The Four Deadly Sins of Implicit Attitude Research

In this article, we describe four theoretical and methodological problems that have impeded implicit attitude research and the popular understanding of its findings. The problems all revolve around assumptions made about the relationships among measures (indirect vs. versus direct), constructs (implicit vs. explicit attitudes), cognitive processes (e.g., associative vs. propositional), and features of processing (automatic vs. controlled). These assumptions have confused our understandings of exactly what we are measuring, the processes that produce implicit evaluations, the meaning of differences in implicit evaluations across people and contexts, the meaning of changes in implicit evaluations in response to intervention, and how implicit evaluations predict behavior. We describe formal modeling as one means to address these problems, and provide illustrative examples. Clarifying these issues has important implications for our understanding of who has particular implicit evaluations and why, when those evaluations are likely to be particularly problematic, how we might best try to change them, and what interventions are best suited to minimize the effects of implicit evaluations on behavior.

Automated summary

This article outlines four theoretical and methodological problems that have hindered implicit attitude research, revolving around assumptions made about the relationships among measures, constructs, cognitive processes, and features of processing. Clarifying these issues is crucial for understanding who holds specific implicit evaluations, when they might be problematic, how to best change them, and what interventions are most effective at minimizing their impact on behavior.