Distinguishing automatic and controlled components of attitudes from direct and indirect measurement methods
Open accessAbstract
Distinct automatic and controlled processes are presumed to influence social evaluation. Most empirical approaches examine automatic processes using indirect methods, and controlled processes using direct methods. We distinguished processes from measurement methods to test whether a process distinction is more useful than a measurement distinction for taxonomies of attitudes. Results from two studies suggest that automatic components of attitudes can be measured directly. Direct measures of automatic attitudes were reports of gut reactions (Study 1) and behavioral performance in a speeded self-report task (Study 2). Confirmatory factor analyses comparing two-factor models revealed better fits when self-reports of gut reactions and speeded self-reports shared a factor with automatic measures versus sharing a factor with controlled self-report measures. Thus, distinguishing attitudes by the processes they are presumed to measure (automatic vs. controlled) is more meaningful than distinguishing based on the directness of measurement.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Responses on many indirect measures such as the IAT and EPT are much faster than responses on direct measures, so discrepancies between the two kinds of measures may be driven by differences in the time window of measured responses rather than lack of awareness.
“responses on many indirect mea- sures (e.g., IAT, EPT) are much faster than responses on direct measures. Hence, discrepancies between the two kinds of measures may be driven by differences in the time window of the mea- sured responses rather than lack of awareness (Cunningham et al. 2007, Ranganath et al. 2008).”
From Unawareness of Attitudes, Their Environmental Causes, and Their Behavioral Effects (2025) · cites this paper as Ranganath et al. 2008
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 33 · Cited by 254
- Authors
- Ranganath, K. A., Smith, C. T., & Nosek, B. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Virginia (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ranganath, Kate A.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-03
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 386-396
- ISSN
- 0022-1031 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2350226
- OpenAlex
- W2030770980
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 27
- FWCI
- 27.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH068447)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Keywords
- implicit attitudes, attitude measurement, direct and indirect measurement, social evaluation, two-factor model
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