Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: Conceptual, empirical, and metatheoretical issues: Reply to Albarracín, Hart, and McCulloch (2006), Kruglanski and Dechesne (2006), and Petty and Briñol (2006)

Bertram Gawronski*, Galen V. Bodenhausen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

30 Scopus citations

Abstract

Commentators on B. Gawronski and G. V. Bodenhausen's (2006) recently proposed associative-propositional evaluation (APE) model raised a number of interesting conceptual, empirical, and meta-theoretical issues. The authors consider these issues and conclude that (a) the conceptual criticisms raised against the APE model are based on misinterpretations of its basic assumptions, (b) the empirical criticisms are unfounded, as they are inconsistent with the available evidence, and (c) the proposed alternative accounts appear to be less parsimonious and weaker in their predictive power than the APE model. Nevertheless, the commentators offered valuable suggestions for extensions of the APE model, which the authors discuss with respect to their implications for new directions in attitude research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)745-750
Number of pages6
JournalPsychological bulletin
Volume132
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2006

Keywords

  • Attitude change
  • Cognitive consistency
  • Dual-process models
  • Evaluative conditioning
  • Implicit measures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: Conceptual, empirical, and metatheoretical issues: Reply to Albarracín, Hart, and McCulloch (2006), Kruglanski and Dechesne (2006), and Petty and Briñol (2006)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this