Clarifying the Explanatory Scope of the Dual Implicit Process Model

The threat sensitivity scale: A brief self-report measure of dispositional sensitivity toward perceiving threats to physical harm

The possibility of experiencing physical harm caused by an object, animal, or person is an omnipresent risk in almost any situation. People show variability in their in the propensity to perceive the possibility of harm from any ostensibly innocuous object or situation-a so-called threat bias. Despite the important psychological and societal consequences resulting from individual differences in physical threat bias, there does not currently exist an easily administered means to capture this disposition. We therefore endeavored to create a brief reliable self-report index of threat sensitivity for use by the many fields interested in the role of threat processing. We present here a physical threat sensitivity scale (TSS) that captures the dispositional tendency to perceive the possibility of physical harm in ostensibly innocuous situations or objects. We detail the development and validation of the TSS as a reliable index of individual threat bias (Studies 1a and 1b) and provide strong convergent evidence of the relationship between TS and both relevant individual differences (Study 2) and behavioral and perceptual indicates of threat bias (Study 3 and Study 4).

Automatic threat processing shows evidence of exclusivity

De Neys argues against assigning exclusive capacities to automatic versus controlled processes. The dual implicit process model provides a theoretical rationale for the exclusivity of automatic threat processing, and corresponding data provide empirical evidence of such exclusivity. De Neys's dismissal of exclusivity is premature and based on a limited sampling of psychological research.

Perceiving a Danger Within: Black Americans Associate Black Men With Physical Threat

Recent work suggests that good/bad out-group favoritism of Blacks for Whites may reflect positive associations with White rather than negative associations with Black. The Dual Implicit Process Model suggests that Blacks may come to associate their own group with threat, even absent a concurrent Black-negative association. This work tests this idea among Black Americans. Three studies tested this possibility using mouse-tracking (Study 1) and evaluative priming tasks (Studies 2 and 3) to assess how quickly participants make judgments involving Black versus White male faces and names. All studies found that that Black Americans hold automatic Black-threat associations absent automatic Black-negative associations. This supports the Dual Implicit Process Model’s threat versus negativity distinction within the realm of anti-Black bias and supplements recent work by showing that the presence of out-group favoritism on one dimension (i.e., threat) can occur even in the absence of out-group favoritism on a seemingly related dimension (i.e., negativity).

Female advantage in threat avoidance manifests in threat reaction but not threat detection

Threat avoidance involves both detection of a threatening stimulus and reaction to it. We demonstrate with empirically validated stimuli (that are threatening, nonthreatening-negative, neutral, or positive) that threat detection is more pronounced among males, whereas threat reactivity is more pronounced among females. Why women are less efficient detectors of threat challenges Benenson et al.'s conceptual analysis.

On the Automatic Nature of Threat: Physiological and Evaluative Reactions to Survival-Threats Outside Conscious Perception

A neural architecture that preferentially processes immediate survival threats relative to other negatively and positively valenced stimuli presumably evolved to facilitate survival. The empirical literature on threat superiority, however, has suffered two problems: methodologically distinguishing threatening stimuli from negative stimuli and differentiating whether responses are sped and strengthened by threat superiority or delayed and diminished by conscious processing of nonthreatening stimuli. We addressed both problems in three within-subject studies that compared responses to empirically validated sets of threating, negative, positive, and neutral stimuli, and isolated threat superiority from the opposing effect of conscious attention by presenting stimuli outside conscious perception. Consistent with threat superiority, threatening stimuli elicited stronger skin-conductance (Study 1), startle-eyeblink (Study 2), and more negative downstream evaluative responses (Study 3) relative to the undifferentiated responses to negative, positive, and neutral stimuli.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-021-00090-6.

White civilians’ implicit danger evaluation of police officers underlies explicit perception of police

The role of implicit processes during police-civilian encounters is well studied from the perspective of the police. Decades of research on the “shooter bias” suggests that implicit Black-danger associations potentiate the perception of threat of Black individuals, leading to a racial bias in the decision to use lethal force. Left understudied are civilians’ possible associations of police with danger and how such associations pervade behavior and explicit views of the police. The current work begins to address this gap. In two within-subjects studies, we separately assess police-threat (i.e., safety/danger) and police-valence (i.e., good/bad) associations as well as their relative influences on explicit perceptions of police. Study 1 revealed that implicit threat evaluations (police-danger associations) more strongly predicted negative explicit views of the police compared to implicit valence evaluations (police-negative associations). Study 2 replicated these findings and suggests that individuals evaluate the police as more dangerous versus negative when each response is pitted against each other within single misattribution procedure trials. The possible implications for explicit attitudes toward police reform and behavior during police-civilian encounters are discussed.

Lions, and Tigers, and Implicit Measures, Oh My! Implicit Assessment and the Valence vs. Threat Distinction

Physically threatening objects are negative, but negative objects are not necessarily threatening. Moreover, responses elicited by threats to physical harm are distinct from those elicited by other negatively (and positively) valenced stimuli. We discuss the importance of the threat versus valence distinction for implicit measurement both in terms of the activated evaluation and the design of the measure employed to assess that evaluation. We suggest that accounting for the distinct evaluations of threat and valence better enables implicit measures to provide understanding and prediction of subsequent judgment, emotion, and behavior.