1. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Capturing Changes in Spontaneous Processes and Behavior Copy of slides available at: http://www.liplab.ugent.be/ Jan De Houwer Ghent University, Belgium ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

2. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 S ============ > R

3. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Cognitive theories of psychopathology (e.g., Beck et al., 2004) Dysfunctional beliefs e.g., “the airplane will crash” e.g., “I will get a panic attack” Dysfunctional processes - attentional bias (Yiend, 2010) - memory bias (Levine & Edelstein, 2009) - interpretation bias (Blanchette & Richards, 2010) ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015 Cognitive psychologists try to understand and predict (changes in) behavior by measuring mediating mental representations and processes

4. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 - Traditional approach to capture mediating beliefs: => Questionnaires / Likert scales How much do you like spiders? 1----2----3----4----5-----6----7----8----9 dislike a lot like a lot => Limitations: 1. Assumes introspective access 2. Open to social desirability - 1990s: New type of measure: Implicit measure => not clear what it is or why it is useful: Aim is to clarify this ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

5. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

6. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 1. Example of an implicit measure: Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald et al., 1998): => 2909 citations! - Procedure: Four categories assigned to two responses - Effect: Faster if associated categories are assigned to same response Task 1: POSITIVE + FLYING / NEGATIVE + NOT-FLYING Task 2: POSITIVE + NOT-FLYING / NEGATIVE + FLYING ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

7. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Many other measures Name letter effect (e.g., Koole, Dijksterhuis, & van Knippenberg, 2001; Nuttin, 1985) Semantic priming (Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997) Affective Simon effect (De Houwer & Eelen, 1998) Go-NoGo Association Test (GNAT; Nosek & Banaji, 2001) Stereotypic explanatory bias (Sekaquaptewa, Espinoza, Thompson, Vargas, & von Hippel, 2003) Extrinsic Affective Simon Task (De Houwer, 2003) Single-target IAT (Wigboldus, 2001; Karpinski & Steinman, 2006) Extrinsic affective Simon (EAST) effect (De Houwer, 2003) Affect Misattriution Task (AMP; Payne et al., 2005) Implicit association procedure (Schnabel, Banse, & Asendorpf, 2006) Single association test (Blanton, Jaccard, Gonzales, & Christie, 2006) Approach-avoid task (Rinck & Becker, 2007) Implicit relational assessment procedure (e.g., Barnes-Holmes, Murtagh, & Barnes-Holmes, in press) Sorting paired features task (Bar-Anan, Nosek, & Vianello, 2008) Brief IAT (Sriram, & Greenwald, 2008)... ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

8. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 That have been used in many research areas -Social psychology (meta-analysis: Greenwald et al., 2009) -Clinical Psychology (review: Roefs et al., 2011, Psych Bull) -Addiction (review: Roefs et al., 2011, Psych Bull) -Personality psychology (e.g., Banse & Greenwald, 2007, EJP) -Consumer psychology (review: Perkins et al., in press, Handbook of CP) -Political psychology (e.g., Friese et al., 2012, PloS One) -Communication sciences -… ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

9. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 2. What does “implicit measure” mean (DH, 2006; DH et al., 2009) => Most often unsatifactory “superficial” arguments (e.g., “implicit” in name, not a direct self-assessment, reaction time task, …) 2.1. “Measure” as a procedure or as an effect of a procedure - as a procedure: what you do *putting someone on a weighing scale = measuring weight *instructing someone to complete a certain IAT = measuring asso => nothing implicit about a procedure - as an outcome: the result of administrating the procedure *the number on a weighing scale = measure of weight *the difference in mean RT on two task of IAT = measure of asso => is assumed to be a measure of construct: construct validity ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

10. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 2.2. Measure as outcome: Borsboom et al. (2004): “a test is valid for measuring an attribute if and only if (a) the attribute exists and (b) variations in the attribute causally produce variations in the outcomes of the measurement procedure”. Procedure – Person – Outcome ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

11. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Implicit measure: Procedure – Person – Outcome E.g., implicit measure of attitude toward flying ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015 Automatic (in certain sense)

12. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 2.3. Measure as outcome: implicit or explicit? Attribute automatically causes the outcome, that is despite lack of * goal to start, stop, alter, or avoid expression of construct (unintentional, uncontrollable) or distal goals (e.g., to evaluate other stimuli) * awareness of the evoking stimuli, what is being measured, that something is being measured, how it is being measured * effort (efficient) * time (fast) Implicit measures are measurement outcomes that reflect the to-be-measured construct in an automatic manner (i.e., by virtue of processes that are uncontrolled, unintentional, goal- independent, purely-stimulus-driven, autonomous, unconscious, efficient, or fast.(De Houwer & Moors, 2007) ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

13. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 3. What are implicit measures good for? (Gawronski, 2009, Can. Psy.) 3.1. A window to the unconscious?: NO - Little evidence to support this - IAT: participants are aware of what is being measured + can even predict their IAT scores (Hahn et al., 2013, JPSP) 3.2. “True” thoughts and feelings?: NO - What is “true”? *unintentional or intentional? *definitely not stable, context independent - Faking is more difficult but still possible ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

14. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 3.3. Early socialization experiences? -They can have an effect - but recent experiences also have an effect (e.g., verbal instructions) ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015 3.4. Predict automatic impact of representations on behavior

15. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 airplane danger Conscious Goal: go to ICPS Controlled processing Automatic Processing Behavior ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

16. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Implicit measures predict spontaneous behavior (too little time or motivation for control) => see APE model (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006, 2011) Surplus value for predicting / understanding behavior that is based on spontaneous thoughts and feelings => Strong supportive evidence: Depends on person (e.g., need for cognition, working memory capacity) and situation (e.g., time pressure) ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

17. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 4. Implicit measures in psychopathology Ideal testing ground for implicit measures => pathological behavior and thinking is often automatic (e.g., unintentional, uncontrollable, …) => implicit measures can capture automatic behavior & thinking Review papers: - Roefs et al. (2011, Psychological Bulletin) - Teachman et al. (2012, Clinical Psychology Review) ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

18. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Main lines of research: Known group differences (e.g., spider vs. snake phobics) Prediction of clinically relevant behavior (e.g., BAT, drinking, relapse) Experimental manipulations - mood inductions - THERAPY: FEW STUDIES (e.g., Clerkin et al., 2014, BRaT) - changing automatic processes (e.g., Eberl et al., 2013, DCN) Main results: MIXED In line with theoretical expectations: specific phobia, pedophilia, anorexia => e.g., Spruyt et al. (in press): 72% 6 month relapse prediction (90%) Contrary to theoretical expectations: depression, social phobia, BDD But generally: Much more research is needed

19. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Implicit measures will not go away: Unique way to capture automatic aspects of cognition and behavior! => because automatic can diverge from non-automatic, always necessary to assess also the automatic level (e.g., anti-smoking adds might increase automatic liking of smoking in smokers; Smith & De Houwer, submitted) But what about the brain? => implicit measures can involve brain responses as outcomes (De Houwer & Moors, 2010) => but they also require validation (Measure? Implicit?) => behavioral implicit measures are easy to administer also over the internet (see research on lie detection; Verschuere & De Houwer, 2010) ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

20. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Future => More emphasis on behavior (Hughes et al., 2012, JCBS) => More sophisticated psychometrics (Maarten De Schryver) => More emphasis on automatic beliefs (and identifying the relevant beliefs; e.g. “I SHOULD BE good”) ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

21. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Future: Measuring propositions / beliefs Automatic spreading of activation via associations (e.g., Fazio) * automatic effect as the result of a known mechanism * no impact of type of relation PMIG meeting - Texas - 25 October 2012 beer good ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

22. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Automatic construction or activation of propositions (DH, 2014, SPPC) TYPE OF RELATION MATTERS: e.g.,: “I” and “BEER” can be related in different ways “I LIKE BEER” “I WANT TO DISLIKE BEER” “I SHOULD DISLIKE BEER” PMIG meeting - Texas - 25 October 2012 “beer is good” ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015

23. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 III. TAKE HOME MESSAGES -Implicit measures can be used to assess (changes in) automatic cognition and behavior -Implicit = automatic (not necessarily unconscious) -Because (pathological) behavior is often automatic, implicit measures are here to stay Berlin - 3 July 2013 THE END ICPS Amsterdam - 13 March 2015