The Propositional Evaluation Paradigm (PEP) has recently shown promise as a relational implicit measure (i.e., an implicit measure which can specify how stimuli are related). Whereas the standard PEP measures response times, mousetracking is becoming increasingly popular for quantifying response competition, with distinct advantages beyond response times. Across four preregistered experiments (N = 737), we interface the utility of the PEP method with the unique benefits of mousetracking by developing a mousetracking PEP (MT-PEP). The MT-PEP very effectively captured group-level beliefs across domains (Experiments 1–4). It produced larger effects (Experiment 3), exhibited superior predictive validity (Experiment 3), and better split-half reliability (Experiments 3–4) than the standard PEP. Both PEPs appear to be intentionally controllable, particularly the MT-PEP (Experiments 3–4). Nevertheless, the MT-PEP shows strong potential in capturing relational information and may be considered implicit in the sense of capturing fast and unaware (but not unintentional) responding.
Bar-AnanY.NosekB. A. (2014). A comparative investigation of seven indirect attitude measures. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 668–688. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0410-6
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 [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/d5zn8
5.
DaleR.KehoeC.SpiveyM. J. (2007). Graded motor responses in the time course of categorizing atypical exemplars. Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195938
6.
De HouwerJ.HeiderN.SpruytA.RoetsA.HughesS. (2015). The relational responding task: Toward a new implicit measure of beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00319
7.
De HouwerJ.Van DesselP.MoranT. (2020). Attitudes beyond associations: On the role of propositional representations in stimulus evaluation. In GawronskiB. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 61, pp. 127–183). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.09.004
8.
FiedlerK.BluemkeM. (2005). Faking the IAT: Aided and unaided response control on the implicit association tests. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(4), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2704_3
9.
FrantzC. M.CuddyA. J. C.BurnettM.RayH.HartA. (2004). A threat in the computer: The race implicit association test as a stereotype threat experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), 1611–1624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204266650
GawronskiB.SritharanR. (2010). Formation, change, and contextualization of mental associations: Determinants and principles of variations in implicit measures. In Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 216–240). The Guilford Press.
12.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.6.1464
13.
HehmanE.StolierR. M.FreemanJ. B. (2015). Advanced mouse-tracking analytic techniques for enhancing psychological science. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18(3), 384–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214538325
14.
HeiderN.SpruytA.De HouwerJ. (2015). Implicit beliefs about ideal body image predict body image dissatisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01402
15.
HeiphetzL.SpelkeE. S.HarrisP. L.BanajiM. R. (2014). What do different beliefs tell us? an examination of factual, opinion-based, and religious beliefs. Cognitive Development, 30(April–June 2014), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.12.002
16.
HenningerF.ShevchenkoY.MertensU. K.KieslichP. J.HilbigB. E. (2019). lab.js: A free, open, online study builder [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fqr49
17.
HofmannW.GawronskiB.GschwendnerT.LeH.SchmittM. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1369–1385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205275613
18.
HughesS.De HouwerJ.MattavelliS.HusseyI. (2020). The shared features principle: If two objects share a feature, people assume those objects also share other features [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hp5kr
19.
HughesS.HusseyI.CorriganB.JolieK.MurphyC.Barnes-HolmesD. (2016). Faking revisited: Exerting strategic control over performance on the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(5), 632–648. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2207
20.
McConahayJ. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91–125). Academic Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-98698-004
21.
MelnikoffD. E.MannT. C.StillmanP. E.ShenX.FergusonM. J. (2020). Tracking prejudice: A mouse-tracking measure of evaluative conflict predicts discriminatory behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619900574
22.
MoorsA.HouwerJ. D. (2007). What is automaticity? An analysis of its component features and their interrelations. In BarghJ. A. (Ed.), Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes (pp. 11–50). Psychology Press.
23.
MüllerF.RothermundK. (2019). The Propositional Evaluation Paradigm: Indirect assessment of personal beliefs and attitudes. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02385
24.
PayneB. K.ChengC. M.GovorunO.StewartB. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277
25.
PeirceJ.GrayJ. R.SimpsonS.MacAskillM.HöchenbergerR.SogoH.KastmanE.LindeløvJ. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
26.
PettigrewT. F.MeertensR. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250106
27.
RemueJ.HughesS.De HouwerJ.De RaedtR. (2014). To be or want to be: disentangling the role of actual versus ideal self in implicit self-esteem. PLOS One, 9(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108837
28.
RöhnerJ.Schröder-AbéM.SchützA. (2013). What do fakers actually do to fake the IAT? An investigation of faking strategies under different faking conditions. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4), 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.02.009
29.
SchimmackU. (2019). The implicit association test: A method in search of a construct. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619863798
30.
SmedingA.QuintonJ. C.LauerK.BarcaL.PezzuloG. (2016). Tracking and simulating dynamics of implicit stereotypes: A situated social cognition perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(6), 817–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000063
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.
33.
WiswedeD.KoranyiN.MüllerF.LangnerO.RothermundK. (2013). Validating the truth of propositions: Behavioral and ERP indicators of truth evaluation processes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(6), 647–653. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss042
34.
YuZ.WangF.WangD.BastinM. (2012). Beyond reaction times: Incorporating mouse-tracking measures into the implicit association test to examine its underlying process. Social Cognition, 30(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.3.289
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.
