distinction procedure, effect, and theory – jan de houwer - 09/06/2006 capturing changes in...

Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006

Capturing Changes inSpontaneous Processes and Behavior

Copy of slides available at: http://www.liplab.ugent.be/

Jan De Houwer

Ghent University, Belgium

ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015


S ============> R


Cognitive theories of psychopathology (e.g., Beck et al., 2004)

Dysfunctional beliefse.g., “the airplane will crash”e.g., “I will get a panic attack”

Dysfunctional processes- attentional bias (Yiend, 2010)- memory bias (Levine & Edelstein, 2009)- interpretation bias (Blanchette & Richards,

2010)


Cognitive psychologists try to understand and predict (changes in) behavior by measuring mediating mental representations and processes


- Traditional approach to capture mediating beliefs:=> Questionnaires / Likert scales

How much do you like spiders?1----2----3----4----5-----6----7----8----9dislike a lot like a lot

=> Limitations:1. Assumes introspective access2. Open to social desirability

- 1990s: New type of measure: Implicit measure=> not clear what it is or why it is useful: Aim is to clarify this



1. Example of an implicit measure:

Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald et al., 1998):

=> 2909 citations!

- Procedure: Four categories assigned to two responses- Effect: Faster if associated categories are assigned to same response

Task 1: POSITIVE + FLYING / NEGATIVE + NOT-FLYINGTask 2: POSITIVE + NOT-FLYING / NEGATIVE + FLYING



Many other measuresName letter effect (e.g., Koole, Dijksterhuis, & van Knippenberg, 2001; Nuttin, 1985)

Semantic priming (Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997)

Affective Simon effect (De Houwer & Eelen, 1998)

Go-NoGo Association Test (GNAT; Nosek & Banaji, 2001)

Stereotypic explanatory bias (Sekaquaptewa, Espinoza, Thompson, Vargas, & von Hippel, 2003)

Extrinsic Affective Simon Task (De Houwer, 2003)

Single-target IAT (Wigboldus, 2001; Karpinski & Steinman, 2006)

Extrinsic affective Simon (EAST) effect (De Houwer, 2003)

Affect Misattriution Task (AMP; Payne et al., 2005)

Implicit association procedure (Schnabel, Banse, & Asendorpf, 2006)

Single association test (Blanton, Jaccard, Gonzales, & Christie, 2006)

Approach-avoid task (Rinck & Becker, 2007)

Implicit relational assessment procedure (e.g., Barnes-Holmes, Murtagh, & Barnes-Holmes, in press)

Sorting paired features task (Bar-Anan, Nosek, & Vianello, 2008)

Brief IAT (Sriram, & Greenwald, 2008)

...



That have been used in many research areas

- Social psychology (meta-analysis: Greenwald et al., 2009) - Clinical Psychology (review: Roefs et al., 2011, Psych Bull)- Addiction (review: Roefs et al., 2011, Psych Bull)- Personality psychology (e.g., Banse & Greenwald, 2007, EJP)- Consumer psychology (review: Perkins et al., in press, Handbook of CP)- Political psychology (e.g., Friese et al., 2012, PloS One)- Communication sciences- …



2. What does “implicit measure” mean (DH, 2006; DH et al., 2009)=> Most often unsatifactory “superficial” arguments (e.g., “implicit” in

name, not a direct self-assessment, reaction time task, …)

2.1. “Measure” as a procedure or as an effect of a procedure- as a procedure: what you do

*putting someone on a weighing scale = measuring weight*instructing someone to complete a certain IAT =

measuring asso=> nothing implicit about a procedure

- as an outcome: the result of administrating the procedure*the number on a weighing scale = measure of weight*the difference in mean RT on two task of IAT = measure of

asso=> is assumed to be a measure of construct: construct validity



2.2. Measure as outcome: Borsboom et al. (2004):

“a test is valid for measuring an attribute if and only if (a) the attribute exists and (b) variations in the attribute causally produce variations in the outcomes of the measurement procedure”.

Procedure – Person – Outcome



Implicit measure:

Procedure – Person – Outcome

E.g., implicit measure of attitude toward flying


Automatic(in certain sense)


2.3. Measure as outcome: implicit or explicit? Attribute automatically causes the outcome, that is despite lack of

* goal to start, stop, alter, or avoid expression of construct (unintentional, uncontrollable) or distal goals (e.g., to evaluate other stimuli)

* awareness of the evoking stimuli, what is being measured, that something is being measured, how it is being measured* effort (efficient) * time (fast)

Implicit measures are measurement outcomes that reflect the to-be-measured construct in an automatic manner (i.e., by virtue of processes that are uncontrolled, unintentional, goal- independent, purely-stimulus-driven, autonomous, unconscious, efficient, or fast.(De Houwer & Moors, 2007)



3. What are implicit measures good for? (Gawronski, 2009, Can. Psy.)

3.1. A window to the unconscious?: NO

- Little evidence to support this

- IAT: participants are aware of what is being measured + can even predict their IAT scores (Hahn et al., 2013, JPSP)

3.2. “True” thoughts and feelings?: NO

- What is “true”?

*unintentional or intentional?

*definitely not stable, context independent

- Faking is more difficult but still possible



3.3. Early socialization experiences?- They can have an effect- but recent experiences also have an effect (e.g., verbal instructions)


3.4. Predict automatic impact of representations on behavior


airplane

danger

Conscious Goal: go to ICPS

Controlled processing

Automatic Processing

Behavior



Implicit measures predict spontaneous behavior (too little time or motivation for control)

=> see APE model (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006, 2011)

Surplus value for predicting / understanding behavior that is based on spontaneous thoughts and feelings

=> Strong supportive evidence: Depends on person (e.g., need for cognition, working memory capacity) and situation (e.g., time pressure)



4. Implicit measures in psychopathology

Ideal testing ground for implicit measures=> pathological behavior and thinking is often automatic (e.g.,

unintentional, uncontrollable, …)=> implicit measures can capture automatic behavior & thinking

Review papers:- Roefs et al. (2011, Psychological Bulletin)- Teachman et al. (2012, Clinical Psychology Review)



Main lines of research:• Known group differences (e.g., spider vs. snake phobics)• Prediction of clinically relevant behavior (e.g., BAT, drinking, relapse)• Experimental manipulations

- mood inductions- THERAPY: FEW STUDIES (e.g., Clerkin et al., 2014, BRaT)- changing automatic processes (e.g., Eberl et al., 2013, DCN)

Main results: MIXED• In line with theoretical expectations: specific phobia, pedophilia,

anorexia => e.g., Spruyt et al. (in press): 72% 6 month relapse prediction (90%)• Contrary to theoretical expectations: depression, social phobia, BDD

But generally: Much more research is needed


Implicit measures will not go away:

Unique way to capture automatic aspects of cognition and behavior!=> because automatic can diverge from non-automatic, always

necessary to assess also the automatic level(e.g., anti-smoking adds might increase automatic liking of

smoking in smokers; Smith & De Houwer, submitted)

But what about the brain?=> implicit measures can involve brain responses as outcomes

(De Houwer & Moors, 2010)=> but they also require validation (Measure? Implicit?)=> behavioral implicit measures are easy to administer also overthe internet (see research on lie detection; Verschuere & De

Houwer, 2010)



Future=> More emphasis on behavior (Hughes et al., 2012, JCBS)=> More sophisticated psychometrics (Maarten De Schryver)=> More emphasis on automatic beliefs (and identifying the

relevant beliefs; e.g. “I SHOULD BE good”)



Future: Measuring propositions / beliefs

Automatic spreading of activation via associations (e.g., Fazio)

* automatic effect as the result of a known mechanism* no impact of type of relation

PMIG meeting - Texas - 25 October 2012

beer good



Automatic construction or activation of propositions (DH, 2014, SPPC)

TYPE OF RELATION MATTERS: e.g.,: “I” and “BEER” can be related in different ways

“I LIKE BEER” “I WANT TO DISLIKE BEER”“I SHOULD DISLIKE BEER”

PMIG meeting - Texas - 25 October 2012

“beer is good”



III. TAKE HOME MESSAGES

- Implicit measures can be used to assess (changes in) automatic cognition and behavior

- Implicit = automatic (not necessarily unconscious)- Because (pathological) behavior is often automatic,

implicit measures are here to stay

Berlin - 3 July 2013

THE END ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

distinction procedure, effect, and theory – jan de houwer - 09/06/2006 capturing changes in...

Documents

responses effect

houwer eelen

measuresname letter

belgium icps amsterdam

implicit measure

extrinsic affective

banse greenwald

response task