Richard E. Petty

The idea that racial prejudice contributes to discrimination not only deliberately but also in a more automatic fashion has been one of the most prominent topics in social psychological research in the last 30 years. Much of the evidence for theories of automatic prejudice stems from the use of indirect measures of implicit attitudes, yet meta-analyses give differing estimates regarding the predictive validity of such measures. The present adversarial collaboration provides a test of the relationships between prominent measures of implicit racial attitudes and discriminatory behavior using a set of established lab-based paradigms using a sample of White Americans (N = 2114). Using structural equation models that can account for measurement error, frequentist and Bayesian multiverse analyses confirmed that White Americans’ performance on indirect measures correlate modestly with these behavioral outcomes, and explain unique variance (~2.5%) beyond direct, self-report measures of racial attitudes. At the same time, self-report measures exhibited greater predictive and incremental validity than indirect measures (explaining ~45% of the variance) despite behavioral measures of discrimination displaying weak internal reliability. Results provided some support for greater predictive and incremental validity for indirect measures among participants scoring relatively low on measures of executive function and motivation to control prejudice. These results lend themselves to both relatively optimistic and pessimistic interpretations concerning scientific and practical significance. All collaborators agree that the best path forward is collaborative and focused on the generalizability of implicit racial attitudes to high-accountability organizational settings.

Background: Indirect attitude change effect occurs when a change in attitudes toward an object (i.e., focal attitude) is accompanied by a change in attitudes toward other related objects (i.e., distal attitude). The current research examines to what extent the amount of thinking (elaboration) involved in changing focal attitudes can moderate this indirect change effect. We expect that indirect change will be more likely to occur under high elaboration conditions (i.e., elaboration-indirect change effect). Method: Across two studies, participants’ thought valence toward a healthy diet (Study 1) and toward coffee (Study 2) was manipulated to be positive or negative. The amount of elaboration accompanying the thought generation tasks was either measured (Study 1) or manipulated (Study 2). Finally, focal and distal attitudes were assessed in both studies to test the proposed elaboration-indirect change effect. Results: Focal attitudes were generally associated with distal attitudes. More importantly, the amount of thinking moderated this effect, with increased elaboration leading to more indirect change from focal to distal attitudes. Conclusions: Elaboration moderates indirect attitude change.

The circumstances under which people are more likely to use their attitude certainty were examined. Across three studies, participants shared their attitudes on current topics (e.g. refugees). Then, attitude certainty was either measured or manipulated, depending on the study. Elaboration was assessed via need for cognition or manipulated after forming attitudes and certainty, just before the behavioural decision. Attitudes, certainty, and elaboration served as predictors of different behavioural outcomes (e.g. enrolling in a mentoring programme). As predicted, attitudes guided behaviour. Furthermore, the greater the certainty, the greater attitude‐behaviour correspondence (A–B consistency), replicating the traditional effect. Most relevant, the effect of already existing attitude certainty in moderating A–B consistency was more likely to occur for high (vs. low) elaboration participants. Following Self‐Validation Theory (Briñol & Petty, Psychol. Rev. , 129, 2022, 340), this research showed that elaboration can moderate reliance on metacognition determining A–B consistency.

This paper presents a framework on the evolution of psychological theory in both consumer psychology and psychology more generally, moving from empirical observations of relationships to explanatory multi‐process models. The authors argue that psychological research appears unnecessarily inhibited, at times, to effects‐based or single‐process explanations of causal relationships. Such approaches, while fruitful for planting seeds of ideas, may limit the growth of psychological research. To provide a path to deeper theory building, involving more explanatory and predictive models, the authors introduce an approach based on the evolutionary stages of theory. This approach involves stating the necessary conditions to advance an evolutionary stage, along with visual examples of theory and empirical examples largely from the literature in consumer psychology. The upshot is a framework aimed to align scholars in understanding how to think about and discuss theoretical contributions. Finally, by adopting this approach, the authors suggest that psychological science can better address current challenges, such as the replication crisis, and foster more impactful research.

Self-Validation Theory (SVT; Briñol & Petty, 2022) postulates that mental contents (thoughts, attitudes, goals, traits) become less consequential for judgment and action as the perceived validity of the thoughts is decreased. Both doubt in the extent to which thoughts are right (cognitive invalidation) as well as feeling bad about those thoughts (affective invalidation) can lead people to discard their thoughts. Thoughts that are perceived as relatively invalid or unpleasant are mentally discarded which can attenuate, eliminate, or even reverse the normal impact of one's thoughts on judgments and behavior. Along with examples of these three possible outcomes associated with doubt, we also review recent research specifying a fourth way invalidation can act. Specifically, when invalidation is highly threatening it can motivate people to behave in ways that restore their sense of confidence such as by adopting more extreme attitudes such as in the context of mortality salience (e.g., contemplating the Covid-19 pandemic). The chapter discusses what factors determine when each of these four outcomes is more likely to occur, along with recent research on pathological doubt, and the meaning of doubt.

This chapter explores antecedents and consequences of different forms of identity (e.g., social identity, identity fusion) through the lens of Self-Validation Theory (SVT). This metacognitive framework postulates that the greater the perceived validity of one’s mental contents (including identity), the more those thoughts are translated into judgments and behavior. The chapter is divided in five sections. The first focuses on the ability of attitudes to serve as antecedents of identity. The studies described in this section reveal that measures and incidental inductions of confidence (vs. doubt) can increase the ability of attitudes toward groups (e.g., scientists) to guide group identity. The second section focuses on the consequences of identity revealing that the predictive validity of identity can be improved by taking people´s metacognitive assessments of identity into account. Beyond confidence influencing the usage of antecedents to identity (part 1) and consequences of identity (part 2), a third block of research focuses on specifying when confidence and doubt assessments are more likely to be taken into consideration focusing on examples relevant to identity. A fourth section compares cases of direct vs. compensatory confidence, and a fifth and final section summarizes the chapter and outlines an agenda for future research.