...
首页> 外文期刊>Psychological Bulletin >Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: Conceptual, empirical, and metatheoretical issues: Reply to Albarracin, Hart, and McCulloch (2006), Kruglanski and Dechesne (2006), and Petty and Brinol (2006)
【24h】

Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: Conceptual, empirical, and metatheoretical issues: Reply to Albarracin, Hart, and McCulloch (2006), Kruglanski and Dechesne (2006), and Petty and Brinol (2006)

机译:评估中的关联和命题过程:概念,经验和元理论问题:答复Albarracin,Hart和McCulloch(2006),Kruglanski和Dechesne(2006)以及Petty和Brinol(2006)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Commentators on B. Gawronski and G. V. Bodenhausen's (2006) recently proposed associative-propositional evaluation (APE) model raised a number of interesting conceptual, empirical, and meta-theoretical issues. The authors consider these issues and conclude that (a) the conceptual criticisms raised against the APE model are based on misinterpretations of its basic assumptions, (b) the empirical criticisms are unfounded, as they are inconsistent with the available evidence, and (c) the proposed alternative accounts appear to be less parsimonious and weaker in their predictive power than the APE model. Nevertheless, the commentators offered valuable suggestions for extensions of the APE model, which the authors discuss with respect to their implications for new directions in attitude research.
机译:B. Gawronski和G. V. Bodenhausen(2006)的评论员最近提出了联想命题评估(APE)模型,提出了许多有趣的概念,经验和元理论问题。作者考虑了这些问题,并得出以下结论:(a)对APE模型提出的概念性批评是基于对其基本假设的错误解释,(b)由于经验性批评与现有证据不符,因此经验主义批评是没有根据的;以及(c)与APE模型相比,拟议的替代账户在预测能力上似乎不那么简约,也较弱。尽管如此,评论员还是对APE模型的扩展提出了宝贵的建议,作者就其对态度研究新方向的意义进行了讨论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号