The role of self-involvement in shifting IAT effects

Experimental Psychology

Volumn 59, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 348-354

  Marini, Maddalena ^a   Rubichi, Sandro ^a   Sartori, Giuseppe ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Implicit Association Test; Implicit measures; Malleability; Racial attitudes; Self involvement

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PREJUDICE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SELF CONCEPT; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL PROBLEM; STANDARD; STEREOTYPING; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTITUDE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PREJUDICE; QUESTIONNAIRES; RACE RELATIONS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELF CONCEPT; SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION; STEREOTYPING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84869770617     PISSN: 16183169     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000163     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Barden, J., Maddux, W. W., Petty, R. E., & Brewer, M. B. (2004). Contextual moderation of racial bias: The impact of social roles on controlled and automatically activated attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 5-22.
2. Bargh, J. A. (1989). Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence on social perception and cognition. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 3-51). New York, NY: Guilford.
3. Bizer, G. Y., & Krosnick, J. A. (2001). Exploring the structure of strength-related attitude features: The relation between attitude importance and attitude accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 566-586.
4. Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 242-261.
5. Blair, I. V., Ma, J. E., & Lenton, A. P. (2001). Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of implicit stereotypes through mental imagery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 828-841.
6. Blankenship, K. L., & Wegener, D. T. (2008). Opening the mind to close it: Considering a message in light of important values increases message processing and later resistance to change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 196-213.
7. Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., Gonzales, P., & Christie, C. (2006). Decoding the implicit association test: Implications for criterion prediction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 192-212.
8. Bluemke, M., & Fiedler, K. (2009). Base rate effects on the IAT. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 1029-1038.
9. Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & McCaslin, M. J. (2009). Changing attitudes on implicit versus explicit measures: What is the difference? In R. E. Petty, R. H. Fazio, & P. Briñol (Eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures (pp. 285-326). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
10. Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (1989). Self-referencing: A strategy for increasing processing of message content. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 628-638.
11. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versusmessage cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
12. Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2007). The influence of stereotypes on decisions to shoot. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1102-1117.
13. Czellar, S., & Fazio, R. H. (2008). Detecting attitude change with the implicit association test. Retrieved from http:// econpapers.repec.org/ RePEc:ebg:heccah:0888
14. Dasgupta, N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2001). On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 800.
15. Deutsch, R., & Gawronski, B. (2009). When the method makes a difference: Antagonistic effects on ''automatic evaluations'' as a function of task characteristics of the measure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 101-114.
16. Dovidio, J. F., & Fazio, R. H. (1992). New technologies for the direct and indirect assessment of attitudes. In J. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about survey questions: Meaning, memory, attitudes, and social interaction (pp. 204-237). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
17. Fazio, R. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25, 603-637.
18. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297-327.
19. Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013-1027.
20. Fiedler, K., Messner, C., & Bluemke, M. (2006). Unresolved problems with the ''I'', the ''A'', and the ''T'': A logical and psychometric critique of the implicit association test (IAT). European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 74-147.
21. Fleming, M. A., & Petty, R. E. (2000). Identity and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 171-199). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Foroni, F., & Mayr, U. (2005). The power of a story: New, automatic associations from a single reading of a short scenario. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 139-144.
23. Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692-731.
24. Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2007). Unraveling the processes underlying evaluation: Attitudes from the perspective of the APE Model. Social Cognition, 25, 687-717.
25. Gonsalkorale, K., Allen, T. J., Sherman, J. W., & Klauer, K. C. (2010). Mechanisms of group membership and exemplar exposure effects on implicit attitudes. Social Psychology, 41, 158-168.
26. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.
27. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216.
28. Han, H. A., Czellar, S., Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2010). Malleability of attitudes or malleability of the IAT? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 286-298.
29. Horcajo, J., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2010). Consumer persuasion: Indirect change and implicit balance. Psychology and Marketing, 27, 938-963.
30. Hugenberg, K., Blusiewicz, R. L., & Sacco, D. F. (2010). On malleable and immalleable subtypes: Stereotype malleability in one subtype does not spill over to other prominent subtypes. Social Psychology, 41, 124-130.
31. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.
32. Joy-Gaba, J. A., & Nosek, B. A. (2010). The surprisingly limited malleability of implicit racial evaluations. Social Psychology, 41, 137-146.
33. Marini, M., Rubichi, S., & Sartori, G. (2011). Implicit racial stereotypes may temporarily shift after reading a story. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), 33rd Annual Conferences of Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1224-1229). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
34. Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The implicit association test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. In J. A. Bargh (Ed.), Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior (pp. 265-292). New York: Psychology Press.
35. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., Greenwald, A. G. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 10593-10597.
36. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing messagerelevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
37. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. In K. B. Monroe (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 8, pp. 20-24). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
38. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 367-374.
39. Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (Eds.). (1981). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2004). Underlying processes in the implicit association test: Dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 133, 139-165.
41. Sritharan, R., & Gawronski, B. (2010). Changing implicit and explicit prejudice: Insights from the associative-propositional evaluation model. Social Psychology, 41, 113-123.