Implicit evaluations can be malleable via reinterpretation of previously encountered evidence. Here, we report three studies (N = 1,007) investigating the robustness of this updating modality using ecologically realistic materials. Participants were first introduced to a target who killed an endangered black rhino in Namibia. They then listened to a real podcast providing counterattitudinal information on the benefits of trophy hunting. The podcast resulted in considerable revisions of initially negative implicit evaluations toward positivity, consistently across implicit measures (affect misattribution procedures vs. implicit association test), samples (American students vs. nonstudents from various countries), study settings (lab vs. online), and the presence versus absence of a memory retrieval manipulation prompting reflection on participants’ views on trophy hunting. Taken together, these findings suggest that reinterpretation can shift implicit evaluations of even highly negative targets, including under conditions of external validity.
ConeJ.FlahartyK.FergusonM. J. (2019). Believability of evidence matters for correcting social impressions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(20), 9802–9807. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903222116
3.
ConeJ.MannT. C.FergusonM. J. (2017). Changing our implicit minds: How, when, and why implicit evaluations can be rapidly revised. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 131–199. http://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2017.03.001
4.
De HouwerJ. (2014). A propositional model of implicit evaluation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(7), 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12111
5.
De HouwerJ.MoorsA. (2011). Implicit measures: Similarities and differences. In GawronskiB.PayneB. K. (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 176–196). Guilford Press.
6.
De HouwerJ.Van DesselP.MoranT. (2020). Attitudes beyond associations: On the role of propositional representations in stimulus evaluation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 127–183. http://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.09.004
7.
DevineP. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5–18. http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.56.1.5
8.
FazioR. H.SanbonmatsuD. M.PowellM. C.KardesF. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 229–238. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.229
9.
GawronskiB.RydellR. J.De HouwerJ.BrannonS. M.YeY.VervlietB.HuX. (2018). Contextualized attitude change. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 1–52. http://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2017.06.001
10.
GershmanS. J.JonesC. E.NormanK. A.MonfilsM.-H.NivY. (2013). Gradual extinction prevents the return of fear: Implications for the discovery of state. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00164
11.
GreenwaldA. G.BanajiM. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27. http://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.102.1.4
12.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. K. (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.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.85.2.197
14.
KatzJ.MannT. C.FergusonM. J.ShenX.GoncaloJ. A. (2020). Implicit impressions of creative people. Manuscript submitted for publication. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
15.
KellertS. R. (1993). Attitudes, knowledge, and behavior toward wildlife among the industrial superpowers: United States, Japan, and Germany. Journal of Social Issues, 49(1), 53–69. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb00908.x
KurdiB.DunhamY. (2020). Propositional accounts of implicit evaluation: Taking stock and looking ahead. Social Cognition, 38(Supplement), s42–s67. http://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2020.38.supp.s42
18.
MaD. S.CorrellJ.WittenbrinkB. (2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1122–1135. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5
19.
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(6), 823–849. http://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000021
20.
MannT. C.FergusonM. J. (2017). Reversing implicit first impressions through reinterpretation after a two-day delay. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68(C), 122–127. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.06.004
21.
MannT. C.KurdiB.BanajiM. R. (2020). How effectively can implicit evaluations be updated? Using evaluative statements after aversive repeated evaluative pairings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(6), 1169–1192. http://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000701
22.
McGuireW. J. (1961). Resistance to persuasion conferred by active and passive prior refutation of the same and alternative counterarguments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(2), 326–332. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0048344
23.
McGuireW. J.PapageorgisD. (1961). The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defense in producing immunity against persuasion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2), 327–337. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0042026
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. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277
25.
ReederG. D.BrewerM. B. (1979). A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 86(1), 61–79. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.86.1.61
26.
RydellR. J.McConnellA. R. (2006). Understanding implicit and explicit attitude change: A systems of reasoning analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 995–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.995
27.
SchillerD.MonfilsM.-H.RaioC. M.JohnsonD. C.LeDouxJ. E.PhelpsE. A. (2010). Preventing the return of fear in humans using reconsolidation update mechanisms. Nature, 463(7277), 49–53. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature08637
28.
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(2), 108–131. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0402_01
29.
TannenbaumP. H.MacauleyJ. R.NorrisE. L. (1966). Principle of congruity and reduction of persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(2), 233–238. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0022893
30.
TrafimowD.SchneiderD. J. (1994). The effects of behavioral, situational, and person information on different attribution judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30(4), 351–369. http://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1994.1017
31.
Van DesselP.YeY.De HouwerJ. (2019). Changing deep-rooted implicit evaluation in the blink of an eye: Negative verbal information shifts automatic liking of Gandhi. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(2), 266–273. http://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617752064
32.
WyerN. A. (2010). You never get a second chance to make a first (implicit) impression: The role of elaboration in the formation and revision of implicit impressions. Social Cognition, 28(1), 1–19. http://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2010.28.1.1
33.
WyerN. A. (2016). Easier done than undone…by some of the people, some of the time: The role of elaboration in explicit and implicit group preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63(C), 77–85. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.12.006
34.
YoungL.CushmanF.HauserM.SaxeR. (2007). The neural basis of the interaction between theory of mind and moral judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(20), 8235–8240. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701408104
