Abstract
Certain mental processes are suggested to exist beyond conscious awareness and control. These processes have often been categorized as implicit, in contrast to explicit, processes, which are readily available to conscious report. Researchers have attempted to measure and assess these implicit processes in a different number of ways. Projective measures, for instance, present ambiguous or unstructured stimuli to respondents, with the assumption that their responses will reveal aspects about their attitudes, personality, and etc. Despite longstanding evidence disfavoring most projective measures, their use in clinical and forensic settings has been remarkably robust. Phrased in terms of modern psychological research, projection might be considered an instance of misattribution, that is, mistaking the source for the effect. People, for example, might misinterpret the transient pleasure of a sunny day as lasting life satisfaction. Such source of confusion is a common feature of events in everyday life; correction to this misattribution demands motivation, awareness, and control of the bias responsible for the misattribution. This complexity makes projective measures hard to design. In the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP, Payne et al., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 277–293, 2005), for example, participants are briefly presented with an ambiguous pictograph (e.g., a Chinese character) preceded by a prime (e.g., photos of Black or White people). Participants are then asked to rate the pleasantness of the pictograph—the assumption in this paradigm is that evaluations of how pleasant the pictograph is perceived to be, are influenced by the individual’s automatic affective reactions that s/he has towards the prime. Despite the fact that the AMP is easily administered, shows good internal consistency, and has demonstrated reliable effects both between groups and in individual score differences; prime-congruent semantic concepts may be activated in working memory and, rather than affective reactions, the valence of these semantic concepts guide the evaluations of the target, that is, the pictograph (Blaison et al., Emotion, 12, 403–412, 2012). Even if this semantic route is not the primary mediator, semantic processing is likely to be involved in evaluative responses, or at least, influence the processes leading to them (Storbeck and Clore, Cognition & Emotion, 21, 1212–1237, 2007). Here, we studied misattributions using the AMP by examining freely generated words, which were quantified using natural language processing to investigate whether the semantic content was influenced by the manipulations. We labeled this method Quantitative Semantic Misattribution Procedure (QSMP). More specifically, in the present study we measured implicit attitudes caused by Black and White faces (i.e., primes) on the semantic content of explicit verbal responses to Chinese characters. Since verbal responding relies on both highly automated implicit processes and consciously reportable explicit execution, quantitative semantics allows for studying both implicit and explicit processes. We showed that the semantic representation of participants’ verbal responses was significantly different for black and white primes in the un-warned but not the warned group and that the semantically expressed valence was equal for black and white face primes, whereas black target faces had higher semantic valence than white. Clearly, the QSMP can be used to study evaluative and non-evaluative influence of racial attitudes.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
References
Ackerman, J. M., Shapiro, J. R., Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Griskevicius, V., & Schaller, M. (2006). They all look the same to me (unless they’re angry): From out-group homogeneity to out-group heterogeneity. Psychological Science, 17(10), 836–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01790.x
Akrami, N., & Ekehammar, B. O. (2000). Classical and modern racial prejudice: A study of attitudes toward immigrants in Sweden. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 521–532.
Akrami, N., & Ekehammar, B. O. (2005). Personality and social sciences the association between implicit and explicit prejudice: The moderating role of motivation to control prejudiced reactions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 361–366.
Arvidsson, D., Sikström, S., & Werbart, A. (2011). Changes in self and object representations following psychotherapy measured by a theory-free, computational, semantic space method. Psychotherapy Research: Journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, 21(4), 430–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2011.577824
Batalha, L., Akrami, N., & Ekehammar, B. (2007). Outgroup favoritism: The role of power perception, gender, and conservatism. Current Research in Social Psychology, 13(4), 38–49.
Blaison, C., Imhoff, R., Hühnel, I., Hess, U., & Banse, R. (2012). The affect misattribution procedure: Hot or not? Emotion, 12(2), 403–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026907
Dasgupta, N. (2004). And their behavioral manifestations. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 143–169.
De Houwer, J., & De Houwer, J. (2006). What are implicit measures and why are we using them. In R. W. Wiers & A. W. Stacy (Eds.), The handbook of implicit cognition and addiction (pp. 11–28). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
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(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.001
Dunton, B. C., & Fazio, R. H. (1997). An individual difference measure of motivation to control prejudiced reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(3), 316–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297233009
Dutton, D. G., & Aron, A. P. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 510–517.
Forderer, S., & Unkelbach, C. (2011). Beyond evaluative conditioning! Evidence for transfer of non-evaluative attributes. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(5), 479–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611398413
Garcia, D., Anckarsäter, H., Kjell, O. N. E., Archer, T., Rosenberg, P., Cloninger, C. R., & Sikström, S. (2015). Agentic, communal, and spiritual traits are related to the semantic representation of written narratives of positive and negative life events. Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice, 5, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13612-015-0035-x
Garcia, D., & Sikström, S. (2013a). Quantifying the semantic representations in adolescents’ memories of positive and negative life events. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 1309–1323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9385-8
Garcia, D., & Sikström, S. (2013b). A collective theory of happiness: Words related to the word happiness in Swedish online newspapers. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 16, 469–472. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0535
Garcia, D., & Sikström, S. (2014). The dark side of Facebook – Dark triad of personality predicts semantic representation of status updates. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 92–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.001
Gawronski, B., Peters, K. R., Brochu, P. M., & Strack, F. (2008). Understanding the relations between different forms of racial prejudice: a cognitive consistency perspective. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(5), 648–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207313729
Gustafsson Sendén, M., Sikström, S., & Lindholm, T. (2015). “She” and “he” in news media messages: Pronoun use reflects gender biases in semantic contexts. Sex Roles, 72(1), 40–49.
Haxby, J. V., Hoffman, E. A., & Gobbini, M. I. (2002). Human neural systems for face recognition and social communication. Biological Psychiatry, 51(1), 59–67.
Imhoff, R., Schmidt, A. F., Bernhardt, J., Dierksmeier, A., & Banse, R. (2010). An inkblot for sexual preference: A semantic variant of the affect misattribution procedure. Cognition & Emotion, 25(4), 676–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.508260
Kafka, P. (1995). Low prejudiced people, their ideals, and outgroup overcompensation. Lydon: McGill.
Karlsson, K., Sikström, S., & Willander, J. (2013). The Semantic representation of event information depends on the cue modality: An instance of meaning-based retrieval. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e73378. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073378
Lalonde, R. N., Doan, L., & Patterson, L. A. (2015). Beliefs, threatened identities, and social attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 317–336.
Landauer, T., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review; Psychological, 1(2), 211–240.
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2&3), 259–284.
Lebel, E. P., & Paunonen, S. V. (2011). Sexy but often unreliable: The impact of unreliability on the replicability of experimental findings with implicit measures. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 570–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211400619
Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1(2), 27–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.002
Loersch, C., & Payne, B. K. (2012). On mental contamination: The role of (mis)attribution in behavior priming. Social Cognition, 30(2), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.2.241
Martin, L. L., Seta, J. J., & Crelia, R. a. (1990). Assimilation and contrast as a function of people’s willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.59.1.27
Murphy, S., & Zajonc, R. B. (1993). Affect, cognition, and awareness: Affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 723–739.
Olsson, A., Ebert, J. P., Banaji, M. R., & Phelps, E. a. (2005). The role of social groups in the persistence of learned fear. Science (New York, N.Y.), 309(5735), 785–787. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1113551
Payne, B. K., Burkley, M. A., & Stokes, M. B. (2008). Why do implicit and explicit attitude tests diverge? The role of structural fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.16
Payne, B. K., Cheng, C. M., Govorun, O., & Stewart, B. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277
Payne, B. K., Hall, D. L., Cameron, C. D., & Bishara, A. J. (2010a). A process model of affect misattribution. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(10), 1397–1408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210383440
Payne, B. K., Krosnick, J. A., Pasek, J., Lelkes, Y., Akhtar, O., & Tompson, T. (2010b). Implicit and explicit prejudice in the 2008 American presidential election. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 367–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.001
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 811–832. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.75.3.811
Roll, M., Mårtensson, F., Sikström, S., Apt, P., Arnling-Bååth, R., & M., H. (2011). Atypical associations to abstract words in Broca’s aphasia. Cortex, 48, 1068–1072.
Rosenberg, P., Sikström, S., & Garcia, D. (2013). The difference between living biblically and just imagining it: A study on experiential-based learning among Swedish adolescents. School Psychology International, 34, 565–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034312471468
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.45.3.513
Spruyt, A., De Houwer, J., & Hermans, D. (2007). Affective priming of nonaffective semantic categorization responses. Experimental Psychology, 54(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.54.1.44
Stenberg, G., Wiking, S., & Dahl, M. (1998). Judging words at face value: Interference in a word processing task reveals automatic processing of affective facial expressions. Cognition & Emotion, 12(6), 755–782.
Storbeck, J., & Clore, G. L. (2007). On the interdependence of cognition and emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 21(6), 1212–1237. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930701438020
Strauts, E., & Blanton, H. (2015). That’s not funny: Instrument validation of the concern for political correctness scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.012
Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgements and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 117–142.
Winkielmann, P., Zajonc, R. B., & Schwarz, N. (1997). Subliminal affective priming resists attributional interventions. Cognition & Emotion, 11(4), 433–465.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. In G. E. M. Anscombe (Ed.), GEM Anscombe (3rd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council (Dnr. 2015-01229), Vinnova (Dnr. 2018-02007), and Kamprad Foundation (Dnr. 20180281). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lanbeck, N., Garcia, D., Amato, C., Olsson, A., Sikström, S. (2020). Implicit Attitudes: Quantitative Semantic Misattribution Procedure. In: Sikström, S., Garcia, D. (eds) Statistical Semantics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37250-7_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37250-7_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-37249-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-37250-7
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)