Implicit Measures of Attitudes

By D. Stacks. 2007

134 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cf5b157da323999793cfa62144bf5830a1153772

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

On Assessing the Political Effects of Racial Prejudice (2009, background): “The findings are intriguing, and we suggest readers turn to other sources for a more complete account (see Fazio & Olsen 2003, Wittenbrink & Schwarz 2007).”
Field Experiments on Discrimination (2016, background): “The extent to which an individual dislikes black faces (in this case) is then (16)See Lane et al. (2007) for an excellent introduction to IATs.”
When the method makes a difference: Antagonistic effects on “automatic evaluations” as a function of task characteristics of the measure (2009, methodology): “…procedures to measure automatic evaluations or immediate affective responses gained immense interest during the last 10 years, and are currently used as standard tools in a variety of research areas (for reviews, see Olson & Fazio, 2003; Petty, Fazio, & Briñol, 2008; Wittenbrink & Schwarz, 2007).”
Comparing measures of approach–avoidance behaviour: The manikin task vs. two versions of the joystick task (2010, background): “In sum, MAAB might complement the catalogue of various implicit measures (e.g., Wittenbrink & Schwarz, 2007) by providing access to spontaneous approach avoidance reactions towards emotional stimuli.”
Control me or I will control you: Impulses, trait self-control, and the guidance of behavior (2009, background): “In recent years a number of implicit measurement tools have been introduced that may be suitable for the assessment of impulsive precursors of behavior (for overviews see Fazio & Olson, 2003; Wittenbrink & Schwarz, 2007).”
When and why do implicit measures predict behaviour? Empirical evidence for the moderating role of opportunity, motivation, and process reliance (2008, background): “In recent years an abundance of indirect measures have been developed, often referred to as implicit measures (for reviews, see Fazio & Olson, 2003; Wittenbrink & Schwarz, 2007).”
Ten Frequently Asked Questions About Implicit Measures and Their Frequently Supposed, But Not Entirely Correct Answers (2009, background): “…drawn in this discussion are to a large degree shared by researchers that have investigated the mechanisms underlying implicit measures (for a review, see Wittenbrink & Schwarz, 2007), misconceptions about their meaning are still relatively common in the wider discourse about implicit measures.”
Counteractive evaluation: Asymmetric shifts in the implicit value of conflicting motivations (2010, background): “…and temptations rather than the downstream consequences of these evaluations, we assume these evaluations are instrumental in steering behavior toward the more positively valued alternatives (see Petty, Fazio, & Briñol, 2008; Wittenbrink & Schwarz, 2007; for the implicit evaluation-behavior link).”
Narcissistic Fragility: Rethinking Its Links to Explicit and Implicit Self-esteem (2010, background): “Moreover, given that attitudes can be defined as attribute–object associations (Fazio, 2007), indirect measures can be construed as measures of implicit attitude (Wittenbrink & Schwarz, 2007).”
Implicit stereotyping against people with disability (2018, methodology): “…was to examine how competence and warmth were implicitly associated to disability, using two different sequential priming procedures classically used in the literature to measure prejudice and stereotyping, conceptual and evaluative priming (Wittenbrink et al., 2001; Wittenbrink & Schwarz, 2007).”
Understanding patterns of attitude change: When implicit measures show change, but explicit measures do not ☆ (2008, background): “…has experienced a second measurement revolution with the development of a new class of indirect measures (for reviews, see Fazio & Olson, 2003; Wittenbrink & Schwarz, 2007).1 These measures differ from traditional self-report measures, in that they do not require explicit evaluations of an…”