Implicit attitudes are evaluations that occur without conscious awareness towards an attitude object or the self. These evaluations are generally either favorable or unfavorable and come about from various influences in the individual experience. The commonly used definition of implicit attitude within cognitive and social psychology comes from Anthony Greenwald and Mahzarin Banaji's template for definitions of terms related to implicit cognition: "Implicit attitudes are introspectively unidentified (or inaccurately identified) traces of past experience that mediate favorable or unfavorable feeling, thought, or action toward social objects". These thoughts, feelings or actions have an influence on behavior that the individual may not be aware of.
An attitude is differentiated from the concept of a stereotype in that it functions as a broad favorable or unfavorable characteristic towards a social object, whereas a stereotype is a set of favorable and/or unfavorable characteristics which are applied to an individual based on social group membership.
The following article will first discuss the potential causes and manifestations of implicit attitudes, specifically about social and cognitive aspects. It will then include the influence of awareness, as well as the debate on implicit attitude change. It will also present common measures (such as the Implicit Association Test, IAT), as well as their limitations. It will also include research that investigates the influence it has on behavior, as well as comparison and association with explicit attitudes.
Causes and manifestations A number of different theories have been proposed relating to the formation, development, and influence of implicit attitudes.
Halo effect
Based on many empirical findings, Greenwald and Banaji et al. (1995) generated the fundamental idea of implicit attitude definitively for the first time, disambiguating attitude into explicit and implicit types. Halo effects are an example of the empirical research used by Greenwald and Banaji in their chapter on implicit social cognition. Understanding halo effects set the foundation for understanding other theories regarding implicit attitudes. For example, it is possible to explain implicit partisanship or implicit egotism in terms of a halo effect, however these concepts will be discussed more in subsequent sections.
Pioneered by Edward Thorndike in 1920, the halo effect is the judgement of attribute "A" being influenced by a known but irrelevant attribute "B". For example, subsequent replications commonly use physical attractiveness as attribute "B" and attribute "A" being a judgement of the subject. More specifically a study Landy and Sigall et al. (1974) found that essays written by female essayists were found to be of higher quality when a photo showed the essayist as being attractive (rather than unattractive) when rated by male judges.
Greenwald and Banaji et al. (1995) have suggested that attribute "B" is in fact an implicit attitude when the judge or subject cannot identify attribute "B" as the source of the judgement for "A". Moreover, when attribute "B" is associated with a positive or negative attitude and additionally is unknowingly and automatically transferred onto attribute "A", that attitude of attribute "B" is known to be an implicit attitude.
However, the halo effect has several limitations. It can distort judgment, leading to unfair or inappropriate decisions. For instance, an individual's attractiveness might unjustifiably influence perceptions of their intelligence or trustworthiness. The horn effect, which is the opposite of the halo effect, states that a negative impression in one area leads to disproportionally negative evaluations in others. For example, if a product fails to meet expectations, consumers might negatively judge the entire brand's offerings. Together, these effects highlight how initial impressions, whether positive or negative, can bias subsequent judgments, often without conscious awareness, emphasizing the importance to recognize and resolve such cognitive biases in decision-making.
In our everyday lives, the halo effect is often applied in brand loyalty and equity, cultural and social domains, and educational settings. Companies often emphasize on the halo effect to enhance brand loyalty and equity. A positive experience with one product can lead consumers to favor other products from the same brand, even without direct experience. Moreover, the halo effect extends beyond individual perceptions, influencing societal norms and cultural standards. For example, celebrities can transfer their positive image to the product by endorsing them, affecting consumer behavior without evaluation of product quality. In addition, teachers' expectations on students' academic performance may be unconsciously influenced by a student's good behavior or appearance, which can lead to biased treatment.
Experiences and socialization Earlier research findings on implicit attitudes show that socialization and reflections of past experiences may be responsible for the development or manifestation of longer lasting implicit attitudes. As an example, a 2004 study found that individuals who were primarily raised by their mothers showed a more positive implicit attitude towards women rather than men. Furthermore, Olson and Fazio et al. in 2001 and 2002 suggested that these implicit attitudes are a result of repeated pairings of positive or negative stimuli with an object; more pairings of positive stimuli would result in a more positive implicit attitude and vice versa. This finding supports the fundamental principles of classical conditioning.
Implicit attitudes are also developed by more recent experiences as well. For example, Rudmore, Ashmore, & Gary et al. in 2001 found that implicit attitude of prejudice against African Americans could be shaped through diversity training intervention using variables at an emotional level rather than increased awareness of bias which helped explicit attitude more.
Implicit attitudes related to the self Self-related objects are anything that pertains to the self; including in-groups and self-esteem (attitude towards the self).
Early research by Nuttin et al. in 1985 suggested that people generally have an implicit preference for letters in their own name, known as the Name letter effect. Further replications of this same effect with varying independent variables (e.g., attractiveness to people with the same letters contained in their names) suggest that people have an implicit preference towards themselves. This manifestation of implicit attitude has come to be known as Implicit egotism. Implicit egotism additionally manifests itself in in-groups.
Implicit partisanship is the heightened attractiveness and identification to a self-related group and negative or neutral attitudes towards non-self-related groups. Greenwald, Pickrell, and Farnham et al. demonstrated this effect in 2002, even when the groups were cooperative and when the members of the groups were non-human. Much of the research on implicit partisanship suggests that this is an uncontrollable process, or an implicit attitude towards self-related groups.
Culture and social norms Generally speaking, culture and social norms have an effect on implicit attitude in the same way experiences and socialization have an effect on implicit attitude. However, culture has a very noticeable effect on implicit attitude in the way implicit attitude differs from one's explicit attitude. In 2002, Livingston et al. examined the effect of mainstream culture on one's implicit attitude towards their social group. Implicitly, one will follow the cultural attitudes towards their social group that they perceive from mainstream culture in their society whether that be positive or negative. With that said, a strong cultural disadvantage (e.g., negative attitude) can effectively eliminate in-group favoritism when tested at the implicit level. However it may be important to note that at the explicit attitude level, these individuals still showed positive attitudes towards their social group. Olson and Fazio et al. suggested in 2004 that at an implicit level one's personal attitude can be influenced by the social or cultural norms that one perceives. Furthermore, this may be due to a weak distinction between one's personal attitude and extrapersonal associations (e.g., one's cultural evaluations) towards an attitude object at the implicit level. Therefore, implicit attitudes are reflective of experiences but can also be shaped by the cultural context.
In addition, media portrayals and upbringing significantly contribute to the formation of implicit biases. Continuous exposure to certain stereotypes in media can lead individuals to develop unconscious associations that align with those portrayals, and even reinforcing them, particularly within the criminal justice system. Similarly, cultural conditioning during upbringing can induce implicit biases that persist into adulthood, particularly in outgroup status perception. These influences demonstrate how deeply embedded social and cultural environments are in shaping implicit attitudes, often long before individuals are consciously aware of their effects.
Degree of awareness Current research supports the idea that there are three different aspects of attitudes captured by current indirect measures that could be outside of conscious awareness: the source, the content, and the impact of an attitude. Source awareness is described as the "awareness of the origin of a particular attitude" (emphasis added). For instance, understanding that a negative attitude toward a specific group stems from societal stereotypes reflects source awareness. Content awareness is differentiated from source awareness by the lack of awareness about the attitude, rather than simply its origin. In other words, it refers to being conscious of the attitude itself. While some implicit attitudes operate without conscious acknowledgment, research indicates that individuals can often predict their implicit biases, suggesting a degree of content awareness. Finally, one may have awareness of both the attitude and its source but the attitude may still have influences on thought or behavior beyond ones awareness; this can be thought of as impact awareness. Even when aware of an attitude and its source, individuals might not realize or fully understand their attitudes' effects on their actions. Conclusions have been made that both indirectly assessed and self-reported attitudes can be characterized by lack of source awareness, there is no evidence for lack of content awareness of indirectly assessed attitudes, and there is some evidence showing that indirectly assessed, but not self-reported, attitudes can be characterized by lack of impact awareness. The most compelling evidence for content awareness of implicit attitudes has shown that people are highly accurate in predicting their scores on the Implicit Association Test.