UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany.
Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2020 Aug;24(3):212-232. doi: 10.1177/1088868320911325. Epub 2020 Mar 20.
This article provides a comprehensive review of divergent conceptualizations of the "implicit" construct that have emerged in attitude research over the past two decades. In doing so, our goal is to raise awareness of the harmful consequences of conceptual ambiguities associated with this terminology. We identify three main conceptualizations of the "implicitness" construct: the procedural conceptualization (implicit-as-indirect), the functional conceptualization (implicit-as-automatic), and the mental theory conceptualization (implicit-as-associative), as well as two hybrid conceptualizations (implicit-as-indirect-and-automatic, implicit-as-driven-by-affective-gut-reactions). We discuss critical limitations associated with each conceptualization and explain that confusion also arises from their coexistence. We recommend discontinuing the usage of the "implicit" terminology in attitude research and research inspired by it. We offer terminological alternatives aimed at increasing both the precision of theorization and the practical value of future research.
本文对过去二十年来态度研究中出现的“内隐”概念的不同概念化进行了全面回顾。这样做的目的是提高人们对与这一术语相关的概念模糊性的有害后果的认识。我们确定了“内隐”结构的三个主要概念化：程序概念化（内隐-间接）、功能概念化（内隐-自动）和心理理论概念化（内隐-联想），以及两种混合概念化（内隐-间接和自动，内隐-受情感直觉反应驱动）。我们讨论了与每个概念化相关的关键局限性，并解释了它们的共存也会引起混淆。我们建议在态度研究和受其启发的研究中停止使用“内隐”术语。我们提供了术语替代方案，旨在提高理论化的准确性和未来研究的实际价值。
