In the lab, we generally explore automatic evaluative processing, specifically how the evaluation of threat can be distinguished. We also pursue research on attitudes more generally, specifically those that arise from evaluative conditioning as well as those that are expressed in the form of prejudice. Please see below for brief descriptions of some of these lines of research.
The Dual Implicit Process (DIP) Model
March, D. S., Gaertner, L., & Olson, M. A. (2018). On the prioritized processing of threat in a Dual Implicit Process model of evaluation. Psychological Inquiry, 19, 1-13.
March, D. S., Gaertner, L., & Olson, M. A. (2018). Clarifying the explanatory scope of the Dual Implicit Process model. Psychological Inquiry, 19, 37-43.
I have developed the dual implicit process (DIP model, which describes two functionally distinct and serially-linked automatic evaluative processes: the first automatic (or implicit) process (i1) is solely oriented toward evolutionarily derived and socially learned threats to bodily harm. This initial process precedes and potentially influences the temporally subsequent automatic (or implicit) process (i2) that encompasses the full evaluative continuum (positive to negative) and includes evaluative information beyond mere threat. These two implicit processes precede and potentially influence explicit and controlled judgments and behaviors. All of these processes feed information forward and back to influence each other.
The way that this dual implicit processing occurs is by taking advantage of an evolutionarily adapted dual route for processing information. In broad terms, humans have a quick and dirty path for rapidly processing and responding to perceived threats, and another more cortical path that provides more nuanced information.
By incorporating into dual process models what we argue is a qualitative difference between automatic threat and other automatic evaluative processing, the DIP model advances our understanding of the entire evaluative process. Instead of lumping automatic prejudice, food cravings, phobias, intimate partner violence, and addictions into the same “implicit” box, we propose that some stimuli and events—specifically those indicating an immediate threat of bodily harm—are processed in a unique fashion.
Distinguishing Threat from Mere Negative Valence
March, D. S., Gaertner, L., & Olson, M. A. (2017). In harm’s way: On preferential response to threatening stimuli. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1519-1529.
Data and materials available on the Open Science Framework website.
Given the evolutionary significance of survival, the mind might be particularly sensitive (in terms of strength and speed of reaction) to stimuli that pose an immediate threat to physical harm. To rectify limitations in past research, I pilot-tested stimuli to obtain images that are threatening, nonthreatening-negative, positive, or neutral. The important thing about these images is that while both the threatening and negative images are indeed negative in valence, only the threatening images contain actual survival threats. That way, any difference in reactions to these two image sets is not due to their valence, since they are both equally negative, but due to their different threat-relevance.These images can be accessed by downloading this folder.
I used these images in three studies using a visual search task, a facial electromyogrpahy paradigm (i.e., the startle-eyeblink paradigm), and eye-tracking. These studies revealed that participants (a) were faster to detect a threatening than nonthreatening-negative image when each was embedded among positive or neutral images, (b) oriented their initial gaze more frequently toward threatening than nonthreatening-negative, positive, or neutral images, and (c) evidenced larger startle-eyeblinks to threatening than to nonthreatening-negative, positive, or neutral images.
I have also presented these images subliminally (i.e., beyond conscious awareness), and measured responses over time using skin-conductance. Here I found larger skin conductance responses over time to threatening stimuli while responses among the other classes of stimuli did not differ from each other.
This research indicates that the mind initially responds more strongly and quickly to threatening than nonthreatening-negative stimuli and highlights the nuanced way disparate types of negatively valenced stimuli are evaluated. It also suggests that integrating such sensitivity to threat into social cognitive processes of evaluation in the form of a Dual Implicit Process model could account for a wider array of social functioning.
Prejudice In-group and Out-group Bias Toward Hispanics
March, D. S.& Graham, R. (2015). Exploring implicit ingroup and outgroup bias toward Hispanics. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 18, 89-103.
For an overview, see: March, D. S., Olson, M. A. & Fazio, R. H. (2018). The Implicit Misattribution Model of Evaluative Conditioning. Social Psychological Bulletin, 13, e27574. News Media Depictions of Obama Influence Automatic Attitudes – Implications for the Obama Effect
March, D. S., Kendrick, R., Fritzlen, K., & Olson, M. A. (2016). News media depictions of Obama influence automatic evaluative associations: Implications for the Obama Effect. Social Cognition, 34, 504-522.
In Study 1, images of Obama from FoxNews.com were rated more negatively than images of him from CNN.com. In Study 2 (n=215), participants with weaker attitudes exposed to FoxNews.com images (versus all other images) evinced the most negative SC-IAT bias toward Obama. Thus, incidental exposure to valenced media portrayals can impact attitudes toward public figures.