Attitudes

- What is the Associative-Propositional Evaluation (APE) model? Blair, Dasgupta & Glaser (in press)

"The APE model contends that attitudes may arise from two different processes, one associative and the other propositional in nature. Associative processes - the primary basis of implicit attitudes - are simple, spontaneous reactions that occur in response to a relevant stimulus based on the match between the (external) stimulus and the individual's (internal) pre-existing network of stimulus-attribute associations. These reactions require little cognitive capacity, intention or even awareness. Of critical importance, the likelihood of an association being activated is independent of its perceived "truth value", meaning that associations can be activated even when the perceiver would consider them invalid" (p. 4). associative processes are claimed to provide the basis for primitive affective reactions propositional processes are assumed to form the basis for evaluative judgments

Heritability coefficient - basic idea. Olson, Vernon, Harris, & Jang (2001)

"The extent to which variation on the characteristic in the sample is attributable to genetic differences" (p. 846) - does not indicate genetic causal. Rather, excludes genetic and environmental similarities between samples, and shows how much of the difference seems to be due to genetic factors.

Gawronski, Galdi & Arcuri (in press) What is the argument for using implicit attitude measures in addition to or instead of explicit attitude measures based on findings from political psychology? To what extent do the conclusions here extend beyond the political context? Are there lessons to be learned for other contexts as well?

- Dual process theories: using both explicit and implicit measures may provide deeper insights into the psychological underpinnings of behavior, because the two kinds of measures may predict different kinds of behavior. Explicit measures should outperform implicit measures in the prediction of deliberate behavior, whereas implicit measures should outperform explicit measures in the prediction of spontaneous behavior. - Biased Processing of Decision-Relevant Information: Fazio's (1990) MODE model of attitude-behavior relations, attitudes can influence behavior through two different routes: (a) a deliberate route in which the attitude is used as a basis to evaluate the available behavioral options, and (b) a spontaneous route in which the attitude influences the perception of the current situation. Attitudes have been found to shape political behavior by distorting the perception of decision-relevant information. - Capacity of implicit measures to capture embryonic preferences that are not yet endorsed in self-reports, shown to influence future decisions. - Studies on political decision-making suggest that the reliance on automatic affective reactions can also be disrupted by the absence of other information.

Aaroe & Petersen (in press) - Attitudes toward social welfare supposedly entrenched in the U.S. and Denmark. What cues were used to activate the "deservingness heuristic?" What cues were used to activate the "deservingness heuristic? Is this evidence for dual attitudes?

-US and Denmark citizens have different stereotypes about people on welfare: US sees them as lazy, Denmark sees them as unlucky Authors used either effort cues or luckiness cues. In one cue, welfare recipient had gotten hurt at work and wanted to get back to work as soon as possible, in other cue a welfare recipient is fit but has never had a job and is not motivated to pursue one -No, it is only evidence that people's view of welfare is more nuanced, and based on different kinds of welfare. People from both countries can be manipulated into different welfare beliefs based on explicit cues, not a difference in implicit vs. explicit attitudes.

Berinsky, Margolis, & Sances (2013) - How do the authors propose researchers handle shirkers or inattentive respondents?

1) Use of screeners, Instructional Manipulation Checks (IMCs), to identify shirkers by prompting participants to demonstrate they are paying attention by following a precise set of instructions when choosing a survey response option. Don't use just single screener, but multiple to measure attention (to decrease misidentification of a shirker or attentive responder) and heterogeneity of difficulty of screener items could be helpful. 2) present results stratified by attention 3) researchers should analyze predictors of screener passage in their sample (demographic predictors) to see if removing them would skew the sample and introduce bias. Authors found significant demographic differences in the screen passage vs. fail groups in their review-- screen failures tended to have more men, less education, younger in age, and belonging to a racial minority group.

Olson, Vernon, Harris, & Jang (2001) - Attitudes as learned vs. attitudes as heritable.

Attitudes do indeed have a genetic component (explained about 35% of variance on avg.), but individual environments mattered more. Meaning attitudes are learned but genetics still play a role.

Fischer & Greitemeyer (2010) - Moderator approach to understanding the congeniality bias.

Background: selective exposure to confirmatory information--when individuals make decisions,they tend to prefer information that is consistent with their choices shown to detrimentally affect the quality of decision outcomes. Authors propose theoretical model that integrates inconsistent findings in selective exposure research. Moderator approach to understanding the congeniality bias: Helpful in not taking dissonance theory as fact and parsing out under what conditions/ situations selective exposure to confirmatory info may be enhanced/ reduced for accuracy motivations, in particular.

Rudman, McLean & Bunzl (2014) - What happens to explicit and implicit attitudes over time?

Both implicit and explicit attitudes can be altered as a result of a powerful, affective experience (in this case, extreme weather). Implicit attitudes were the only significant predictor of voting at Time 2. After hurricanes, implicit attitudes were the best predictor of voting. Before the hurricane, explicit attitudes were the best predictor of voting. implicit attitudes are more stable overtime and predictive of behavior

Fischer & Greitemeyer (2010) Predictions for when congeniality bias is reduced vs. enhanced for Defense Motivation and Accuracy Motivation.

Defense = enhanced congeniality bias Accuracy = depends on context-->increaed for decision making, decreased for information search

van den berg, Manstead, van der Pligt, & Wigboldus (2006) - Basic effects of cognitive or affective focus on memory and the formation of different kinds of attitudes

Different objects require evaluation based on different bases. Most attitudes have both a cognitive and affective component. This study attempted to influence the basis with which an object was evaluated by the respondent. Participants did a word search for either affective or cognitively related words prior to reading about a new attitude object. Results show that the priming with these foci may lead to different attitudes. Also, priming increased recall/memory of objects related to the focus the participant was treated with (i.e. cognitive focus remembered cognitive stuff and affective remembered emotional shit). Cognitive words = thinking, logic, analyzing, rational, knowing, reasoning, behavior Affective words = feeling, emotion, sensation, state of mind, experiencing, behavior

Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji (2009; JPSP) - What is the key finding of this quantitative meta-analysis with regard to the IAT's predictive validity for socially sensitive topics (e.g., interracial behavior)?

For socially sensitive topics, the IAT is much better than explicit measures and relationship between implicit and explicit measures is weak. Started with "motivation to control prejudice" as an important moderator. Authors say it is best known predictor of socially sensitive attitudes such as binge drinking, pedophelia, and suicide.

Dore, Zerubavel, & Ochsner (in press) What is meant by SCN being a multi-level approach that relies on "functional inferencing?"

Functional inferencing is knowing what parts of the brain do what - "The results of repeated imaging investigations of a given task or psychological process give researchers an idea of how reliably a given psychological function is associated with activity in a certain brain region." Eventually, with enough empirical evidence to validate it, particular brain regions can be markers predicting psychological processes. SCN intro: SCN approach uses three levels of analysis: 1) neural level of brain systems, 2) cognitive level of information-processing mechanisms, 3) social level of the experiences and actions of social agents. SCN theories leverage data from all three levels. Goals are to expand on functional and psychological inferences (see below) SCN Research methods: experiments manipulate and measure variables at the social and neural levels, drawing inferences about intervening psychological processes. Social paradigms to model aspects of everyday social phenomena, tightly controlled cognitive tasks, and neuroimaging, other bio methods.

Jost et al. (2009)- History of research on implicit bias and prejudice - just general trends.

History of research on implicit bias and prejudice - decades worth of work on biases and heuristics in decision making, automatic associative links in memory, etc. Increasingly, methods that capture automatic associations, such as semantic priming and eye blink startle response, were developed. Fazio and colleagues (1995) developed an evaluative priming task, which investigated differences in reaction times as a function of race. All of these things paved the way for the IAT.

- Evidence of the predictive validity of implicit bias measures, including the IAT. Jost et al

IAT scores predict contacting African Americans for job interviews to a lesser extent, use of verbal slurs, split-second shooting decisions, simulated treatment recommendations for heart patients, voting decisions, drinking behavior, pedophilia, suicidality, and a host of other outcomes.

Fischer & Greitemeyer (2010) Decision vs. Information-Search context as moderator of the congeniality bias

If determinants are located in decision context (e.g. participants distracted or feel threatened), then there is a reduction in congeniality bias. If determinants located in information search (ex. framed as gains vs. losses) process, then congeniality bias increases. Increased levels of confirmatory information search when a decision context and its potential outcome alternatives are formulated as gains compared to losses, decisions are deeply elaborated, when they feel exhausted by a prior, decision-unrelated task. Selective exposure reduced when decision certainty experienced is low, cognitive distraction during decision making, feeling threatened during task.

- What is meant by "emotional reconditioning" as an approach to changing implicit attitudes?

Implicit attitudes are thought to have a basis in affective experiences, so the best way to change such attitudes is through emotional reconditioning. For example, when people are instructed to report their attitudes using their "gut-level feelings," the correspondence between implicit and explicit attitudes increases, compared to when they receive no such instructions. implicit-change with emotional experiences--respond more to emotional reactions

Gawronski, Galdi & Arcuri (in press) - What is the argument for using implicit attitude measures in addition to or instead of explicit attitude measures based on findings from political psychology?

In situations where self-representation may bias reports (e.g. influence of racial attitudes on voting behavior) implicit attitude measures are more suitable. They also work better than explicit measures when voters are undecided because they may reveal implicit preferences that the voter is not yet willing to endorse. Implicit measures predict future political preferences over and above explicit measures, particularly for socially sensitive topics like intergroup attitudes, which might ultimately improve the prediction of election outcomes.

Oswald, Mitchell, Blanton, Jaccard & Tetlock (2013) - What does this meta-analysis suggest about the psychometric standing of the IAT?

It refutes Greenwald et al.'s (2009) claim that the IAT should be a fully accepted method. Instead, they claim that explicit measures are at least as good (except for neuroimaging). "[the IAT] provides no more insight than explicit measures of bias" (p.18). Oswald et al. provide evidence that the IAT is not highly predictive of most behavioral outcomes related to intergroup discrimination. The IAT does seem to predict patterns of brain activation fairly well. This meta-analysis also finds that explicit measures are not highly predictive of behavioral outcomes, and the authors recommend that studies using the IAT develop more valid and reliable explicit measures, as well.

Scientific standing of implicit bias research - what do Jost et al. claim?

Jost et al., claim that "literally hundreds of studies provide conclusive evidence" for the existence of implicit bias. They cite research that demonstrates the predictive validity of implicit biases in both laboratory and real-world contexts.

McNulty, Olson, Meltzer & Shaffer (2013) - How does the MODE model account for these findings? What is the role of implicit attitudes in shaping perceptions of partners in a congruent and positive direction? What is the process underlying the attitude-behavior relationship in this context?

McNulty, Olson, Meltzer & Shaffer (2103) The Motivation and Opportunity as Determinants (MODE) model of attitude-behavior processes posits that automatic attitudes facilitate (i) attention to attitude consistent features of attitude objects, (ii) attitude consistent interpretations of attitude objects, and (iii) attitude-consistent behavior toward attitude objects. Accordingly, even though people may be unwilling or unable to recognize any deep-seated discontent they have toward their partners, discontent may nonetheless shape their relationship outcomes. spouses with more positive automatic attitudes may be less likely to perceive undesirable changes in their relationships and thus more likely to maintain their initial levels of satisfaction over time What is the process underlying the attitude- behavior relationship in this context? Automatically activated attitudes → Perceptions of relationship-relevant behaviors → attitudes about relationship and partner → marital satisfaction (It is likely that behaviors that are beneficial or detrimental to the relationship occur as a function of automatically activated perceptions)

How is the MODE model used to account for the effects of implicit vs. explicit attitudes on behavior? Blair, Dasgupta & Glaser (in press)

Motivation and Opportunity as DEterminants - "implicit attitudes are more likely to influence behavior when people do not have the motivation (e.g., countervailing explicit attitudes) or the opportunity to direct their responses to be inconsistent with their attitudes" (p. 25). Example: drunk people are more likely to eat potato chips because they lack the motivation to access their explicit attitude that potato chips are unhealthy and thereby rely on their implicit attitude of YUM POTATO CHIPS! p. 25-26

Oswald - How do these findings qualify (or not) the meta-analysis by Greenwald et al. 2009)?

Oswald et al. posit that studies need to be categorized by how discrimination was operationalized (e.g. brain activity, response time, microbehavior, etc) saying that Greenwald et al.'s (2009) predictive validity of implicit measures was inflated by the high correlations that neuroimaging results produced. The authors say that this is the only operationalization of discrimination for which implicit measures are more predictive than explicit measures. Overall the found implicit correlations to be r = .12 and r = .15 (compared to .274 by Greenwald)

What do we know about implicit intergroup attitudes formed in infancy/early childhood, and their persistence across the life span (599-600)? Bargh, Schwader, Hailey, Dyer, & Boothby (2012)

Preference for ingroup peaks at age 7--starts to go down as they realize that strong ingroup preferences actually violate social norms children show same level of bias as adults on the IAT implicit attitudes persistent throughout the lifespan regardless of explicit attitudes

Schuldt, Konrath, & Schwarz (2011) - Framing of "climate change" vs. "global warming." Analysis of conservative and liberal websites. Because global warming and climate change may be thought of as distinct phenomena, results (see below) are not viewed as evidence of dual attitudes (i.e. implicit & explicit). AND BASIC FINDINGS

Republican writers prefer to use the term "global warming" to describe construct, because more republicans disagree with "global warming" than "climate change" Basic findings: that conservative think tanks more likely to use phrase "global warming" and liberal sites used "climate change." Republicans more likely to think that climate change is real, but not global warming. Democrats, Independents, and others not affected by the framing.

Berinsky, Margolis, & Sances (2013) - What is a "shirker?"

Respondents/participants that do not read questions carefully and do not pay attention to experimental treatments. Basically, people who are lazy or skim through stuff too fast to actually comprehend it.

What are the implications of research on automatic nonconscious influences for research on implicit attitudes? Bargh, Schwader, Hailey, Dyer, & Boothby (2012)

Some of the most fascinating developments in automaticity research relate to infant and early childhood development. By 12 months of age, infants can distinguish faces by gender and race, and by 5 years of age children can demonstrate implicit racial attitudes that are identical to those of adults. [See page 599] Also (p.600 Interim Summary): - "...very young children show adult-like evaluative, priming, and motivational effects shedding light on evolutionary origins" - "...compelling effects of facial appearance on our judgment of others, even for very important decisions such as... elected representatives"

- Relationship between attitude heritability and attitude strength. Olson, Vernon, Harris, & Jang (2001)

Support was found for the hypothesis that more heritable attitudes tend to be stronger. This study along with a handful of others point to this being true.

- What are the core systems that are linked to the psychology of attitudes?

System 1) Evaluation: valence (good/bad); amygdala & ventral portions of striatum (along w/ other structures) Amygdala: - "critical for the recognition of stimuli that directly or indirectly signal the presence of a potential threat" (p. 7) - "responds to a wide variety of stimulus dimensions, including novelty, positivity, and ambiguity, leading to a broader conceptualization of the amygdala as a 'surveillance' system that continuously monitors the environment for affectively relevant stimuli and modulates activity in perceptual and memory systems to detect and encode them" (p. 7) Ventral striatum & ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) : - "encoding and constructing evaluations of stimulus value" → EVALUATION

Blair, Dasgupta & Glaser (in press) - What is meant here by "translational science" examples of implicit attitudes and their consequences? And what is the evidence brought forward to support this approach?

TS-sciecne motivated by the need for practical aplications that help people--real time translation of bench science to bedisde clinical practice - Everyday life: "Nosek and Smyth (2011) found that college women who had stronger implicit gender bias about math (i.e., associating math more strongly with men than women), also expressed greater negativity toward math, were less likely to participate in math classes, viewed themselves as possessing less ability in math, and displayed lower math achievement." - Health & Medicine: "Substance users demonstrate more positive implicit attitudes toward the substance than non-users, and the level of implicit positivity is consistently correlated with the level of substance use that individuals report." - Politics: "Recent investigations have demonstrated that measures of implicit attitudes toward public policies and political candidates are effective predictors of voting, over and above explicit attitudes."

Jost et al. (2009) History of research on implicit bias and prejudice - just general trends. Scientific standing of implicit bias research - what do Jost et al. claim? Rebuttal of Tetlock & Mitchell (2009) on IAT's construct validity (e.g., 59-62). Evidence of the predictive validity of implicit bias measures, including the IAT. Accountability as a "panacea" - is it viable, and if so, how?

Tetlock and Mitchell claim that organizational accountability can solve the problem of bias. However, Jost et al. argue that this is unlikely to occur if decision-makers are unaware of biases or lack the training to overcome them. Also, to whom are decision-makers accountable? If higher-ups in an organization don't prioritize egalitarian decisions, accountability isn't likely to reduce bias.

Rebuttal of Tetlock & Mitchell (2009) on IAT's construct validity (e.g., 59-62).

Tetlock and Mitchell claim that the IAT may be measuring familiarity. If so, why would it predict discriminatory attitudes to such a great extent? Tetlock and Mitchell also postulate that the IAT could be measuring cultural awareness. On this front, Jost et al. claim that enculturation processes are indeed important, and that IAT researchers have long acknowledged this point. Tetlock and Mitchell also suggest that the IAT may tap sympathy for the disadvantaged, rather than antipathy (e.g., judgments of "bad" might really be judgments that people are "badly treated"). However, if so, why is it that bias in IAT scores is associated with discriminatory treatment and (to some extent) negative explicit attitudes?

Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji (2009; JPSP) What conclusions about the relative importance of the IAT vs. explicit attitudinal measures does this meta-analysis support? What is their advice on when to use implicit measures, explicit measures, or both?

The authors say they are both important, though IAT is better in some situations (socially sensitive). As for which to use, "this review justifies a recommendation to use IAT and self-report measures jointly as predictors of behavior" (p. 32).

Mediators of gene-attitude relations -what is meant by mediation and did Olson et al. find support for the claim? Olson, Vernon, Harris, & Jang (2001)

These are characteristics that presumably predisposed individuals to form particular attitudes. Sociability, athletic ability, physical attractiveness, and academic achievement were correlated with related attitudes. genes cause X which cause attitudes

van den berg, Manstead, van der Pligt, & Wigboldus (2006) - Role of unobtrusive priming in the research (i.e., the activation of relevant constructs)

Unobtrusiveness (participants unaware they were identifying cognitive or affective types of words) seeks to eliminate social desirability bias that may be present in explicit prompts such as "focus your thoughts on..." This way the participant may be unaware of which constructs are activated.

Correll, Park, Judd, Wittenbrink, Sadler, & Keesee (2007) What implicit measure of racial bias is used in this research? What are the implications for understanding expert and lay decision making that flow from use of this measure? What do we learn about the malleability of racial bias?

Video game simulation of shoot vs. not shoot situation. In simulation, there were two dimensions, armed vs. unarmed and black vs. white. Because experts (police officers) had less racial bias in their shoot/don't shoot decisions, the training they go through as part of their profession can limit their bias. This leads to less innocent people shot and less friction between the police and minority communities. That things like intensive police training can reduce racial bias, at least in computer simulated shoot vs. not shoot settings

Gal & Rucker (2010) - "Shaken confidence influences advocacy" - Moderating role of belief importance and closed vs. open-mindedness of potential message recipients. - What did they find support for?

When confidence is undermined, people advocated more strongly for their position. Those that had an opportunity to gain confidence in their position prior to the activity advocated less Participants expressed a greater propensity to persuade another person to switch to a Mac computer when their belief in the Mac's superiority was shaken, but only when the other person was potentially open to change. Across experiments, persuasive advocacy effort was greater among participants whose confidence in their belief was shaken. Moreover, the results support the proposition that this effect is due to the connection of the belief to the self, as the effect was more pronounced among participants who viewed the belief as particularly important and among individuals given an opportunity to affirm their identity. Participants' expressed propensity to persuade other people depended on the recipients' receptivity to the message Interesting take away: Although it is natural to assume that a persistent and enthusiastic advocate is brimming with confidence, the advocacy might in fact signal that the individual is boiling over with doubt.

Stanley, Phelps & Banaji (2008) - Good example of a brain mapping approach - how so? (as related to Dore et al)

Yes! "The amygdala is implicated in the automatic evaluation of socially relevant stimuli, while the anterior cingulate (AC) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices (dPC) are involved in the detection and regulation, respectively, of implicit attitudes.

postconscious automaticity Bargh, Schwader, Hailey, Dyer, & Boothby (2012)

dependent on conscious and intentional thought

What is meant by "preconscious" automaticity? Is skill acquisition the only route to automaticity? Bargh, Schwader, Hailey, Dyer, & Boothby (2012)

effortless sensory or mototr activity-->directly activates higher mental processes-implicit inputs

What is meant by "embedded attitudes" that shape our everyday interactions? Bargh (2014)

resistent to change--automatic reactions to others-more predictive of behavior more embedded = more attitudes/beliefs associated with the attitude

automaticity and does it only result from skill acquision Bargh, Schwader, Hailey, Dyer, & Boothby (2012)

the ability to do things without occupying the mind with the low-level details required, allowing it to become an automatic response pattern or habit. It is usually the result of learning, repetition, and practice.