The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Automatic Evaluation Effect: Unconditional Automatic Attitude Activation with a Pronunciation Task
Open accessAbstract
Previous demonstrations of automatic attitude activation have used the same critical test of the presence of automaticity (Bargh, Chaiken, Govender, & Pratto, 1992; Chaiken & Bargh, 1993; Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986). In this task, subjects first classify as quickly as they can each of a series of adjectives as to whether each adjective is good or bad in meaning. Subsequently, on each priming trial, a word corresponding to an attitude object briefly precedes the adjective target. Whether this attitude objectprimeautomatically activates its corresponding evaluation in memory is indicated by whether the presence of that prime word on a trial facilitates or interferes with the conscious and intended evaluation of the adjective target. Although there is some disagreement as to the generality of the automaticity effect (Chaiken & Bargh, 1993; Fazio, 1993), all relevant experiments have obtained it for at least some of the subject's attitudes. The present experiments investigated the role that the adjective evaluation task itself may play in producing the automaticity effect. If the effect is truly unconditional, requiring only the mere presence of the attitude object in the environment, it should not depend on the subject consciously thinking in terms of evaluation. Three experiments designed to remove all such evaluative features from the basic paradigm revealed that the automaticity effect does not depend on such strategic evaluative processing. In fact, consistent with theaffect primacyhypothesis (Murphy & Zajonc, 1993), removing conscious processing aspects from the paradigm serves to increase, rather than decrease, the generality of the automatic evaluation effect.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lazarus, R. S. (1991) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195069945.001.0001 · Cited by 12,691
Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.2.151 · Cited by 8,094
The Cognitive Structure of Emotions
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571299 · Cited by 6,208
Cited by
The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.
Haidt, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814 · Cited by 8,048
Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion.
Russell, J. A. (2003) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.1.145 · Cited by 6,113
Nature and Operation of Attitudes
Ajzen, I. (2001) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27 · Cited by 4,321
The unbearable automaticity of being
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.7.462 · Cited by 3,699
Self-citationPetty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.609 · Cited by 2,290
Metadata
- Authors
- Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Raymond, P., & Hymes, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1996-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 104-128
- ISSN
- 0022-1031 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1995849455
- Cited by
- 505
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 45.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Automatic Evaluation Effect: Unconditional Automatic Attitude Activation with a Pronunciation Task. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1006/jesp.1996.0005
- The paper
- Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Raymond, P., & Hymes, C. (1996). The Automatic Evaluation Effect: Unconditional Automatic Attitude Activation with a Pronunciation Task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1996.0005
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.