A COMPARISON OF IMPLICIT MEASUREMENT METHODS
1
A Comparison of Implicit Measurement Methods Judith Znanewitz1, Lisa Braun1, David Hensel1, Claudia Fantapié Altobelli1, and Fabian Hattke2 1
Helmut-Schmidt-University 2
University of Hamburg
Author note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Judith Znanewitz, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Institute of Marketing, Helmut-SchmidtUniversity, Holstenhofweg 85, 22043 Hamburg. E-mail:
[email protected]
©American Psychological Association, 2018. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. Please do not copy or cite without author's permission. The final article is available, upon publication, at: DOI:10.1037/npe0000086
A COMPARISON OF IMPLICIT MEASUREMENT METHODS
2
Abstract Indirect, implicit measurement methods facilitate access to individual unconscious mental processes. In recent years, these methods have become more popular and are now broadly used in personality research and social psychology. Approximately 20 implicit measurement methods have been developed and new ones are being introduced continuously. So far, research on indirect measuring methods has focused on the development of new methods as well as improving existing ones. However, different methods have different strengths and the associated mental structures differ. This paper provides a critical overview of implicit measurement methods by comparing them to selected criteria, in order to support the choice of method for a specific research purpose. Furthermore, we assess the suitability of the discussed implicit methods for marketing research. In this context, we show the superior potential of the affective misattribution procedure (AMP), a common example of a category of tasks used to measure attitudes implicitly. The AMP is an affective priming paradigm which, unlike other affective priming variants, depends on the response interference and has good internal consistency (.70
