Fazio R H
Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993 May;64(5):753-8; discussion 759-65. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.753.
This commentary addresses J. A. Bargh, S. Chaiken, R. Govender, and F. Pratto's (1992) conclusion that automatic attitude activation depends not on the idiosyncratic strength of the association in memory between an attitude object and an individual's evaluation of the object but on normative considerations constant across individuals. A variety of difficulties with the bases for this conclusion are discussed. Moreover, additional analyses of the J.A. Bargh et al. data reveal the superiority of an idiosyncratic measure of associative strength (a given individual's latency of response to an attitudinal inquiry) in predicting automatic attitude activation over the various normative measures (latency, extremity, ambivalence, polarization, and consensus or consistency) that were examined. These results support the theoretical premise that attitude activation varies as a function of position along an idiosyncratically defined attitude-nonattitude continuum.
本评论探讨了J. A. 巴格、S. 柴肯、R. 戈文德和F. 普拉托（1992年）的结论，即自动态度激活并非取决于态度对象与个体对该对象评价之间在记忆中关联的独特强度，而是取决于个体间恒定的规范性考量。文中讨论了这一结论依据存在的各种问题。此外，对J. A. 巴格等人数据的进一步分析表明，在预测自动态度激活方面，关联强度的独特测量方法（特定个体对态度询问的反应潜伏期）优于所考察的各种规范性测量方法（潜伏期、极端性、矛盾性、两极分化以及共识或一致性）。这些结果支持了这样一个理论前提，即态度激活会随着沿独特定义的态度 - 非态度连续体上的位置而变化。
