Cognition
 2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104792
|Get access via publisher |Summarize |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts

Sensitivity of implicit evaluations to accurate and erroneous propositional inferences

Benedek Kurdi
1
,
Yarrow Dunham
2

Abstract: is a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of Project Implicit, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and international collaborative of researchers who are interested in implicit social cognition.

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
16
1
0
0

Citation Types

0
8
0
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
11
5

Relationship

4
12

Authors

Journals

citations

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)
references

References 77 publications

0
8
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Effect sizes were not included in the meta-analytic database if (a) two types of co-occurrence information but no relational information were presented (certain conditions of Hu et al, 2017b); (b) individual difference measures were used to assign participants to groups (Kurdi & Dunham, 2021); (c) a manipulation involved different combinations of co-occurrence and relational information such that the unique contribution of each could not be determined, for example, the same target was paired both with positive behaviors revealed to be characteristic (A) and negative behaviors revealed to be uncharacteristic (D; Bading et al, 2020; Brannon & Gawronski, 2017; Calanchini et al, 2013; Kurdi & Dunham, 2021; Rydell et al, 2007; Rydell & McConnell, 2006); (d) the same task was used for learning and testing (Kawakami et al, 2000); or (e) the study investigated generalization to a trait (Förderer & Unkelbach, 2016) or target (Hughes, Barnes-Holmes, et al, 2018) that was not included in the learning phase.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The same reviewer also noted that statements (such as "Bob continually yells at his wife in public") also have relational content and should therefore be removed from the meta-analysis as sources of co-occurrence information. We decided to retain these cases for the following reasons: (a) designs involving behavioral statements are procedurally highly similar to evaluative conditioning designs, the only difference being spatial separation between the CS and US; (b) behavioral statements can shift implicit evaluations by virtue of their co-occurrence structure only (Kurdi & Dunham, 2021); (c) primary authors (e.g., Peters & Gawronski, 2011) often explicitly treat behavioral statements solely as a source of co-occurrence information; and (d) we did not find any difference between behavioral statements and single words as a source of co-occurrence information in moderator analyses ( p = .225), suggesting that the minimal relational content of the former is unlikely to be responsible for the effects obtained. In addition to the name of the variable and the corresponding variable name in the meta-analytic database, the table also provides definitions and information on interrater reliabilities (calculated via Gwet's AC 1 ) and the levels of categorical variables.…”
Section: Stimulus-related Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
Exaggerated anticipatory anxiety is common in social anxiety disorder (SAD). Neuroimaging studies have revealed altered neural activity in response to social stimuli in SAD, but fewer studies have examined neural activity during anticipation of feared social stimuli in SAD. The current study examined the time course and magnitude of activity in threat processing brain regions during speech anticipation in socially anxious individuals and healthy controls (HC). Method Participants (SAD n = 58; HC n = 16) underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during which they completed a 90s control anticipation task and 90s speech anticipation task.
show abstract
“…Effect sizes were not included in the meta-analytic database if (a) two types of co-occurrence information but no relational information were presented (certain conditions of Hu et al, 2017b); (b) individual difference measures were used to assign participants to groups (Kurdi & Dunham, 2021); (c) a manipulation involved different combinations of co-occurrence and relational information such that the unique contribution of each could not be determined, for example, the same target was paired both with positive behaviors revealed to be characteristic (A) and negative behaviors revealed to be uncharacteristic (D; Bading et al, 2020; Brannon & Gawronski, 2017; Calanchini et al, 2013; Kurdi & Dunham, 2021; Rydell et al, 2007; Rydell & McConnell, 2006); (d) the same task was used for learning and testing (Kawakami et al, 2000); or (e) the study investigated generalization to a trait (Förderer & Unkelbach, 2016) or target (Hughes, Barnes-Holmes, et al, 2018) that was not included in the learning phase.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The same reviewer also noted that statements (such as "Bob continually yells at his wife in public") also have relational content and should therefore be removed from the meta-analysis as sources of co-occurrence information. We decided to retain these cases for the following reasons: (a) designs involving behavioral statements are procedurally highly similar to evaluative conditioning designs, the only difference being spatial separation between the CS and US; (b) behavioral statements can shift implicit evaluations by virtue of their co-occurrence structure only (Kurdi & Dunham, 2021); (c) primary authors (e.g., Peters & Gawronski, 2011) often explicitly treat behavioral statements solely as a source of co-occurrence information; and (d) we did not find any difference between behavioral statements and single words as a source of co-occurrence information in moderator analyses ( p = .225), suggesting that the minimal relational content of the former is unlikely to be responsible for the effects obtained. In addition to the name of the variable and the corresponding variable name in the meta-analytic database, the table also provides definitions and information on interrater reliabilities (calculated via Gwet's AC 1 ) and the levels of categorical variables.…”
Section: Stimulus-related Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
Exaggerated anticipatory anxiety is common in social anxiety disorder (SAD). Neuroimaging studies have revealed altered neural activity in response to social stimuli in SAD, but fewer studies have examined neural activity during anticipation of feared social stimuli in SAD. The current study examined the time course and magnitude of activity in threat processing brain regions during speech anticipation in socially anxious individuals and healthy controls (HC). Method Participants (SAD n = 58; HC n = 16) underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during which they completed a 90s control anticipation task and 90s speech anticipation task.
show abstract
“…Both confounds substantially with learning and testing phases as presented in the original study. For one, the absence of a smile is not as unambiguously informative as the absence of the green circle in Kurdi & Dunham's (2021) experiment. Social cues, like facial expressions, are predominantly multicausal and, hence, ambiguous in their information about the real state of the world, more so the less contextual information is provided (e.g., "Peter is smiling after something has happened."…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
Exaggerated anticipatory anxiety is common in social anxiety disorder (SAD). Neuroimaging studies have revealed altered neural activity in response to social stimuli in SAD, but fewer studies have examined neural activity during anticipation of feared social stimuli in SAD. The current study examined the time course and magnitude of activity in threat processing brain regions during speech anticipation in socially anxious individuals and healthy controls (HC). Method Participants (SAD n = 58; HC n = 16) underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during which they completed a 90s control anticipation task and 90s speech anticipation task.
show abstract
“…Contrary to these influential early conceptualizations, empirical research since the 1990s has provided ample support for the idea that implicit social evaluations can exhibit flexibility in response to relevant information (Blair, 2002;Cone et al, 2017;De Houwer et al, 2020;Forscher et al, 2019;Kurdi & Dunham, 2020;Lai et al, 2014). Specifically, implicit evaluations of both individual social targets and social categories have been shown to shift as a result of a wide variety of manipulations, including approach/avoidance training (Van Dessel et al, 2015, 2020, behavioral statements (Boucher & Rydell, 2012;McConnell et al, 2008), evaluative conditioning Rydell & Jones, 2009), propositional reasoning (Kurdi & Dunham, 2021;Moran et al, 2015), reinforcement learning (Hackel et al, 2021;, and many others. Given the amount of evidence available at this time, the momentary malleability of implicit social evaluations seems beyond reasonable doubt.…”
Section: Short-term Malleability In Implicit Evaluationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
Exaggerated anticipatory anxiety is common in social anxiety disorder (SAD). Neuroimaging studies have revealed altered neural activity in response to social stimuli in SAD, but fewer studies have examined neural activity during anticipation of feared social stimuli in SAD. The current study examined the time course and magnitude of activity in threat processing brain regions during speech anticipation in socially anxious individuals and healthy controls (HC). Method Participants (SAD n = 58; HC n = 16) underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during which they completed a 90s control anticipation task and 90s speech anticipation task.
show abstract
scite logo

Scite is an AI-powered platform that helps researchers discover and evaluate scientific literature through Smart Citations, showing whether studies support or contradict a claim. Now part of Research Solutions, Scite has indexed 1.6B+ citations, partners with 30+ publishers, and serves 2M users worldwide.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Status

Copyright © 2026 Scite LLC. All rights reserved.

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Research Solutions Logo