Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T16:04:50.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Operating principles versus operating conditions in the distinction between associative and propositional processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2009

Bertram Gawronski
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, Social Science Centre, London, Ontario N6A 5C2, Canadabgawrons@uwo.cahttp://publish.uwo.ca/~bgawrons/
Galen V. Bodenhausen
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-2710. galen@northwestern.eduhttp://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bodenhausen/

Abstract

Drawing on our Associative-Propositional Evaluation (APE) Model, we argue for the usefulness of distinguishing between basic operating principles of learning processes (associative linking vs. propositional reasoning) and secondary features pertaining to the conditions of their operation (automatic vs. controlled). We review empirical evidence that supports the joint operation of associative and propositional processes in the formation of new associations.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carlston, D. E. & Skowronski, J. J. (2005) Linking versus thinking: Evidence for the differential associative and attributional bases of spontaneous trait transference and spontaneous trait inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89:884–98.Google Scholar
Fazio, R. H. & Olson, M. A. (2003) Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology 54:297327.Google Scholar
Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006) Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin 132:692731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2007) Unraveling the processes underlying evaluation: Attitudes from the perspective of the APE Model. Social Cognition 25:687717.Google Scholar
Gawronski, B., Deutsch, R., Mbirkou, S., Seibt, B. & Strack, F. (2008) When “just say no” is not enough: Affirmation versus negation training and the reduction of automatic stereotype activation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44:370–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawronski, B. & LeBel, E. P. (2008) Understanding patterns of attitude change: When implicit measures show change, but explicit measures do not. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44:1355–61.Google Scholar
Gawronski, B. & Strack, F. (2004) On the propositional nature of cognitive consistency: Dissonance changes explicit, but not implicit attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40:535–42.Google Scholar
Gawronski, B. & Walther, E. (2008) The TAR effect: When the ones who dislike become the ones who are disliked. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34:1276–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olson, M. A. & Fazio, R. H. (2001) Implicit attitude formation through classical conditioning. Psychological Science 12:413–17.Google Scholar
Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., Mackie, D. M. & Strain, L. M. (2006) Of two minds: Forming and changing valence-inconsistent implicit and explicit attitudes. Psychological Science 17:954–58.Google Scholar
Skowronski, J. J., Carlston, D. E., Mae, L. & Crawford, M. T. (1998) Spontaneous trait transference: Communicators take on the qualities they describe in others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74:837–48.Google Scholar
Strack, F. & Deutsch, R. (2004) Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review 8:220–47.Google Scholar
Whitfield, M. & Jordan, C. H. (submitted) Mutual influences of explicit and implicit attitudes.Google Scholar