537 plicit attitude toward the advocated counterattitudinal explicit and implicit attitudes toward alcoholic bever position under low situational pressure than under high na pressure or control ns.Implicit dissonance manipulations.Moreover,explicit and im Explicit attitudes plicit attitudes were predicted to be positively correlated Explicit attitudes toward a general prohibition of al- oh olic beverages were as ms.Spec ons low situati pr they ral n of alo on a rating scale rar ging from 1 (absolutely not)to 5 Method (very much),and (b)whether they would students emale 2 male) petition in favor of a ranging (definitely not)to 5(definitely ves). over Participants were pa s of a3 ald, (essay assignment:induced compliance vs.forced posi and Schwartz's(1998)Implicit Association Test(IAT) e measurement: ng Gree consisted of fv 11 Procedure beer)and names of 10 non-alcoholic beverag ；ee On arrival,participants were welcomed and informed alco red by th on-alcono Participant A name of an alcoholic bev eft-h cared on the screen and a right-hand key ("5"of the number pad)in the beverages. of a non- the attribute dis in and 10 ne of alcoholic beverages should be strongly restricted in hate)were presented and had to be classified according European countries aid to intereste ng (right-han e initi task(Bloc n alterating order.Participants had to press the left was the collection of arguments generated by citizens of hand key when either Jnio In noun was pre ected large number of argument against a sented.In the target-concent discrimination prohibition of alcoholic beverages and that we would be task (Block 4).the initial target-concept discrimination pleased if they we arguments in tho was repeated wit a switch of categorization key they the individual ta salience of their “"free choice,.”participants were asked left-hand key when either a non-alcoholic beverage or a eir perfor sented and right-hand kev was eely c 1994 tion for the following task and a request to respond as arguments either in favor or against a general prohibi uickly as possible even if this would lead to errors.The ion and that they had been generate argu hree (Blocks 1.2.and 4)each nts.P 5)each prised 120 trials The sam pants under control conditions did not have to generate andomized order of trials was used for all participants. the argumen The response generation they were administered measures of Wrong responsesplicit attitude toward the advocated counterattitudinal position under low situational pressure than under high situational pressure or control conditions. Implicit atti￾tudes, in contrast, were expected to be unaffected by dissonance manipulations. Moreover, explicit and im￾plicit attitudes were predicted to be positively correlated under high situational pressure and under control con￾ditions, but not under conditions of low situational pressure. Method Participants and design Sixty-four German students (43 female, 21 male) drawn from a volunteer pool were recruited for a study on a controversial political issue. Participants were paid 6 Euro (approximately US-$6 at the time). Participants were randomly assigned to the six conditions of a 3 (essay assignment: induced compliance vs. forced posi￾tion vs. no essay)
2 (order of attitude measurement: implicit first vs. explicit first) factorial design. Procedure On arrival, participants were welcomed and informed that they were taking part in a study sponsored by the European Union about alcohol prohibition in European countries. Pretests revealed that most German students have a strong negative attitude toward a general pro￾hibition of alcoholic beverages. The experimenter ex￾plained that there is a controversial discussion in the European Union whether or not the legal consumption of alcoholic beverages should be strongly restricted in European countries. For this purpose, the European Union was said to be interested in finding arguments favoring and opposing a general prohibition of alcoholic beverages. Ostensibly, the main goal of the present study was the collection of arguments generated by citizens of the European Union. In the induced compliance con￾dition, participants were told that we already had col￾lected a large number of arguments against a general prohibition of alcoholic beverages and that we would be pleased if they were willing to generate arguments in favor of a general prohibition, even though they were free to choose either position. In order to increase the salience of their ‘‘free choice,’’ participants were asked to sign a release form, indicating that their performance was freely chosen (Elliot & Devine, 1994). In the forced position condition, participants were told that each participant would be randomly assigned to generate arguments either in favor or against a general prohibi￾tion and that they had been assigned to generate argu￾ments in favor of a general prohibition. Participants had a maximum of 15 min to generate arguments. Partici￾pants under control conditions did not have to generate arguments. After participants had finished the argument generation task, they were administered measures of explicit and implicit attitudes toward alcoholic bever￾ages. Finally, participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation. Explicit attitudes Explicit attitudes toward a general prohibition of al￾coholic beverages were assessed with two items. Specif￾ically, participants were asked to indicate: (a) how much they favor a general prohibition of alcoholic beverages on a rating scale ranging from 1 (absolutely not) to 5 (very much), and (b) whether they would be willing to sign a petition in favor of a general prohibition of al￾coholic beverages on a rating scale ranging from 1 (definitely not) to 5 (definitely yes). Implicit attitudes Implicit attitudes toward alcoholic beverages were assessed with an adaptation of Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz
s (1998) Implicit Association Test (IAT). Following Greenwald et al., the IAT consisted of five blocks. In the initial target-concept discrimination task (Block 1), names of 10 alcoholic beverages (e.g., gin, beer) and names of 10 non-alcoholic beverages (e.g., juice, soda) had to be assigned to the categories ‘‘alco￾holic’’ or ‘‘non-alcoholic,’’ respectively. Participants were asked to press a left-hand key (‘‘A’’) when the name of an alcoholic beverage appeared on the screen and a right-hand key (‘‘5’’ of the number pad) in the case of a non-alcoholic beverage. In the attribute dis￾crimination task (Block 2), 10 positive nouns (e.g., happiness, paradise) and 10 negative nouns (e.g., bomb, hate) were presented and had to be classified according to the categories positive (left-hand key) and negative (right-hand key). In the initial combined task (Block 3), target and attribute discrimination trials were presented in alternating order. Participants had to press the left￾hand key when either an alcoholic beverage or a positive noun was presented and the right-hand key when either a non-alcoholic beverage or a negative noun was pre￾sented. In the reversed target-concept discrimination task (Block 4), the initial target-concept discrimination was repeated with a switch of the categorization keys. The reversed combined task (Block 5) again combined the two individual tasks. Participants had to press the left-hand key when either a non-alcoholic beverage or a positive noun was presented and the right-hand key when either an alcoholic beverage or a negative noun was presented. Each block started with a brief instruc￾tion for the following task and a request to respond as quickly as possible even if this would lead to errors. The three discrimination tasks (Blocks 1, 2, and 4) each consisted of a total of 20 trials. The two combined tasks (Blocks 3 and 5) each comprised 120 trials. The same randomized order of trials was used for all participants. The response-stimulus interval following correct re￾sponses was 250 ms. Wrong responses were indicated B. Gawronski, F. Strack / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2004) 535–542 537