). For fairness, the same argument applies to CS evaluations reported here since we did not assess whether subjects misattributed valences to CS.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With regard to this research question, research on implicit measures suggest that implicit-explicit correlations depend on certain factors, such as content domain (e.g., the “to-be-measure” psychological attribute; “racist attitudes”) and procedural factors ( Cameron et al., 2012 ; Gawronski and Brannon, 2017 ). Yet, there is some agreement that implicit-explicit correlations tend to be larger for explicit judgments of intuitive bases compared to more deliberative judgments ( Hahn and Gawronski, 2018 ). Although the latter claim would predict that implicit and explicit measures would correlate in the present task, the exploratory nature of this experimental procedure compromises any specific prediction.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Third, interpretation of results is based on a sample of young female students with a predominantly normal weight, which limits generalizability to men, individuals with a higher age, lower education, under-or overweight, and clinical samples (e.g., individuals with eating disorders). Finally, implicit measures have been criticized for their proneness to measurement error (due to low reliability indices), faking, or context dependency (for an overview of some common caveats, see Gawronski & De Houwer, 2014;Hahn & Gawronski, 2018), questioning the conclusions derived from such measures.…”
Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning
confidence: 99%