4.6 Article

On the Automatic Activation of Attitudes: A Quarter Century of Evaluative Priming Research

Journal

PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN
Volume 139, Issue 5, Pages 1062-1089

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0031309

Keywords

attitudes; meta-analysis; priming; affect; evaluation

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
  2. DOE [DE-AC05-06OR23100]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Evaluation is a fundamental concept in psychological science. Limitations of self-report measures of evaluation led to an explosion of research on implicit measures of evaluation. One of the oldest and most frequently used implicit measurement paradigms is the evaluative priming paradigm developed by Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, and Kardes (1986). This paradigm has received extensive attention in psychology and is used to investigate numerous phenomena ranging from prejudice to depression. The current review provides a meta-analysis of a quarter century of evaluative priming research: 73 studies yielding 125 independent effect sizes from 5,367 participants. Because judgments people make in evaluative priming paradigms can be used to tease apart underlying processes, this meta-analysis examined the impact of different judgments to test the classic encoding and response perspectives of evaluative priming. As expected, evidence for automatic evaluation was found, but the results did not exclusively support either of the classic perspectives. Results suggest that both encoding and response processes likely contribute to evaluative priming but are more nuanced than initially conceptualized by the classic perspectives. Additionally, there were a number of unexpected findings that influenced evaluative priming such as segmenting trials into discrete blocks. We argue that many of the findings of this meta-analysis can be explained with 2 recent evaluative priming perspectives: the attentional sensitization/feature-specific attention allocation and evaluation window perspectives.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available