Affective focus increases the concordance between implicit and explicit attitudes

Two attitude dichotomies - implicit versus explicit and affect versus cognition - are presumed to be related. Following a manipulation of attitudinal focus (affective or cognitive), participants completed two implicit measures (Implicit Association Test and the Sorting Paired Features task) and three explicit attitude measures toward cats/dogs (Study 1) and gay/straight people (Study 2). Based on confirmatory factor analysis, both studies showed that explicit attitudes were more related to implicit attitudes in an affective focus than in a cognitive focus. We suggest that, although explicit evaluations can be meaningfully parsed into affective and cognitive components, implicit evaluations are more related to affective than cognitive components of attitudes

Presenting Survey Items One at a Time Compared to All at Once Decreases Missing Data without Sacrificing Validity in Research with Internet Volunteers

In two large web-based studies, across five distinct criteria, presenting survey items one-at-a-time was psychometrically either the same or better than presenting survey items all-at-once on a single web page to volunteer participants. In the one-at-a-time format, participants were no more likely to drop-out of the study (Criterion 1), and were much more likely to provide answers for the survey items (Criterion 2). Rehabilitating participants who otherwise would not have provided survey responses with the one-at-a-time format did not damage internal consistency of the measures (Criterion 3) nor did it negatively affect criterion validity (Criterion 4). Finally, the one-at-a-time format was more efficient with participants completing it more quickly than the all-at-once format (Criterion 5). In short, the one-at-a-time format results in less missing data with a shorter presentation time, and ultimately more power to detect relations among variables

Consider the source: persuasion of implicit evaluations is moderated by source credibility

The long history of persuasion research shows how to change explicit, self-reported evaluations through direct appeals. At the same time, research on how to change implicit evaluations has focused almost entirely on techniques of retraining existing evaluations or manipulating contexts. In five studies, we examined whether direct appeals can change implicit evaluations in the same way as they do explicit evaluations. In five studies, both explicit and implicit evaluations showed greater evidence of persuasion following information presented by a highly credible source than a source low in credibility. Whereas cognitive load did not alter the effect of source credibility on explicit evaluations, source credibility had an effect on the persuasion of implicit evaluations only when participants were encouraged and able to consider information about the source. Our findings reveal the relevance of persuasion research for changing implicit evaluations and provide new ideas about the processes underlying both types of evaluation

A Meta-Analysis of Procedures to Change Implicit Measures

Using a novel technique known as network meta-analysis, we synthesized evidence from 492 studies (87,418 participants) to investigate the effectiveness of procedures in changing implicit measures, which we define as response biases on implicit tasks. We also evaluated these procedures’ effects on explicit and behavioral measures. We found that implicit measures can be changed, but effects are often relatively weak (|ds| \u3c .30). Most studies focused on producing short-term changes with brief, single-session manipulations. Procedures that associate sets of concepts, invoke goals or motivations, or tax mental resources changed implicit measures the most, whereas procedures that induced threat, affirmation, or specific moods/emotions changed implicit measures the least. Bias tests suggested that implicit effects could be inflated relative to their true population values. Procedures changed explicit measures less consistently and to a smaller degree than implicit measures and generally produced trivial changes in behavior. Finally, changes in implicit measures did not mediate changes in explicit measures or behavior. Our findings suggest that changes in implicit measures are possible, but those changes do not necessarily translate into changes in explicit measures or behavior

A randomized trial of a lab-embedded discourse intervention to improve research ethics.

We report a randomized trial of a research ethics training intervention designed to enhance ethics communication in university science and engineering laboratories, focusing specifically on authorship and data management. The intervention is a project-based research ethics curriculum that was designed to enhance the ability of science and engineering research laboratory members to engage in reason giving and interpersonal communication necessary for ethical practice. The randomized trial was fielded in active faculty-led laboratories at two US research-intensive institutions. Here, we show that laboratory members perceived improvements in the quality of discourse on research ethics within their laboratories and enhanced awareness of the relevance and reasons for that discourse for their work as measured by a survey administered over 4 mo after the intervention. This training represents a paradigm shift compared with more typical module-based or classroom ethics instruction that is divorced from the everyday workflow and practices within laboratories and is designed to cultivate a campus culture of ethical science and engineering research in the very work settings where laboratory members interact