Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5d6d958fb5-zkswk Total loading time: 0.503 Render date: 2022-11-27T11:55:19.487Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Split Feelings: Understanding Implicit and Explicit Political Persuasion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2021

TIMOTHY J. RYAN*
Affiliation:
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States
YANNA KRUPNIKOV*
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University, United States
*
Timothy J. Ryan, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States, tjr@email.unc.edu.
Yanna Krupnikov, Professor, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, United States, yanna.krupnikov@stonybrook.edu.

Abstract

Research in psychology has established that people have visceral positive and negative reactions to all kinds of stimuli—so-called implicit attitudes. Implicit attitudes are empirically distinct from explicit attitudes, and they appear to have separate consequences for political behavior. However, little is known about whether they change in response to different factors than explicit attitudes. Identifying distinct antecedents for implicit and explicit attitudes would have far-reaching implications for the study of political persuasion. We hypothesized that implicit attitudes would change primarily in response to political advertisements’ emotional valence, but this turned out to be wrong. In contrast, our next hypothesis that implicit (but not explicit) attitudes would improve in response to increased familiarity with an attitude object was supported across several tests. Aside from this finding, our studies illustrate how routine preregistration helps researchers convey what they learned from each test—including when predictions are not borne out.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

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

REFERENCES

Abramowitz, Alan I. 1975. “Name Familiarity, Reputation, and the Incumbency Effect in a Congressional Election.” Western Political Quarterly 28 (4): 668–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albertson, Bethany L. 2011. “Religious Appeals and Implicit Attitudes.” Political Psychology 32 (1): 109–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albertson, Bethany, and Gadarian, Shana Kushner. 2015. Anxious Politics: Democratic Citizenship in a Threatening World. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banaji, Mahzarin R., and Heiphetz, Larisa. 2010. “Attitudes.” In Handbook of Social Psychology, eds. Fiske, Susan T., Gilbert, Daniel T., and Lindzey, Gardner, 348–88. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bargh, John A., and Chartrand, Tanya L.. 1999. “The Unbearable Automaticity of Being.” American Psychologist 54 (7): 462–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borah, Porismita, Fowler, Erika, and Ridout, Travis. 2018. “Television vs. YouTube: Political Advertising in the 2012 Presidential Election.” Journal of Information Technology and Politics 15 (3): 230–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, Robert F., and Craver-Lemley, Catherine. 2016. “Mere Exposure Effect.” In Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing Phenomena in Judgement, Thinking and Memory, ed. Pohl, Rüdiger F., 256–75. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Brader, Ted. 2006. Campaigning for Hearts and Minds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brader, Ted, and Marcus, George E.. 2013. “Emotion and Political Psychology.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, eds. Huddy, Leonie, Sears, David O., and Levy, Jack S., 165204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cannell, Charles F., Miller, Peter V., and Oksenberg, Lois. 1981. “Research on Interviewing Techniques.” Sociological Methodology 12: 389437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007a. “Framing Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 10: 103–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007b. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” American Political Science Review 101 (4): 637–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cone, Jeremy, Mann, Thomas C., and Ferguson, Melissa J.. 2017. “Changing Our Implicit Minds: How, When, and Why Implicit Evaluations Can Be Rapidly Revised.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Olson, James, 131–99. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Coppock, Alexander. 2019. “Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach.” Political Science Research and Methods 7 (3): 613–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Alexander, Leeper, Thomas J., and Mullinix, Kevin J.. 2018. “Generalizability of Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimates across Samples.” Proceedings of the National Academies of Science 115 (49): 12441–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dovidio, John F., Kawakami, Kerry, and Gaertner, Samuel L.. 2002. “Implicit and Explicit Prejudice and Interracial Interaction.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (1): 6268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Druckman, James N. 2010. “What’s It All About? Framing in Political Science.” In Perspectives on Framing, ed. Keren, Gideon, 279302. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Kam, Cindy D.. 2011. “Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the ‘Narrow Data Base.’” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur, 4157. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, Xiang, Singh, Surendra, and Ahluwalia, Rohini. 2007. “An Examination of Different Explanations for the Mere Exposure Effect.” Journal of Consumer Research 34 (1): 97103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandes, Juliana. 2013. “Effects of Negative Political Advertising and Message Repetition on Candidate Evaluation.” Mass Communication and Society 16 (2): 268–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Erika Franklin, and Ridout, Travis N.. 2010. “Advertising Trends in 2010.” The Forum 8 (4): Article 4.Google Scholar
Fowler, Erika Franklin, Franz, Michael, Martin, Gregory J., Peskowitz, Zachary, and Ridout, Travis N.. 2021. “Political Advertising Online and Offline.” American Political Science Review 115 (1): 130–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franco, Annie, Malhotra, Neil, and Simonovits, Gabor. 2014. “Publication Bias in the Social Sciences: Unlocking the File Drawer.” Science 345 (6203): 1502–05.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gawronski, Bertram, and Bodenhausen, Galen V.. 2006. “Associative and Propositional Processes in Evaluation: An Integrative Review of Implicit and Explicit Attitude Change.” Psychological Bulletin 132 (5): 692731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gawronski, Bertram, and Bodenhausen, Galen V.. 2007. “Unraveling the Processes Underlying Evaluation: Attitudes from the Perspective of the APE Model.” Social Cognition 25 (5): 687717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawronski, Bertram, and Bodenhausen, Galen V.. 2014. “Implicit and Explicit Evaluation: A Brief Review of the Associative-Propositional Evaluation Model.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8 (8): 448–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawronski, Bertram, and Bodenhausen, Galen V.. 2018. “Evaluative Conditioning from the Perspective of the Associative-Propositional Evaluation Model.” Social Psychological Bulletin 13 (3): e28024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., Krasno, Jonathan S., Coppock, Alexander, Farrer, Benjamin D., Lenoir, Brandon, and Zingher, Joshua N.. 2016. “The Effects of Lawn Signs on Vote Outcomes: Results from Four Randomized Field Experiments.” Electoral Studies 41: 143–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, Aiden P., Seibt, Beate, and Banaji, Mahzarin R.. 2006. “Easier Done than Undone: The Asymmetric Malleability of Automatic Preferences.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (1): 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, Anthony G., and Nosek, Brian A.. 2008. “Attitudinal Dissociation: What Does It Mean?” In Attitudes: Insights from the New Implicit Measures, eds. Petty, Richard E., Fazio, Russell H., and Briñol, Pablo, 6582. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Greenwald, Anthony G., McGhee, Debbie E., and Jordan, L. K. Schwartz. 1998. “Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (6): 1464–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwald, Anthony G., Poehlman, T. Andrew, Uhlmann, Eric Luis, and Banaji, Mahzarin R.. 2009. “Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-Analysis of Predictive Validity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97 (1): 1741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groenendyk, Eric. 2019. “Of Two Minds, but One Heart: a Good ‘Gut’ Feeling Moderates the Effect of Ambivalence on Attitude Formation and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 63 (2): 368–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebb, D. O. 1949. The Organization of Behavior. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, Mason, Lilliana, and Aarøe, Lene. 2015. “Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion and Partisan Identity.” American Political Science Review 109 (1): 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaid, Lynda Lee, and Johnston, Anne. 2001. Videostyle in Presidential Campaigns: Style and Content of Televised Political Advertising. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kam, Cindy D., and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J.. 2013. “Name Recognition and Candidate Support.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (4): 971–86.Google Scholar
Karpinski, Andrew, and Hilton, James L.. 2001. “Attitudes and the Implicit Association Test.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (5): 774–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, Ryan, Clifford, Scott, Burleigh, Tyler, Waggoner, Philip D., Jewell, Ryan, and Winter, Nicholas J. G.. 2020. “The Shape of and Solutions to the MTurk Quality Crisis.” Political Science Research and Methods 8 (4): 614–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, Jeffrey. 2008. “Campaign Advertisements’ Impact on Voter Certainty and Knowledge of House Candidates’ Ideological Positions.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (4): 609–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasno, Jonathan S. 1997. Challengers, Competition, and Reelection: Comparing Senate and House Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Laitin, David D. 2013. “Fisheries Management.” Political Analysis 21 (1): 4247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, Kristin A., Banaji, Mahzarin R., Nosek, Brian A., and Greenwald, Anthony G.. 2007. “Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: IV What We Know (So Far) about the Method.” In Implicit Measures of Attitudes, eds. Wittenbrink, Bernd and Schwarz, Norbert, 123. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Levy, Dena, and Squire, Peverill. 2000. “Television Markets and the Competitiveness of US House Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25 (2): 313–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Taber, Charles. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundberg, Kristjen B., and Payne, B. Keith. 2014. “Decisions among the Undecided: Implicit Attitudes Predict Future Voting Behavior of Undecided Voters.” PLoS ONE 9 (1): e85680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Makse, Todd, Minkoff, Scott L., and Sokhey, Anand E.. 2019. Politics on Display: Yard Signs and the Politicization of Social Spaces. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, Tal, and Bar-Anan, Yoav. 2013. “The Effect of Object–Valence Relations on Automatic Evaluation.” Cognition and Emotion 27 (4): 743–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olson, Michael A, and Fazio, Russell H. 2008. “Implicit and Explicit Measures of Attitudes: The Perspective of the MODE Model.” In Attitudes: Insights from the New Implicit Measures, eds. Petty, Richard E, Fazio, Russell H, and Briñol, Pablo, 3984. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Pérez, Efrén O. 2016. Unspoken Politics: Implicit Attitudes and Political Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, Richard E., and Cacioppo, John T.. 1986. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Berkowitz, Leonard, 123205. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Petty, Richard E., Briñol, Pablo, and DeMarree, Kenneth C.. 2007. “The Meta-Cognitive Model (MCM) of Attitudes: Implications for Attitude Measurement, Change, and Strength.” Social Cognition 25 (5): 657–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, Richard E., Fazio, Russell H., and Briñol, Pablo, eds. 2008. Attitudes: Insights from the New Implicit Measures. Washington DC: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, John R. 1964. “Strong Inference.” Science 146 (3642): 347–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quillian, Lincoln. 2006. “New Approaches to Understanding Racial Prejudice and Discrimination.” Annual Review of Sociology 32: 299328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quillian, Lincoln. 2008. “Does Unconscious Racism Exist?Social Psychology Quarterly 71(1): 611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridout, Travis N., Fowler, Erika Franklin, Branstetter, John, and Borah, Porismita. 2015. “Politics as Usual? When and Why Traditional Actors Often Dominate YouTube Campaigning.” Journal of Information Technology and Politics 12 (3): 237–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridout, Travis N., and Holland, Jenny L.. 2010. “Candidate Strategies in the Presidential Nomination Campaign.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 40 (4): 611–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Timothy J. 2017. “How Do Indifferent Voters Decide? The Political Importance of Implicit Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (4): 892907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Timothy J., and Krupnikov, Yanna. 2021. “Replication Data for: Split Feelings: Understanding Implicit and Explicit Political Persuasion.” Harvard Dataverse. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IK4NUZ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatz, Carla. 1992. “The Developing Brain.” Scientific American 267 (3): 6067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, Jeffrey W., Gawronski, Bertram, and Trope, Yaacov, eds. 2014. Dual-Process Theories of the Social Mind. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Stangor, Charles, Lynch, Laure, Duan, Changming, and Glas, Beth. 1992. “Categorization of Individuals on the Basis of Multiple Social Features.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62 (2): 207–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vavreck, Lynn. 2016. “The Ad That Moved People the Most: Bernie Sanders’s ‘America.’The New York Times, December 30.Google Scholar
Zajonc, Robert B. 1968. “Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement 9 (2): 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zajonc, Robert B. 1980. “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences.” American Psychologist 35 (2): 151–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Ryan and Krupnikov Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Ryan and Krupnikov supplementary material

Ryan and Krupnikov supplementary material

Download Ryan and Krupnikov supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1 MB

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Split Feelings: Understanding Implicit and Explicit Political Persuasion
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Split Feelings: Understanding Implicit and Explicit Political Persuasion
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Split Feelings: Understanding Implicit and Explicit Political Persuasion
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *