Abstract
Because implicit evaluations are thought to underlie many aspects of behavior, researchers have started looking for ways to change them. We examine whether and when persuasive messages alter strongly held implicit evaluations of smoking. In smokers, an affective anti-smoking message led to more negative implicit evaluations on four different implicit measures as compared to a cognitive anti-smoking message which seemed to backfire. Additional analyses suggested that the observed effects were mediated by the feelings and emotions raised by the messages. In non-smokers, both the affective and cognitive message engendered slightly more negative implicit evaluations. We conclude that persuasive messages change implicit evaluations in a way that depends on properties of the message and of the participant. Thus, our data open new avenues for research directed at tailoring persuasive messages to change implicit evaluations.
Highlights
As Zajonc (1980) pointed out in his classic paper, people often respond to stimuli in an evaluative manner even when they do not have the intention to do so, when they have the intention not to do so, or when they are unaware of the stimuli, the reaction, or the link between both
Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP) scores were significantly affected by the type of persuasive message they read; evaluations were more negative following the affective message (M = −0.24, SD = 0.37) than the cognitive message (M = −0.10, SD = 0.23), t(215) = 3.16, p = 0.002, d = 0.45, 95% CIdiff = 0.05, 0.22
Personalized Implicit Association Test (IAT) Confirming the hypothesis of this study, smokers’ implicit evaluations of smoking were more negative when measured using the personalized IAT following the affective message (M = −0.49, SD = 0.48) than the cognitive message (M = −0.32, SD = 0.53), t(238) = −2.60, p = 0.01, d = 0.33, 95% CIdiff = 0.04, 0.30
Summary
As Zajonc (1980) pointed out in his classic paper, people often respond to stimuli in an evaluative manner even when they do not have the intention to do so, when they have the intention not to do so, or when they are unaware of the stimuli, the reaction, or the link between both. Such automatic evaluative responses – or “implicit evaluations” as we will call them (De Houwer, 2009; De Houwer et al, 2013) – have proved to be a fecund research topic. Theoretical views on the potential to change implicit evaluations quickly evolved from what could be characterized as a “slow to build and slow
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
