How Should We Think About Implicit Measures and Their Empirical “Anomalies”?

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Based on a review of several “anomalies” in research using implicit measures, Machery (2021) dismisses the modal interpretation of participant responses on implicit measures and, by extension, the value of implicit measures. We argue that the reviewed findings are anomalies only for specific—influential but long-contested—accounts that treat responses on implicit measures as uncontaminated indicators of trait-like unconscious representations that coexist with functionally independent conscious representations. However, the reviewed findings are to-be-expected “normalities” when viewed from the perspective of long-standing alternative frameworks that treat responses on implicit measures as the product of dynamic processes that operate on momentarily activated, consciously accessible information. Thus, although we agree with Machery that the modal view is empirically unsupported, we argue that implicit measures can make a valuable contribution to understanding the complexities of human behavior if they are used wisely in a way that acknowledges what they can and cannot do.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
First archival date: 2021-11-10
Latest version: 2 (2022-02-21)
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
264 ( #29,274 of 71,202 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
93 ( #7,698 of 71,202 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.