Cited by 701Social and Intergroup PsychologyPsychological Testing and AssessmentPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Moderators of the Relationship Between Implicit and Explicit Evaluation.

Open access
Nosek, Brian A.·2005·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Automatic and controlled modes of evaluation sometimes provide conflicting reports of the quality of social objects. This article presents evidence for 4 moderators of the relationship between automatic (implicit) and controlled (explicit) evaluations. Implicit and explicit preferences were measured for a variety of object pairs using a large sample. The average correlation was r=.36, and 52 of the 57 object pairs showed a significant positive correlation. Results of multilevel modeling analyses suggested that (a) implicit and explicit preferences are related, (b) the relationship varies as a function of the objects assessed, and (c) at least 4 variables moderate the relationship: self-presentation, evaluative strength, dimensionality, and distinctiveness. The variables moderated implicit-explicit correspondence across individuals and accounted for much of the observed variation across content domains. The resulting model of the relationship between automatic and controlled evaluative processes is grounded in personal experience with the targets of evaluation.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.565

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Techniques that lead people to recognize their unconscious biases include exercises where they compare what they would do and what they should do in intergroup circumstances, and procedures such as the Implicit Association Test that can reveal unconscious prejudice and stereotypes.

    “Techniques that lead people to recognize their unconscious biases include exercises where they are prompted to compare what they would do and what they should do in a variety of intergroup circumstances,45 and recently developed procedures (such as the Implicit Association Test52,53) that can reveal unconscious prejudice and stereotypes.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Abelson RP. Conviction. American Psychologist. 1988;43:267–275. [Google Scholar]
  2. Nosek, B. A. & Banaji, M. R. (2002). (At least) two factors moderate the relationship between implicit and explicit attitudes. In R.K. Ohme & M. Jarymowicz (Eds.), Natura Automatyzmow (pp. 49–56), Warszawa: WIP PAN & SWPS.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nosek, B. A.
Affiliations
University of Virginia (US)
Corresponding author
Nosek, Brian A.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2005-11
Volume
134
Issue
4
Pages
565-584
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2111276187
Cited by
701
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 44
FWCI
116.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH-R01 MH68447-01, R01MH068447)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
implicit evaluation, explicit evaluation, automatic versus controlled processing, moderators, self-presentation, dimensionality, distinctiveness
MeSH terms
Attitude, Humans, Self Concept, Social Behavior

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