People possess both implicit (visceral) and explicit political attitudes that are empirically distinct and have separate consequences for political behavior.

🔎 What the study asked

• Tested whether implicit attitudes change for different reasons than explicit attitudes.
• Two competing hypotheses guided the inquiry:
• Emotional valence of political advertisements would primarily drive changes in implicit attitudes.
• Increased familiarity with an attitude object would improve implicit attitudes but not explicit ones.

🧪 How the question was approached

• Multiple preregistered tests examined responses to political advertising and to increased exposure or familiarity with attitude objects.
• Measures distinguished implicit from explicit attitudes and compared how each responded across those tests.

✅ Key findings

• The prediction that implicit attitudes would shift primarily in response to the emotional valence of political ads was not supported.
• The prediction that increased familiarity would improve implicit—but not explicit—attitudes was supported across several tests.
• These results indicate distinct antecedents for implicit versus explicit attitudes rather than a single shared pathway.
• Routine preregistration helped clarify what was learned from each test, including when initial predictions failed.

💡 Why it matters

• Demonstrates that familiarity can alter visceral political reactions even when explicit opinions remain unchanged, with implications for theories of political persuasion and campaign strategy.
• Reinforces the value of preregistration for making research outcomes—positive and null—clear and interpretable.