Whether implicit attitudes exist is one question, and whether we can measure individual differences effectively is another.

IF 3.8 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science Pub Date : 2022-09-01 Epub Date: 2022-06-23 DOI:10.1002/wcs.1613
Chandra Sripada
{"title":"Whether implicit attitudes exist is one question, and whether we can measure individual differences effectively is another.","authors":"Chandra Sripada","doi":"10.1002/wcs.1613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Questions about measurement of individual differences in implicit attitudes, which have been the focus so far in this exchange, should be distinguished from more general questions about whether implicit attitudes exist and operate in our minds. Theorists frequently move too quickly from pessimistic results regarding the first set of questions to pessimistic conclusions about the second. That is, they take evidence that indirect measures such as the implicit association test (IAT) disappoint as individual difference measures and use it to (mistakenly) suggest that people do not in fact have implicit attitudes directed at stigmatized groups. In this commentary, I dissect this mistake in detail, drawing key lessons from a parallel debate that has unfolded in cognitive science about \"conflict tasks\" such as the Stroop task. I argue that the evidence overall supports a nuanced conclusion: Indirect measures such as the IAT measure individual differences in implicit attitudes poorly, but they-via distinct lines of evidence-still support the view that implicit attitudes exist. This article is categorized under: Psychology > Theory and Methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":47720,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science","volume":" ","pages":"e1613"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/96/88/WCS-13-e1613.PMC9542270.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1613","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Questions about measurement of individual differences in implicit attitudes, which have been the focus so far in this exchange, should be distinguished from more general questions about whether implicit attitudes exist and operate in our minds. Theorists frequently move too quickly from pessimistic results regarding the first set of questions to pessimistic conclusions about the second. That is, they take evidence that indirect measures such as the implicit association test (IAT) disappoint as individual difference measures and use it to (mistakenly) suggest that people do not in fact have implicit attitudes directed at stigmatized groups. In this commentary, I dissect this mistake in detail, drawing key lessons from a parallel debate that has unfolded in cognitive science about "conflict tasks" such as the Stroop task. I argue that the evidence overall supports a nuanced conclusion: Indirect measures such as the IAT measure individual differences in implicit attitudes poorly, but they-via distinct lines of evidence-still support the view that implicit attitudes exist. This article is categorized under: Psychology > Theory and Methods.

Abstract Image

内隐态度是否存在是一个问题,我们能否有效衡量个体差异是另一个问题。
到目前为止,内隐态度的个体差异测量问题一直是这次交流的焦点,应该与内隐态度是否存在并在我们的脑海中运作的更一般的问题区分开来。理论家们经常太快地从关于第一组问题的悲观结果转向关于第二组问题的悲观结论。也就是说,他们采用间接测量的证据,如内隐联想测试(IAT)作为个体差异测量令人失望,并使用它(错误地)表明人们实际上并没有针对污名化群体的内隐态度。在这篇评论中,我详细剖析了这个错误,并从认知科学中展开的关于“冲突任务”(如Stroop任务)的平行辩论中吸取了关键教训。我认为,这些证据总体上支持了一个微妙的结论:像IAT这样的间接测量方法不能很好地测量内隐态度的个体差异,但它们——通过不同的证据线——仍然支持内隐态度存在的观点。本文分类为:心理学>理论与方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
50
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信