Two Roads to Positive Regard: Implicit and Explicit Self-Evaluation and Culture

Hetts, John J.; Sakuma, M.; Pelham, Brett W.

doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1391

Cited by 181 publications

(189 citation statements)

References 99 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

181

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pacini & Epstein, 1999). Across six independent samples from several cultures, the authors found that implicit self-esteem as measured via the name-letter task (Nuttin, 1985) and a word-fragment completion paradigm (Implicit self-evaluation scale; Hetts et al, 1999) correlated more strongly with explicit self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965) for women than for men.…”

Section: Spontaneity Versus Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…There is great variability in the new methods, but all share a difference from traditional self-report in that their measurement features capture one or more of Bargh's (1994) hallmarks of automaticity: lack of intention, lack of awareness, lack of control, or efficiency of processing. Some of the techniques include: evaluative priming (e.g., Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995;Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986), the Implicit Association Test (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998), the Go/No-go Association Task (GNAT, Nosek & Banaji, 2001), the lexicaldecision task (e.g., Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997), the Affective Simon task (De Houwer, 2003;De Houwer & Eelen, 1998), the Evaluative Movement Assessment (Brendl, Markman, & Messner, 2005), the affect misattribution paradigm (Payne, Cheng, Govorun, & Stewart, 2005), the word fragment completion task (e.g., Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, & Johnson, 1997;Hetts, Sakuma, & Pelham, 1999), the name-letter task (e.g., Koole, Dijksterhuis, & van Knippenberg, 2001;Nuttin, 1985), and the analysis of linguistic biases (e.g., Franco & Maass, 1999;von Hippel, Sekaquaptewa, & Vargas, 1997).Probably the most widely used implicit measurement technique is the Implicit Association Test (IAT) developed by Greenwald et al (1998). We describe the IAT procedure in more detail because of the large body of research it has stimulated across fields of psychology (see Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, in press, for a recent review) making it the most cited measure in this review (for descriptions of other implicit measures see 336 HOFMANN ET AL.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What moderates implicit—explicit consistency?

Hofmann¹,

Gschwendner²,

Nosek³

2005

European Review of Social Psychology

178

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implicit and explicit indicators of attitudes or personality traits are positively, and variably, related. This review places the question of implicit -explicit consistency into the tradition of attitude/trait -behaviour consistency (e.g., Wicker, 1969). Drawing on dual-process models, such as the recent distinction between associative and propositional representations (Strack & Deutsch, 2004), we identify a working model of implicit -explicit consistency that organises the empirical evidence on implicit -explicit moderation into five factors: translation between implicit and explicit representations (e.g., representational strength, awareness), additional information integration for explicit representations (e.g., need for cognition), properties of explicit assessment (e.g., social desirability concerns), properties of implicit assessment (e.g., situational malleability), and research design factors (e.g., sampling bias, measurement correspondence).A significant proportion of psychological research over the last three decades concerns the automatic nature of information processing (Bargh, 1997;Khilstrom, 1999;Wegner & Bargh, 1998). Theory and empirical data have broadened notions of core psychological concepts like attitudes, stereotypes, self-concept, goals, personality, and self-esteem to include not Correspondence should be addressed to Wilhelm Hofmann, Fachbereich 8 -Psychologie Universita¨t Koblenz-Landau, Fortstraße 7, 76829 Landau, Germany. Email: hofmannw@ uni-landau.de Preparation of this chapter was supported by a grant from the German Science Foundation (DFG) to Manfred Schmitt (Schm 1092/5-1) and by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health to Brian Nosek (R01 MH-068447). We would like to thank Rainer Banse, Boris Egloff, Malte Friese, Bertram Gawronski, and Jane Thompson for valuable comments on an earlier version of this chapter.EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 2005, 16, 335 -390 2005 European Association of Experimental Social Psychology http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/10463283.html DOI: 10.1080/10463280500443228 just the explicit assessments that are products of introspection, but also implicit components of these constructs that may occur outside of conscious awareness or control (Asendorpf, Banse, & Mu¨cke, 2002;Greenwald & Banaji, 1995;Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler, 2000). Whereas implicit constructs are assumed to operate automatically and may be inaccessible to conscious experience, their explicit counterparts are conceptualised as reflective (conscious) and capacity-consuming mental representations that influence action through deliberation (e.g., Bargh, 1994;Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). This distinction plays a role in a variety of dual-process theories that distinguish two modes of information processing such as implicit vs explicit (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995;Wilson et al., 2000), automatic vs controlled (Bargh, 1994), impulsive vs reflective (Strack & Deutsch, 2004), and associative vs rule-based (Sloman, 1996;Smith & DeCoster, 2000). These theories share an assumpti...

show abstract

Section: Spontaneity Versus Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 96%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What moderates implicit—explicit consistency?

Hofmann¹,

Gschwendner²,

Nosek³

2005

European Review of Social Psychology

178

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…in identifying the role of perception of threat and in line with the suggestions provided by Kahn, Luce, and Nowlis (2006), response latency measures are utilized. Specifically, people may not be able to articulate the threat that leads to self-enhancement (Hetts, Sakuma, and Pelham 1999;Sherman, Nelson, and Steele 2000;Steele 1997), suggesting that these perceptions may occur at a nonconscious level. Consistent with this, the funneled debriefings in studies of self-threat and enhancement (Brendl et al 2005;Jones et al 2004) have often showed that participants were unaware of the basis of their choices, suggesting that threat nonconsciously leads to favorable evaluation of stimuli associated with the self.…”

Section: Study 1: Threat Perceptions Mediate the Endowment Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Endowment Effect as Self-Enhancement in Response to Threat

Chatterjee

Irmak²,

Rose

2013

J Consum Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The Embodied Self 12 Sakuma, Michiko, and Pelham (1999). The task assesses the degree to which positive versus negative evaluations of traits are facilitated by self-related versus neutral primes.…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…priming the self-concept should facilitate positive evaluations and inhibit negative evaluations of the traits (Hetts, Sakuma Michiko, & Pelham, 1999;Otten & Wentura, 1999;Spalding & Hardin, 1999). Note that even though the traits are explicitly evaluated, the task measures associations between the self-concept and specific traits and thus captures the implicit selfconcept.…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%