We sometimes learn about certain behaviors of others that we consider diagnostic of their character (e.g., that they did immoral things). Recent research has shown that such information trumps the impact of other (less diagnostic) information both on self-reported evaluations and on more automatic evaluations as probed with indirect measures such as the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP). We examined whether facilitating memory recall of alternative information moderates the impact of diagnostic information on evaluation. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants learned one diagnostic positive and one diagnostic negative behavior of two unfamiliar people. Presenting a cue semantically related to this information during evaluation influenced AMP scores but not self-reported liking scores. Experiments 3 and 4 showed that elaborative rehearsal of low diagnostic information eliminated diagnosticity effects on AMP scores and reduced them on self-reported liking scores. These findings help elucidate the role of memory recall and diagnosticity in evaluation.
BartschL. M.SingmannH.OberauerK. (2018). The effects of refreshing and elaboration on working memory performance, and their contributions to long-term memory formation. Memory & Cognition, 46, 796–808.
2.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
3.
BenedictT.RichterJ.GastA. (2019). The influence of misinformation manipulations on evaluative conditioning. Acta Psychologica, 194, 28–36.
4.
BrannonS. M.GawronskiB. (2017). A second chance for first impressions? Exploring the context (in)dependent updating of implicit evaluations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 275–283.
5.
CarneyR. N.LevinJ. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 5–26.
6.
ConeJ.FergusonM. J. (2015). He did what? The role of diagnosticity in revising implicit evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 37–57.
7.
ConeJ.FlahartyK.FergusonM. J. (2019). Believability of evidence matters for correcting social impressions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116, 9802–9807. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903222116
8.
ConeJ.MannT. C.FergusonM. J. (2017). Changing our implicit minds: How, when, and why implicit evaluations can be rapidly revised. In OlsonJ. M. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 56. Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 131–199). Elsevier Academic Press.
9.
CumminsJ.HusseyI.HughesS. (2019). The AMPeror’s new clothes: Performance on the affect misattribution procedure is mainly driven by awareness of influence of the primes. PsyArXiv.
10.
DalegeJ.BorsboomD.van HarreveldF.van der MaasH. L. J. (2018). The Attitudinal Entropy (AE) framework as a general theory of individual attitudes. Psychological Inquiry, 29, 175–193.
11.
De HouwerJ. (2014). A propositional model of implicit evaluation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 342–353.
12.
De HouwerJ.Van DesselP.MoranT. (2020). Attitudes beyond associations: On the role of propositional representations in stimulus evaluation. In B. Gawronski, (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 127–183). Elsevier.
13.
FourakisE.ConeJ. (2020). Matters order: The role of information order on implicit impression formation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(1), 56–63.
14.
FoxJ.WeisbergS. (2011). An R companion to applied regression (2nd ed.). SAGE.
15.
GastA. (2018). A declarative memory model of evaluative conditioning. Social Psychological Bulletin, 13(3), Article e28590.
16.
GastA.RichterJ.BenedictT.RuszpelB. (2021). Memory activation in attitude formation [Unpublished manuscript].
17.
GawronskiB.BodenhausenG. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692–731.
18.
GawronskiB.BrannonS. M. (2019). Attitudes and the implicit-explicit dualism. In AlbarracínD.JohnsonB. T. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes: Vol. 1. Basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 158–196). Routledge.
19.
GawronskiB.CesarioJ. (2013). Of mice and men: What animal research can tell us about context effects on automatic responses in humans. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 187–215.
20.
GawronskiB.De HouwerJ. (2014). Implicit measures in social and personality psychology. In ReisH. T.JuddC. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 283–310). Cambridge University Press.
21.
GawronskiB.HuX.RydellR. J.VervlietB.De HouwerJ. (2015). Generalization and contextualization in automatic evaluation revisited: A meta-analysis of successful and failed replications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, e50–e64.
22.
GawronskiB.RydellR. J.De HouwerJ.BrannonS. M.YeY.VervlietB.HuX. (2018). Contextualized attitude change. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 1–52.
HansenJ.WänkeM. (2008). It’s the difference that counts: Expectancy/experience discrepancy moderates the use of ease of retrieval in attitude judgments. Social Cognition, 4, 447–468.
25.
HughesS.De HouwerJ.PeruginiM. (2016). The functional-cognitive framework for psychological research: Controversies and resolutions. International Journal of Psychology, 51, 4–14.
26.
KellerK. L. (1987). Memory factors in advertising: The effects of advertising retrieval cues on brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 316–333.
27.
MaD. S.CorrellJ.WittenbrinkB. (2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1122–1134.
28.
MannT. C.ConeJ.HeggesethB.FergusonM. (2019). Updating implicit impressions: New evidence on intentionality and the Affect Misattribution Procedure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(3), 349–374.
29.
MannT. C.FergusonM. J. (2015). Can we undo our first impressions? The role of reinterpretation in reversing implicit evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 823–849.
30.
MoorsA. (2016). Automaticity: Componential, causal, and mechanistic explanations. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 263–287.
31.
PayneB. K.ChengC. M.GovorunO.StewartB. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 277–293.
32.
RichterJ.GastA. (2017). Distributed practice can boost evaluative conditioning by increasing memory for the stimulus pairs. Acta Psychologica, 179, 1–13.
33.
RouderJ. N.SpeckmanP. L.SunD.MoreyR. D.IversonG. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225–237. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.225
34.
RydellR. J.GawronskiB. (2009). I like you, I like you not: Understanding the formation of context dependent automatic attitudes. Cognition and Emotion, 23, 1118–1152.
35.
RydellR. J.McConnellA. R. (2006). Understanding implicit and explicit attitude change: A systems of reasoning analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 995–1008.
36.
SanbornA. N.ChaterN. (2016). Bayesian brains without probabilities. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 883–893.
37.
SchönbrodtF. D.WagenmakersE.-J.ZehetleitnerM.PeruginiM. (2017). Sequential hypothesis testing with Bayes factors: Efficiently testing mean differences. Psychological Methods, 22, 322–339.
38.
SkowronskiJ. J.CarlstonD. E. (1987). Social judgment and social memory: The role of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 689–699.
39.
SmithE. R.DeCosterJ. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 108–131.
40.
StrackF.DeutschR. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247.
41.
Van DesselP.ConeJ.GastA.De HouwerJ. (2020). The impact of valenced verbal information on implicit and explicit evaluation: The role of information diagnosticity, primacy, and memory cueing. Cognition & Emotion, 34, 74–85.
42.
Van DesselP.CumminsJ.HughesS.KasranS.CathelynF.MoranT. (2020). Reflecting on twenty-five years of research using implicit measures: Recommendations for their future use. Social Cognition, 38, 223–242.
43.
Van DesselP.De HouwerJ. (2019). Hypnotic suggestions can induce rapid change in implicit attitudes. Psychological Science, 30, 1362–1370.
44.
Van DesselP.De HouwerJ.GastA.SmithC. T.De SchryverM. (2016). Instructing implicit processes: When instructions to approach or avoid influence implicit but not explicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 1–9.
45.
Van DesselP.HughesS.De HouwerJ. (2019). How do actions influence attitudes? An inferential account of the impact of action performance on stimulus evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23, 267–284.
46.
Van DesselP.HughesS.De HouwerJ. (2018). Consequence-based approach-avoidance training: A new and improved method for changing behavior. Psychological Science, 29, 1899–1910.
47.
WänkeM.BlessH.BillerB. (1996). Subjective experience versus content of information in the construction of attitude judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1150–1113.
48.
WoodW. (1982). Retrieval of attitude-relevant information from memory: Effects on susceptibility to persuasion and on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 798–810.
ZanonR.De HouwerJ.GastA.SmithC. T. (2014). When does relational information influence evaluative conditioning?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 2105–2122. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.907324
51.
ZhouH.FishbachA. (2016). The pitfall of experimenting on the web: How unattended selective attrition leads to surprising (yet false) research conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 493–504.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
