Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, Self-Esteem, and Stereotypes

For example, participants understand what is being evaluated on a clear scale, but it may be assumed that they do not know what to evaluate on an implicit scale (eg Petty, Fazio, & Briial , 2009). However, other researchers note that these two measures can use different memory characterizations, while explicit metrics capture conscious characterization, implicit measures capture unconscious characterization I believe that you can do. Although these conceptualizations are relatively common in the literature on implicit metrics, it is important to classify different metrics depending on whether the measured psychological content affects participants' responses to the task in an automated way I think it is more appropriate (De Houwer, Teige) - Mocigemba, Spruyt, and Moors, 2009).

For example, participants understand what is being evaluated on a clear scale, but it may be assumed that they do not know what to evaluate on an implicit scale (eg Petty, Fazio, & Briñol , 2009). However, other researchers note that these two measures can use different memory characterizations, while explicit metrics capture conscious characterization, implicit measures capture unconscious characterization I believe that you can do. Although these conceptualizations are relatively common in the literature on implicit metrics, it is important to classify different metrics depending on whether the measured psychological content affects participants' responses to the task in an automated way I think it is more appropriate (De Houwer, Teige) - Mocigemba, Spruyt, and Moors, 2009).

For example, if a racial attitude reflects the participant's racial attitude, even if participants have not expressed their goals for these attitudes (ie, unconscious) Even if you hide (that is, you can not rule). . An important aspect of this conceptualization is that the implicit and explicit terminology is not psychological in terms of the measurement tool (see Petty et al., 2009) and the psychological structure under test (see Greenwald & Banaji, 1995) It represents the process that affects the measurement result. In addition, the classification of the measurement result is implicit or explicit, but it depends on the process behind the given measurement tool, but the tool itself can be classified as either direct or indirect based on its objective structural characteristics (De Houwer & Moors, 2010).

In the next three sections, we discuss the structural design of attitudes, self-esteem, and implicit social recognition in categories represented by stereotypes. Next is a section aimed at reviewing the potential application principles of potential applications and reducing unconscious implicit cognitive intrusion of judgment. Finally, before presenting a general conclusion, discuss issues related to measurement of implicit social cognition. Attitude is a favorable or unfavorable trend towards social objects such as people, places, policies. The effectiveness of trying to establish an attitude structure is most often sought to demonstrate a positive correlation between measured attitudes and aspects that adversely affect the observed behavior of the observed behavior .

Many social perceptions occur in recessive patterns. This conclusion comes from the reinterpretation of many discoveries that demonstrate the implicit operation of attitudes, in particular the importance of self esteem, and the importance of existing and new evidence of implicit manipulation of stereotypes. By adding this implicit model concept to existing knowledge on the explicit mode of operation of the basic structure of social psychology, the scope of these structures has been greatly expanded. In addition, by interpreting social judgment from implicit and explicit social cognitive interactions, many possibilities for application in the decision making environment are proposed.