Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics Vanguard

A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Bergs, Alexander / Cohn, Abigail C. / Good, Jeff

CiteScore 2018: 0.95

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.381
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.841

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Implicitness, automaticity, and consciousness in language attitudes research

Are they related and how do we characterize them?

Andrew Pantos
  • Corresponding author
  • Metropolitan State University of Denver, Department of English, P.O. Box 173362, Campus Box 32, Denver, CO 80217-3362, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-04-18 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0007


Over the past several years, there has been increasing interest in incorporating implicit attitude measures into language attitudes research. While the tools used to measure implicit attitudes are relatively new to linguists, they are grounded in a long history of social cognition research, where dual processing models of attitude formation have been discussed and debated for decades. As the use of these methods becomes more prevalent in language attitudes research, there is a growing tendency for language attitudes researchers to overlook the foundational literature and focus only on sociolinguistic studies as precedent. As a result, there is a tendency to conflate and misuse terminology – most notably the terms automatic, implicit, and unconscious – and to mischaracterize the kinds of conclusions that can safely be drawn from experimental studies. The purpose of this paper is to help language attitudes researchers by providing perspective on the theoretical traditions of dual processing models and an analysis of the implications of selecting particular attitudes measures, and to make an appeal for the use of clear and consistent terminology in reporting this type of language attitudes research.

Keywords: Implicit Social Cognition; IAT; implicitness; consciousness; language attitudes


  • Arkes, Hal R. & Philip E. Tetlock. 2004. Attributions of implicit prejudice, or “Would Jesse Jackson ‘fail’ the Implicit Association Test?” Psychological Inquiry 15. 257–278.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Banaji, Mahzarin R., Brian A. Nosek & Anthony G. Greenwald. 2004. No place for nostalgia in science: A response to Arkes and Tetlock. Psychological Inquiry 15. 279–289.Google Scholar

  • Bargh, John A. 1994. The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer and T. K. Srull (eds.), Handbook of Social Cognition, 1–40. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2012. The implicit association test and sociolinguistic meaning. Lingua 122(7). 753–763.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Cargile, Aaron C. 1994. Language attitudes as a social process; A conceptual model and new directions. Language and Communication 14(3). 211–236.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cargile, Aaron C. & Howard Giles. 1997. Understanding language attitudes: Exploring listener affect and identity. Language and Communication 17(3). 195–217.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Houwer, Jan, Sarah Teige-Mocigemba, Adriann Spruyt & Agnes Moors. 2009. Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin 135(3). 347–368.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Devine, Patricia G. 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56(1). 5–18.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fazio, Russell H. & Michael A. Olson. 2003. Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology 54(1). 297–327.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fazio, Russell H., David M. Sanbonmatsu, Martha C. Powell & Frank R. Kardes. 1986. On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(2). 229–238.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Gawronski, Bertram. 2009. Ten frequently asked questions about implicit measures and their frequently supposed, but not entirely correct answers. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne 50(3). 141–150.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Gawronski, Bertram & Galen V. Bodenhausen. 2006. Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychology Bulletin 132(5). 692–731.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gawronski, Bertram, Wilhelm Hofmann & Christopher J. Wilbur. 2006. Are “implicit” attitudes unconscious? Consciousness and Cognition 15(3). 485–499.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gawronski, Bertram & Laura A. Creighton. 2013. Dual process theories. In D.E. Carlston (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition, 282–312. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Greenwald, A. G. & Mahzarin R. Banaji. 1995. Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review 102(1). 4–27.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Greenwald, Anthony G., Debbie E. McGhee & Jordan L. Schwartz. 1998. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(6). 1464–1480.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Hugenberg, Kurt & Galen V. Bodenhausen. 2004. Ambiguity in social categorization: The role of prejudice and facial affect in race categorization. Psychological Science 15(5). 342–345.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jacoby, Larry L. & Mark Dallas. 1981. On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 110(3). 306–340.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lev-Ari, Shiri & Boaz Keysar. 2010. Why don’t we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46(6). 1093–1096.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Maison, Dominika, Anthongy G. Greenwald & Ralph H. Bruin. 2004. Predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test in studies of brands, consumer attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 14(4). 405–415.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McDaniel, Max, Margaret Beier, Andrew Perkins, Stephen Goggin & Brian Frankel. 2009. An assessment of the fakeability of self-report and implicit personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality 43. 682–685.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nosek, Brian & Mahzarin R. Banaji. 2001. The go/no-go association task. Social Cognition 19. 625–666.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nosek, Brian A., Anthony G. Greenwald & Mahzarin R. Banaji. 2007. The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. In J. A. Bargh (ed.) Automatic Processes in Social Thinking and Behavior, 265–292. Hove, England: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

  • Pantos, Andrew & Andrew Perkins. 2012. Measuring implicit and explicit attitudes toward foreign accented speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32(1). 3–20.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Payne, B. Keith & Bertram Gawronski. 2010. A history of implicit social cognition: Where is it coming from? Where is it now? Where is it going? In Bertram Gawronski, B. & B. Keith Payne (eds.) Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications 1, 1–15. New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar

  • Petty, Richard E. & John T. Cacioppo. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19. 124–205.Google Scholar

  • Rosseel, Laura, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2015. Can social psychological attitude measures be used to study language attitudes? A case study exploring the Personalized Implicit Association Test. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Quantitative Investigations in Theoretical Linguistics (QITL), Tübingen, Germany 4–6 November. 1–4.Google Scholar

  • Ryan, Ellen B. 1983. Social psychological mechanisms underlying native speaker evaluations of non-native speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 5(2). 148–159.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Shiffrin, Richard M. & Walter Schneider. 1977. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review 84(2). 127–190.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-03-14

Accepted: 2018-11-26

Published Online: 2019-04-18

Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, Volume 5, Issue s1, 20180007, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0007.

Export Citation

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in