<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
 <record>
  <leader>00000caa a22000003a 4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">UP-8027390931312519169</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="003">Buklod</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20200413100537.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="006">o--- |     ||   ||</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="007">ta</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">200413s        xx     d     r    |||| u|</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="022" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">0033-2909.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">(iLib)UPCEB-00011919600</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Edz</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Gawronski, Bertram.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="0" ind2="4">
   <subfield code="a">Associative and Propositional  Processes in Evaluation : Conceptual, Empirical, and Metatheoretical Issues</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">Reply to Albarracin, Hart, and McCulloch (2006), Kruglanski and Dechesne (2006), and Petty and Brinol (2006).  [article].</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">pp.745-750.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Commentators on B. Gawronski and G. V. Bodenhausen's (2006) recently proposed associative-propositional evaluation (APE) model raised a number of interesting coneptual, empirical, and metatheoretical issues. The authors consider these issues and conclude that (a) the conceptual critisicms raised against the APE model are based on misinterpretations of its basic assumptions, (b) the empirical critisicms 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 extentions of the APE model, which the authors discuss with respect to their implications for new directions in attitude reaseach. -- (from  the author)</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Attitude change.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Cognitive, consistency.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Dual-process models.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Evaluative conditioning.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Implicit measures.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Psychological Bulletin.</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">vol. 132, 5  ( 2006).</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Analytics</subfield>
  </datafield>
 </record>
</collection>
