Updating implicit impressions
New evidence on intentionality and the affect misattribution procedure
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 6203934 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Thomas C Mann (0000-0001-6910-6987, Harvard University), Jeremy Cone (0000-0001-5968-6711, Williams College), Brianna Heggeseth (0000-0002-3946-1715, Macalester College), Melissa J Ferguson (0000-0003-2840-0033, Cornell University) |
| Año | 2019 |
| Volumen | 116 |
| Número | 3 |
| Páginas | 349-374 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2019-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 0022-3514 • E-ISSN: 1939-1315 |
| Editorial | American Psychological Association (APA) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1037/pspa0000146 |
| PMID | 30802132 |
| OpenAlex | W2915275448 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 13 |
Recent work has shown that implicit first impressions of other people can be rapidly updated when new information about them is highly diagnostic or provides a reinterpretation of the basis of prior belief. The Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP; Payne, Cheng, Govorun, & Stewart, 2005) is one prominent implicit measure that has been widely used in this and other work. However, the status of the AMP as a measure of unintentional responding has been a matter of debate, which necessarily also raises questions about the "implicitness" of the updated responses within recent person impression research. In re-analyses of published work, we identify multimodal distributions of AMP responses that raise concerns about potential intentional influences on this task. Drawing on 8 new studies, however, we find that such patterns are not likely attributable to intentional responding (Studies 1, 2A-2B), and that methodological modifications to the AMP procedure eliminate bimodality but do not eliminate effects of rapid revision (Studies 3A-6). Furthermore, these modifications provide evidence that the rapid-revision effects reported in earlier work can be produced under suboptimal conditions such as distraction and increased vigilance against prime influence. We advocate for the continued use of judgmental misattribution as a valuable tool in the arsenal of implicit social cognition researchers, but also encourage researchers to continue to examine the distributional patterns of measures like the AMP, and what those patterns might reflect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)
Affect (linguistics) · Attribution · Cognition · Cognitive psychology · Distraction · Implicit attitude · Implicit-association test · Impression formation · MEDLINE · Misattribution of memory · Perception · PsycINFO · Reinterpretation · Social cognition · Social perception · Psychology · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Power and Status Dynamics · Social Psychology
Powerful Effects of Diagnostic Information on Automatic and Self-Reported Evaluation
Local Legislation is Associated With Regional Transgender Attitudes
A Process Dissociation Model of Implicit Rapid Revision in Response to Diagnostic Revelations
Volition Speaks Louder Than Action
The Relation Between Updated Implicit Evaluations and the Trust Game
Judging Guilt
The link between social categorization and spontaneous social evaluations
Measuring supernatural belief implicitly using the Affect Misattribution Procedure
Updating stereotypical attributions in light of new information
Reframing of moral dilemmas reveals an unexpected “positivity bias” in updating and attributions
Beware a dishonest face
How resistant are implicit impressions of facial trustworthiness? When new evidence leads to durable updating
Measuring Ethnic Bias
| Obras citantes distintas | 13 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 1,86 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2019 - 2025 (7) |
| Velocidad de citación | recent |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 13 |