Implicitness, automaticity, and consciousness in language attitudes research
-
Andrew Pantos
Abstract
Over the past several years, there has been increasing interest in incorporating implicit attitude measures into language attitudes research. While the tools used to measure implicit attitudes are relatively new to linguists, they are grounded in a long history of social cognition research, where dual processing models of attitude formation have been discussed and debated for decades. As the use of these methods becomes more prevalent in language attitudes research, there is a growing tendency for language attitudes researchers to overlook the foundational literature and focus only on sociolinguistic studies as precedent. As a result, there is a tendency to conflate and misuse terminology – most notably the terms automatic, implicit, and unconscious – and to mischaracterize the kinds of conclusions that can safely be drawn from experimental studies. The purpose of this paper is to help language attitudes researchers by providing perspective on the theoretical traditions of dual processing models and an analysis of the implications of selecting particular attitudes measures, and to make an appeal for the use of clear and consistent terminology in reporting this type of language attitudes research.
References
Arkes, Hal R. & Philip E. Tetlock. 2004. Attributions of implicit prejudice, or “Would Jesse Jackson ‘fail’ the Implicit Association Test?” Psychological Inquiry 15. 257–278.10.1207/s15327965pli1504_01Suche in Google Scholar
Banaji, Mahzarin R., Brian A. Nosek & Anthony G. Greenwald. 2004. No place for nostalgia in science: A response to Arkes and Tetlock. Psychological Inquiry 15. 279–289.Suche in Google Scholar
Bargh, John A. 1994. The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer and T. K. Srull (eds.), Handbook of Social Cognition, 1–40. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2012. The implicit association test and sociolinguistic meaning. Lingua 122(7). 753–763.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.01.002Suche in Google Scholar
Cargile, Aaron C. 1994. Language attitudes as a social process; A conceptual model and new directions. Language and Communication 14(3). 211–236.10.1016/0271-5309(94)90001-9Suche in Google Scholar
Cargile, Aaron C. & Howard Giles. 1997. Understanding language attitudes: Exploring listener affect and identity. Language and Communication 17(3). 195–217.10.1016/S0271-5309(97)00016-5Suche in Google Scholar
De Houwer, Jan, Sarah Teige-Mocigemba, Adriann Spruyt & Agnes Moors. 2009. Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin 135(3). 347–368.10.1037/a0014211Suche in Google Scholar
Devine, Patricia G. 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56(1). 5–18.10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5Suche in Google Scholar
Fazio, Russell H. & Michael A. Olson. 2003. Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology 54(1). 297–327.10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145225Suche in Google Scholar
Fazio, Russell H., David M. Sanbonmatsu, Martha C. Powell & Frank R. Kardes. 1986. On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(2). 229–238.10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.229Suche in Google Scholar
Gawronski, Bertram. 2009. Ten frequently asked questions about implicit measures and their frequently supposed, but not entirely correct answers. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne 50(3). 141–150.10.1037/a0013848Suche in Google Scholar
Gawronski, Bertram & Galen V. Bodenhausen. 2006. Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychology Bulletin 132(5). 692–731.10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692Suche in Google Scholar
Gawronski, Bertram, Wilhelm Hofmann & Christopher J. Wilbur. 2006. Are “implicit” attitudes unconscious? Consciousness and Cognition 15(3). 485–499.10.1016/j.concog.2005.11.007Suche in Google Scholar
Gawronski, Bertram & Laura A. Creighton. 2013. Dual process theories. In D.E. Carlston (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition, 282–312. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199730018.013.0014Suche in Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G. & Mahzarin R. Banaji. 1995. Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review 102(1). 4–27.10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4Suche in Google Scholar
Greenwald, Anthony G., Debbie E. McGhee & Jordan L. Schwartz. 1998. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(6). 1464–1480.10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464Suche in Google Scholar
Hugenberg, Kurt & Galen V. Bodenhausen. 2004. Ambiguity in social categorization: The role of prejudice and facial affect in race categorization. Psychological Science 15(5). 342–345.10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00680.xSuche in Google Scholar
Jacoby, Larry L. & Mark Dallas. 1981. On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 110(3). 306–340.10.1037/0096-3445.110.3.306Suche in Google Scholar
Lev-Ari, Shiri & Boaz Keysar. 2010. Why don’t we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46(6). 1093–1096.10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.025Suche in Google Scholar
Maison, Dominika, Anthongy G. Greenwald & Ralph H. Bruin. 2004. Predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test in studies of brands, consumer attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 14(4). 405–415.10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_9Suche in Google Scholar
McDaniel, Max, Margaret Beier, Andrew Perkins, Stephen Goggin & Brian Frankel. 2009. An assessment of the fakeability of self-report and implicit personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality 43. 682–685.10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.011Suche in Google Scholar
Nosek, Brian & Mahzarin R. Banaji. 2001. The go/no-go association task. Social Cognition 19. 625–666.10.1037/t08445-000Suche in Google Scholar
Nosek, Brian A., Anthony G. Greenwald & Mahzarin R. Banaji. 2007. The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. In J. A. Bargh (ed.) Automatic Processes in Social Thinking and Behavior, 265–292. Hove, England: Psychology Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Pantos, Andrew & Andrew Perkins. 2012. Measuring implicit and explicit attitudes toward foreign accented speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32(1). 3–20.10.1177/0261927X12463005Suche in Google Scholar
Payne, B. Keith & Bertram Gawronski. 2010. A history of implicit social cognition: Where is it coming from? Where is it now? Where is it going? In Bertram Gawronski, B. & B. Keith Payne (eds.) Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications 1, 1–15. New York: Guildford Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Petty, Richard E. & John T. Cacioppo. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19. 124–205.10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2Suche in Google Scholar
Rosseel, Laura, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2015. Can social psychological attitude measures be used to study language attitudes? A case study exploring the Personalized Implicit Association Test. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Quantitative Investigations in Theoretical Linguistics (QITL), Tübingen, Germany 4–6 November. 1–4.Suche in Google Scholar
Ryan, Ellen B. 1983. Social psychological mechanisms underlying native speaker evaluations of non-native speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 5(2). 148–159.10.1017/S0272263100004824Suche in Google Scholar
Shiffrin, Richard M. & Walter Schneider. 1977. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review 84(2). 127–190.10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127Suche in Google Scholar
©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Research Articles
- Implicitness and experimental methods in language variation research
- Implicitness, automaticity, and consciousness in language attitudes research
- Reflections on the relation between direct/indirect methods and explicit/implicit attitudes
- How “deep” is Dynamism? Revisiting the evaluation of Moroccan-flavored Netherlandic Dutch
- The relational responding task (RRT): a novel approach to measuring social meaning of language variation
- How to trick respondents into revealing implicit attitudes – talk to them
- The role of context in sociolinguistic perception
- The relationship between implicit and explicit attitudes to British accents in enhancing the persuasiveness of children’s oral health campaigns
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Research Articles
- Implicitness and experimental methods in language variation research
- Implicitness, automaticity, and consciousness in language attitudes research
- Reflections on the relation between direct/indirect methods and explicit/implicit attitudes
- How “deep” is Dynamism? Revisiting the evaluation of Moroccan-flavored Netherlandic Dutch
- The relational responding task (RRT): a novel approach to measuring social meaning of language variation
- How to trick respondents into revealing implicit attitudes – talk to them
- The role of context in sociolinguistic perception
- The relationship between implicit and explicit attitudes to British accents in enhancing the persuasiveness of children’s oral health campaigns
