CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 60Social and Intergroup PsychologyPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

What Makes Mental Associations Personal or Extra‐Personal? Conceptual Issues in the Methodological Debate about Implicit Attitude Measures

Gawronski, Bertram, Peters, Kurt R., LeBel, Etienne P.·2008·Social and Personality Psychology Compass
DOI 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00085.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Over the last decade, a new class of indirect measurement procedures has become increasingly popular in many areas of psychology. However, these implicit measures have also sparked controversies about the nature of the constructs they assess. One controversy has been stimulated by the question of whether some implicit measures (or implicit measures in general) assess extra‐personal rather than personal associations. We argue that, despite empirical and methodological advances stimulated by this debate, researchers have not sufficiently addressed the conceptual question of how to define extra‐personal in contrast to personal associations. Based on a review of possible definitions, we argue that some definitions render the controversy obsolete, whereas others imply fundamentally different empirical and methodological questions. As an alternative to defining personal and extra‐personal associations in an objective sense, we suggest an empirical approach that investigates the meta‐cognitive inferences that make a given association subjectively personal or extra‐personal for the individual.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00085.x

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Hahn et al. (2014) found that participants showed high accuracy in predicting their IAT scores regardless of prior experience with the IAT, amount of information received about the IAT, and whether the IAT was introduced as a measure of true beliefs or cultural associations.

    “Participants showed high accuracy in predicting their IAT scores regardless of their prior ex- perience with the IAT, regardless of how much information they received about the IAT, and regardless of whether the IAT was introduced as a measure of true beliefs or cultural associa- tions (see Gawronski et al. 2008, Olson et al. 2009).”

    From Unawareness of Attitudes, Their Environmental Causes, and Their Behavioral Effects (2025) · cites this paper as Gawronski et al. 2008

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gawronski, B., Peters, K. R., & LeBel, E. P.
Affiliations
Western University (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-02-21
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
1002-1023
ISSN
1751-9004 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00085.x
OpenAlex
W2073811073
Cited by
59
References
70
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
21.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
Social and Personality Psychology Compass (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canada Research Chairs
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 › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
personal associations, construct definition, indirect measurement, implicit cognition

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