Explicit and implicit attitudes operate on different levels and need different measures.

Evidence

Explicit attitudes are evaluative reactions that operate on a conscious level, similar to explicit memories (Tulving, 1985), and are traditionally measured with self-report scales (Dovidio et al., 2001; Himmelfarb, 1993). Implicit attitudes, on the other hand, operate largely outside of conscious awareness (see Banaji, Lemm, & Carpenter, 2001), like implicit memories (Roediger, 1990), and are typically measured using response latency (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998); evaluative priming (Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997); or unobtrusive measures of helping behavior, aggression, or nonverbal communication (see Crosby, Bromley, & Saxe, 1980). — Wade C. Rowatt and Lewis M. Franklin, Christian Orthodoxy, Religious…, 14

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clear definitional distinction between explicit vs implicit attitudes and their respective measurement methods.
• XREF: Directly advances the reading purpose on self-report vs implicit measures diverging. — connects to: Implicit measures reveal attitudes people cannot or will not report — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 759; Implicit and explicit prejudice are distinct and can diverge within the same person — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 2170; Implicit measures reveal prejudice that explicit self-report instruments cannot capture — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 759 (+4 more)

Related

• When prejudice hides behind professed conviction, implicit measures expose it (similarity 0.88)
• Implicit attitude measures reveal prejudice explicit self-reports miss (similarity 0.85)
• Implicit measures reveal prejudice that explicit self-report instruments cannot capture (similarity 0.84)
• Implicit and explicit prejudice are distinct and can diverge within the same person (similarity 0.84)
• Implicit measures are required to study nonconscious gender stereotypes (similarity 0.83)
• Implicit measures reveal attitudes people cannot or will not report (similarity 0.82)
• Self-reported religiosity may diverge from measures of implicit prejudice. (similarity 0.82)
• Implicit prejudice measures are not clearly more valid than survey measures (similarity 0.80)
• Laboratory models of unconscious cognition enabled research on implicit social cognition (similarity 0.80)
• Social psychology long treated attitudes and stereotypes as consciously accessible via self-report. (similarity 0.80)
• Dissociation between implicit and explicit measures validates the implicit attitude construct. (similarity 0.80)
• Prejudice targets show self-hate only on implicit, not explicit, measures (similarity 0.80)
• Research practice overwhelmingly assumes attitudes operate consciously (similarity 0.80)
• IAT response latency reveals implicit prejudice even absent self-reported bias (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Implicit measures reveal prejudice that explicit self-report instruments cannot capture #corroborates (0.92) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 759
• Implicit measures reveal attitudes people cannot or will not report #corroborates (0.90) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 759
• Implicit and explicit prejudice are distinct and can diverge within the same person #corroborates (0.90) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2170
• Implicit measures reveal biased feelings people consciously disavow #expands (0.88)
• Implicit measures are required to study nonconscious gender stereotypes #corroborates (0.85) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 778
• Implicit prejudice measures are not clearly more valid than survey measures #complicates (0.82) — Christopher Tarman and David O. Sears, The Conceptualization and Measurement…, 223
• When prejudice hides behind professed conviction, implicit measures expose it #exemplifies (0.80) — Wade C. Rowatt and Lewis M. Franklin, Christian Orthodoxy, Religious…, 80