Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T04:36:56.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explicit Reasons for Examining the Implicit Motive System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Russell E. Johnson  and
James A. Tan
Russell E. Johnson*
Affiliation:
University of South Florida
James A. Tan
Affiliation:
St. Cloud State University
*
E-mail: rjohnson@cas.usf.edu, Address: Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, 4204 East Fowler Avenue, PCD 4139, Tampa, FL 33620
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 103 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Psychology, University of South Florida

**

Department of Management, G. R. Herberger College of Business, St. Cloud State University.

References

Bing, M. N., LeBreton, J. M., Davison, H. K., Migetz, D. Z., & James, L. R. (2007). Integrating implicit and explicit social cognitions for enhanced personality assessment: A general framework for choosing measurement and statistical methods. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 346–389.Google Scholar
Bing, M. N., Stewart, S. M., Davison, H. K., Green, P. D., McIntyre, M. D., & James, L. R. (2007). An integrative typology of personality assessment for aggression: Implications for predicting counterproductive workplace behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 722–744.Google Scholar
Cunningham, W. A., Preacher, K. J., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). Implicit attitude measurement: Consistency, stability, and convergent validity. Psychological Science, 12, 163–170.Google Scholar
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18.Google Scholar
Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692–731.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.Google Scholar
Haines, E. L., & Sumner, K. E. (2006). Implicit measurement of attitudes, stereotypes, and self-concepts in organizations: Teaching old dogmas new tricks. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 536–553.Google Scholar
Ito, T. A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). Attitudes as mental and neural states of readiness: Using physiological measures to study implicit attitudes. In Wittenbrink, B. & Schwarz, N. (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes (pp. 125–158). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kanfer, R. (2009). Work motivation: Identifying use-inspired research directions. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 77–93.Google Scholar
Kunda, Z., & Thagard, P. (1996). Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits, and behaviors: A parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory. Psychological Review, 103, 284–308.Google Scholar
Ployhart, R. E. (2008). The measurement and analysis of motivation. In Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 17–61). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rosen, C. C., Akirmak, U., & Johnson, R. E. (2008, April). Affect and performance: Support for the use of implicit measures. Paper presented at the 23rd annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Stajkovic, A. D., Locke, E. A., & Blair, E. S. (2006). A first examination of the relationships between primed subconscious goals, assigned conscious goals, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1172–1180.10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1172Google Scholar
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., & Mitchell, G. (2008). Calibrating prejudice in milliseconds. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71, 12–16.Google Scholar
Vargas, P. T., Sekaquaptewa, D., & Von Hippel, W. (2007). Armed only with paper and pencil: “Low tech” measures of implicit attitudes. In Wittenbrink, B. & Schwarz, N. (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes (pp. 103–124). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Wittenbrink, B. (2007). Measuring attitudes through priming. In Wittenbrink, B. & Schwarz, N. (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes (pp. 17–58). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar