423 Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz SSLLT 6 (3). 2016. 423-454 doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.3.4 http://www.ssllt.amu.edu.pl Unconscious motivation. Part I: Implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers Ali H. Al-Hoorie The English Language Institute, Jubail Industrial College, Saudi Arabia hoorie_a@jic.edu.sa Abstract This paper reports the first investigation in the second language acquisition field assessing learners’ implicit attitudes using the Implicit Association Test, a computerized reaction-time measure. Examination of the explicit and im- plicit attitudes of Arab learners of English (N = 365) showed that, particularly for males, implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers are associated with self-re- ported openness to the L2 group and with strength of correlations among at- titudinal and motivational variables. Implicit attitudes also moderated im- portant paths in the L2 Motivational Self System. The paper concludes that implicit attitudes seem to be a meaningful individual difference variable, add- ing a new dimension to our understanding of language motivation. Keywords: implicit attitudes; Implicit Association Test; motivation; ideal L2 self; explicit–implicit correspondence we may—no matter how deeply we explore— discover that this simple, conscious report is the whole truth. It can be taken at its face value. Gordon Allport (1953, p. 114) Ali H. Al-Hoorie 424 1. Introduction For many readers, the claim that there are implicit, or unconscious, influences on human motivation would seem commonsense. Indeed, implicit processes consti- tute an important aspect of investigation in some second language (L2) subdisci- plines such as learning, teaching, and testing (e.g., Ellis et al., 2009; Rebuschat, 2015; Trofimovich & McDonough, 2011). Curiously, however, language learner psychology in general—and L2 motivation in particular—has paid little systematic attention to such implicit processes to date. Major language motivation theories have instead focused primarily on explicit constructs (e.g., integrative motivation, intrinsic motivation, the ideal L2 self), thus portraying the learner as a rational agent who first weighs the pros and cons of a certain activity and then decides whether to engage in it based on that explicit forethought. As an illustration, Dörnyei (2005, p. 107) states that “the Ideal and Ought- to L2 Selves are by definition involved in pre-actional deliberation [emphasis added].” Even more explicitly, Lanvers (2016) claims that “many students calcu- late the benefits of languages as a formula” and then “this calculation might lead students to consider language learning as worthwhile, or not” (p. 87). To date, L2 motivation theory has not seriously considered the possibility of a par- allel unconscious motivation influencing language learning. Therefore, con- scious motivation is, in effect, treated as if it is the “whole truth,” just as Allport claimed over half a century ago. The consequences of a conscious-only view of motivation are not limited to theoretical conceptualizations only but also extend to the types of data that re- searchers would collect to further advance these conceptualizations. Language motivation research today still relies predominantly on self-report measures, such as questionnaires and interviews (Ushioda, 2013). Just as they have justified a conscious-only view of motivation by resorting to pre-actional deliberation and formulaic calculation, some motivation researchers have also tried to justify their reliance on self-report measures. For instance, some have argued that “language learners’ self-reports might contain sufficient clues” and so “to get to the bottom of this . . . all we need to do is ask the right questions!” (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, pp. 98-99). This state of affairs was foreseen decades ago by David McClelland, a major proponent of unconscious motives, when he stated, “and the hope still per- sists that asking a person just the right questions will yield a measure of implicit motives” (McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989, p. 691). Recent interest in dynamic systems theory (Dörnyei, MacIntyre, & Henry, 2015) has led researchers to draw from some innovative measurement instru- ments. Nevertheless, the learner’s conscious perspective is typically still at the heart of these instruments. In the idiodynamic method, for example, it is not Unconscious motivation. Part I: Implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers 425 clear how the researcher can make sense of the data without recourse to the “respondent’s interpretation” (MacIntyre, 2012, p. 363) of these idiodynamic ratings at the end of the day. Due to the lack of a systematic alternative, it is left up to “the skill of the researcher in carefully probing participants’ perceptions [emphasis added] during the stimulated recall interview” (Ushioda, 2015, p. 50), and thus we are limited to what the participant might “rationalise retrospec- tively” (Ushioda, 2013, p. 236). In the spirit of Ushioda’s (2013) call for multimethod investigations, this paper examines the potential of using an implicit test to tap into the uncon- scious side of the individual’s attitudinal/motivational disposition. It starts by reviewing evidence for implicit attitudes and motives in mainstream psychology in order to gain some insights for our field. It then presents data supporting the relevance of implicit attitudes to language motivation. 2. The unconscious in motivational psychology Contemporary motivational psychology has started to reconsider some of the fundamentals of the cognitive revolution (for reviews, see e.g., Al-Hoorie, 2015; Bargh, Gollwitzer, & Oettingen, 2010). More specifically, there has been a resur- gence in the interest in attitudes and motivation that operate outside conscious awareness. Human motivation and behavioral engagement are no longer seen as the sole product of conscious premeditation by a rational agent. One line of inquiry providing evidence for this view is research on implicit attitudes. Implicit attitudes are defined as “introspectively unidentified (or inac- curately identified) traces of past experience that mediate favorable or unfavor- able feeling, thought, or action toward social objects” (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995, p. 8). We live in a complex world, in which survival requires efficient nav- igation, and therefore humans have evolved the ability to simplify the over- whelming amount of information they encounter everyday. This simplification process is so efficient that it allows us to make evaluative judgments “without having to think about it much, sometimes without really thinking at all” (Nosek & Banaji, 2009, p. 84). Conscious, deliberative processing is more resource-in- tensive of our cognitive capacity, and therefore it is typically reserved for unfa- miliar situations. In familiar situations, it is more efficient to leave things on au- topilot (for more on this functional analysis, see Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen, 1994; Macrae, Stangor, & Milne, 1994). Unfortunately, this efficiency can come at the expense of behaviors that are not endorsed by our conscious evaluation. For example, having a more fa- vorable implicit attitude toward one group can prejudice our perception and be- Ali H. Al-Hoorie 426 havior against another group. In one study, Green et al. (2007) compared the ex- plicit and implicit racial attitudes of medical doctors with their medical recom- mendations. At the explicit level, all doctors expressed equal preference for Black and White patients, as expected. At the implicit level, however, the more they favored White patients, the more they also offered them better medical recom- mendations. Thus, their behavior was in line with their implicit—not explicit—at- titudes. Other research on implicit attitudes has generated similar results in a va- riety of areas, such as successfully predicting how far away from an obese woman one would choose to sit (Bessenoff & Sherman, 2000) and how friendly one be- haves toward a White versus Black female confederate (McConnell & Leibold, 2001). These findings might reflect attitudes that participants are unwilling to ex- press, or attitudes they themselves are unaware of. The latter might be inferred from the recurring observation that many participants first report (conscious) egalitarian attitudes in questionnaires and then express considerable surprise and disbelief at the empirical evidence showing their biases. Indeed, “when it comes to socially sensitive issues or personality characteristics, implicit measures may reveal attitudes or traits that people are reluctant to admit even to themselves” (Ajzen, 2005, p. 18). A second research tradition demonstrating the importance of uncon- scious influences has investigated implicit motives. Unlike implicit attitudes, im- plicit motives have typically been limited to a few, biologically-constrained needs such as achievement, affiliation, and power (Schultheiss & Brunstein, 2010). These implicit motives are unconscious affective predispositions ac- quired from experiences very early in life (McClelland, 1987). Explicit and im- plicit motives are related to two different types of motivated behavior. More specifically, explicit motives stem from external social incentives, and so they predict immediate responses to specific tasks, while implicit motives stem from the pleasure of the activity itself and so they predict long-term engagement (e.g., McClelland et al., 1989). Because implicit motives are concerned with long-term engagement, their impact extends even to the physiological system, as individual differences in implicit motives are associated with different health conditions, such as Type I diabetes and infectious diseases (McClelland, 1989). Research shows that explicit and implicit motives generally do not corre- late with each other (e.g., Schultheiss, Yankova, Dirlikov, & Schad, 2009). How- ever, for some individuals, explicit and implicit motives do display a positive cor- relation and these individuals consequently experience “personality coher- ence,” which takes place when one embraces his/her “true self” and its “deeply rooted affective proclivities” (Thrash & Elliot, 2002, p. 746). This explicit–implicit congruence predicts positive outcomes related to flow, volitional strength, identity, and well-being (e.g., Thrash, Maruskin, & Martin, 2012). In contrast, a lack of Unconscious motivation. Part I: Implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers 427 correlation between explicit and implicit motives is associated with fragmenta- tion due to adopting social norms not compatible with one’s preexisting implicit values. This explicit–implicit incongruence is undesirable because success in long-term pursuits requires both (explicit) proactive organization of goals, as well as (implicit) spontaneous inclination to keep pursuing these goals (Thrash, Cassidy, & Maruskin, 2010). Thus, the emerging evidence from psychological research casts serious doubt on the view that humans are rational agents who always weigh the ad- vantages and disadvantages of a course of action consciously and systematically before engaging in it. Conscious motivation does play a role, but without con- sidering the role of unconscious influences also, a substantial proportion of hu- man motivation may go unaccounted for. 3. Insights for language motivation It is possible for the language motivation field to gain insights from the above liter- ature. One of the most central concepts in L2 motivation theory is the notion that positive attitudes toward L2 speakers play an important facilitative role in L2 learn- ing success. First introduced by Gardner and Lambert (1959), the claim that learn- ing an L2 is unlike other school subjects—because of the social baggage it entails— has enjoyed continuing popularity throughout the decades. In more recent devel- opments, L2 motivation has been construed cognitively in terms of future self- guides (e.g., Dörnyei, 2009; Dörnyei & Kubanyiova, 2014), and because L2 speakers are the closest parallel to a desired future self-guide, the new self interpretation is “fully compatible” with traditional emphasis on attitudes toward L2 speakers (Dörnyei, 2009, p. 28). However, research on learners’ attitudes toward L2 speakers has generally focused on explicit attitudes, as evident from the reliance on self- report questionnaires and interviews. It is plausible that another, implicit dimen- sion also plays a role in language motivation. The present study therefore investi- gated this possibility by adopting implicit attitudes as a broad framework, and by drawing from some aspects from the implicit motives tradition. In addition, the role of implicit attitudes might be gender-specific. Research has shown that females tend to show more implicit positivity toward language and arts (vs. math and science) than do males (Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002). This effect has also been observed in schoolchildren as young as 6 years of age (Cvencek, Meltzoff, & Greenwald, 2011). These findings mirror results from the L2 motivation field, where a “recurring source of systematic variation” (You, Dörnyei, & Csizér, 2016, p. 100) is that females exhibit more positive attitudes toward lan- guage learning. This study therefore examined the relationship between gender Ali H. Al-Hoorie 428 and implicit attitudes. More detailed discussion of the insights that this study gained from the above literature is discussed next. 3.1. Openness to the L2 group Since L2 motivation is associated with openness to the L2 group (Dörnyei, 2009), this study investigated whether learners with positive implicit attitudes would exhibit more openness. Openness might be indicated directly by more favorable attitudes toward the L2 group, or indirectly by lower L1 group affiliation such as ethnocentrism and fear of assimilation (see Freynet & Clément, 2015). Espe- cially in Europe, another indication of L1 group affiliation is religiosity, which is commonly viewed as a hindrance to openness to other groups (e.g., Foner & Alba, 2008). Since the participants of this study are L1 Arabic learners of English in the UK (see Section 5.1), and since Islam is inseparable from one’s L1 identity for many Arabs, this study also investigated the association between religiosity and implicit attitudes toward the L2 group. Religiosity has not been investigated systematically in the context of language learning previously (for an exception, see Wong, Kristjansson, & Dörnyei, 2013). Furthermore, rather than simply comparing learners with positive versus negative attitudes, this study examined the congruence between explicit and implicit attitudes. Drawing from the literature on explicit–implicit congruence, one might think of attitudes as varying along two dimensions. An individual’s attitude toward a certain social object might be congruently favorable (or unfa- vorable) at the explicit and implicit levels, or it may be incongruently favorable on one dimension but not the other, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 The four types resulting from the two-dimensional conceptualization of attitudes Type Attitudes Comment Explicit Implicit 1 Positive Positive Most favorable scenario 2 Negative Negative Least favorable scenario 3 Negative Positive Norm of mediocrity? 4 Positive Negative Resilient motivation? Note. Although attitude falls along continua, this categorical classification (positive vs. negative) is in- tended for illustrative purposes. Type 1 in Table 1 is the ideal scenario, while Type 2 is the least preferable one. Type 3 would be unusual, and might be a reflection of the norm of medi- ocrity (see Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; Taylor, 2013). The norm of mediocrity re- fers to the situation where some learners deliberately show mediocre motiva- tion and achievement in order to avoid being penalized by their peers. Type 4 Unconscious motivation. Part I: Implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers 429 can arguably be seen as the most interesting scenario for the present purposes because it parallels Type 1 in terms of explicit attitudes. Individuals in both types express positive attitudes explicitly, but they differ in their implicit attitudes. Comparison of these two types could shed important light on the role of implicit attitudes. For this reason, the first research focused on Types 1 and 4 by first selecting learners who expressed positive attitudes at the explicit level, and then dividing them into those with congruently positive and incongruently negative attitudes at the implicit level. Still, because this type of classification might seem artificial, cluster analysis was also conducted.1 As detailed below, the results of the two approaches led to very similar results. The first research question could be summarized as follows: RQ 1: Compared with incongruent learners, do congruent learners exhibit more openness to the L2 group? 3.2. Personality coherence Based on the personality coherence literature, the explicit–implicit conflict is uncomfortable and therefore individuals with incongruent attitudes (i.e., Types 3 & 4) may tend to adopt explicit attitudes that are aligned with their implicit attitudes. This is certainly good news for individuals whose implicit attitudes are positive. However, when implicit attitudes are negative (e.g., against another group), research shows that these negative implicit attitudes can be counter- acted by factors such as high explicit motivation. For example, Devine et al. (2002) have shown that when participants had implicit biases against an out- group but also had internalized motivations to control these biases, they were able to control their prejudice better than participants with similar biases but without the motivation (see also Glaser & Knowles, 2008, for similar results). When it comes to language learning, it is therefore plausible that the effect of negative implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers may not be the same across the board: While some learners might submit to these attitudes (by adopting explicit attitudes that are also negative), others may have sufficiently high motivation to actively counteract them (and adopt positive explicit attitudes instead). The latter can happen when the learner recognizes the value of the language in degree attain- ment or career advancement. From this perspective, then, learners with negative implicit attitudes range from those adopting their negative attitudes explicitly (for the sake of psychological comfort) to those counteracting them (for the sake of the pragmatic value of the language). In contrast, those with already positive attitudes implicitly would have little reason to adopt negative attitudes explicitly. 1 I thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion. Ali H. Al-Hoorie 430 Thus, the personality coherence literature suggests that individuals with positive versus negative implicit attitudes may be two distinct groups. If this is the case, then treating them as a single group can be misleading. In the context of correlational analysis, for example, pooling heterogeneous groups and then cal- culating correlation coefficients has been described by some statisticians as non- sensical (Hassler & Thadewald, 2003). Because correlational analysis is by far one of the most common statistical procedures in language research (Plonsky, 2013), it would be interesting to find out whether taking implicit attitudes into account changes the resulting correlations. This study therefore compared the correla- tions among attitudinal and motivational variables within each of these two groups. The second research question can be formulated as follows: RQ 2: Do learners with positive versus negative implicit attitudes exhibit equivalent correlations among attitudinal and motivational scales? 3.3. The moderating effect of implicit attitudes Although finding novel results is interesting in itself, it is also important to con- sider how they relate to existing theory. One particularly popular theory of L2 motivation at present is the L2 motivational self system (L2 MSS; Dörnyei, 2005, 2009). In this model, which is schematically represented in Figure 1, attitudes toward L2 speakers predict the strength of the individual’s ideal L2 self, which in turn predicts both the criterion measures and attitudes toward learning the lan- guage. The current study focuses on Arrows A and B in Figure 1 (Arrow C is relatively weak; see for example Taguchi, Magid, & Papi, 2009; You et al., 2016; for a discussion, see Islam, Lamb, & Chambers, 2013, p. 239). The analysis ex- plored whether implicit attitudes moderate either of these two paths. Because this was the first attempt to integrate implicit attitudes with the L2 MSS, no prior expectations were made about the direction of the effects. The relevant re- search question can be stated as follows: RQ 3: Do implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers moderate the relationship between explicit attitudes toward L2 speakers and the ideal L2 self, and between the ideal L2 self and attitudes toward learning English? Unconscious motivation. Part I: Implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers 431 Figure 1 Schematic representation of the L2 motivational self system (adapted from Taguchi et al., 2009) 4. The Implicit Association Test An important question now is how to investigate implicit attitudes. If the indi- vidual is unaware of these influences, then explicit self-report (via a question- naire or an interview) would be of limited utility: Any adequate measure would have to tap into these influences indirectly. At present, the most widely used measure of implicit attitudes is the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). The IAT is a computerized reaction-time measure that simply requires classifying a series of words to the right or left as fast as possible. As an illustration of how this test works, Figure 2 gives an example of the Flower–Insect IAT. This test measures how strongly the participant associ- ates flowers and insects with good and bad. In the first part of the test (Figure 2A), a stimulus appears in the middle of the screen (e.g., Roses) and the partici- pant has to decide which box this stimulus belongs to by pressing one of two designated buttons on the keyboard. The correct answer in Figure 2A is the left box. Afterward, another stimulus appears and, again, the participant has to de- cide which of the four categories the stimulus belongs to in order to classify it to the correct box. The stimuli may belong to Flowers (e.g., roses, orchids, tu- lips), Insects (e.g., cockroaches, mosquitoes, wasps), Good (e.g., smart, friendly, clean), or to Bad (e.g., dumb, enemy, dirty). Note that this is not an attitude test per se. The stimuli are shown to the participant in advance with their correct categorization, and so the participant’s Attitudes to English-spea- king People Ideal L2 Self Attitudes to Learning English Ought-to L2 Self Criterion Measures A B C Ali H. Al-Hoorie 432 task is not to guess (or express their attitude about) the correct response, but to simply perform the test as fast as possible. Most participants therefore find the configuration in Figure 2A very easy to perform and breeze through it. In the second part of the test (Figure 2B), Flower is paired with Bad while Insect with Good. This part suddenly feels considerably harder. This is because, in the first part, Flower and Good form one higher category (e.g., pleasant things), and In- sect and Bad form another category (e.g., unpleasant things). Therefore, the participant in effect classifies the stimuli into only two—rather than four—cate- gories (i.e., simply move all pleasant things to the left and unpleasant things to the right). In the second part, however, the participant has to sort the stimuli into the four categories (neither of the two pairs readily merges into one intui- tive category), and so the task requires substantially more cognitive resources, resulting in slower performance. This is why it is called the Implicit Association Test: It is implicit because participants find it hard to anticipate which configu- ration would be more difficult and are usually surprised by their own results; it is an association test because it measures the strength of the association of the categories in each pair; and it is a test because it measures the participant’s per- formance speed. To the extent that categories of interest are paired with evalu- ative adjectives (e.g., good, bad), implicit attitudes are inferred from the re- sponse speeds in the two parts of the test.2 A. B. Figure 2 An illustration of the Flower—Insect IAT The IAT is flexible and can be easily adapted to measure implicit associations about various social objects, such as racial prejudice (e.g., White–Good, Black–Bad) and gender stereotypes (e.g., Male–Work, Female–Home). The popularity of the IAT has generated a sizable amount of literature utilizing it in various domains, thus 2 Readers who find this description too abstract are encouraged to try out a demonstration of the IAT first-hand at www.implicit.harvard.edu. Unconscious motivation. Part I: Implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers 433 permitting scrutiny of its reliability and validity. The reliability of the IAT is consid- ered the highest among all implicit measures of attitudes available, with internal consistency and split-half reliabilities amounting to r = .79 across 50 studies in a meta-analysis by Hofmann, Gawronski, Gschwendner, Le, and Schmitt (2005). As for the validity of the IAT, there is still continuing debate concerning what exactly the IAT is actually measuring. Critics of the IAT question the implicit atti- tudes construct. In the context of racial prejudice, for example, they argue that the IAT measures shared cultural stereotypes rather than personal animus (e.g., Arkes & Tetlock, 2004). Similarly, Oswald, Mitchell, Blanton, Jaccard, and Tetlock (2013) question the IAT on the basis of overall poor prediction of relevant criterion measures. However, in their meta-analysis, both explicit and implicit measures per- formed almost as poorly. Additionally, this meta-analysis was criticized for includ- ing correlations that have no theoretical basis (Greenwald, Banaji, & Nosek, 2015). Proponents of the IAT, in contrast, argue that the validity of the IAT is a “scientific certainty” (Rudman, 2008), drawing from findings in various domains including consumer references, political preferences, personality traits, sexual orientations, and close relationships (see Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009). Proponents also cite the IAT’s known-groups validity. That is, re- search shows that the IAT is capable of correctly distinguishing among members of different groups in accordance with our a priori knowledge of them, such as reliably determining the participant’s gender, nationality, and even affiliation to a group artificially created in the laboratory (for a review, see Lane, Banaji, Nosek, & Greenwald, 2007). The present study constitutes the first contribution of the L2 field to the debate over the validity of the IAT. 5. Method 5.1. Participants A total of 365 Arabic L1 speakers qualified for the final analysis. Data were col- lected from eight more participants who were excluded for having more than 10% latencies faster than 300 ms in the implicit test, which is indicative of random re- sponding. Three more participants were excluded because their L1 was Kurdish and not Arabic, though they passed as native speakers of Arabic. The sample was restricted to Arabs because the scales related to L1 group affiliation (see Section 5.2.2.) were worded to specifically address Arab identity and Arabic as L1. The qualifying participants (male = 257, female = 108) were studying English at various British universities and language institutes when they volunteered to take part in the study. They came from various Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia (33.2%), Libya (29.3%), and Iraq (22.5%), and had lived in an English-speaking country for Ali H. Al-Hoorie 434 a minimum of half a month and a maximum of 96 months (M = 22.43, SD = 20.3). Different age groups were also represented in the sample (11% 17–20 years old, 25.5% 20–25, 23.3% 26–30, 16.4% 31–35, 14.8% 36–40, 7.9% older), with four participants having missing age data. As detailed below, length of residence and age were statistically controlled for (and this had no effect on the results). 5.2. Materials 5.2.1. Implicit test The IAT was adapted to measure attitudes toward English speakers. As shown in Table 2, in each of the seven parts (called blocks), a left or right button on the keyboard was to be pressed in order to rapidly categorize a series of stimuli ap- pearing in the center of a computer screen. In the first two blocks, the partici- pants practiced categorizing words as to whether they were Pleasant or Un- pleasant (conventionally called attributes), and then whether they were related to Arabic or English (categories). Then the actual test started. In the first condi- tion, Blocks 3 and 4, Arabic was paired with Pleasant while English with Unpleas- ant, as shown in Figure 3. In the other condition, Blocks 6 and 7, the categories were switched so that English was now paired with Pleasant, and Arabic with Unpleasant. The participants also practiced the reversed attributes alone in Block 5. Before each block, the participants read instructions and were re- minded to perform as fast as possible. The whole implicit test took around five minutes to complete. The stimuli used appear in Appendix A. Table 2 Overview of the Implicit Association Test Block Trials Function Response key assignment Left button (E) Right button (I) 1 20 Practice Pleasant Unpleasant 2 20 Practice Arabic English 3 20 Test 1 Pleasant or Arabic Unpleasant or English 4 40 Test 2 Pleasant or Arabic Unpleasant or English 5 20 Practice Unpleasant Pleasant 6 20 Test 1 Unpleasant or Arabic Pleasant or English 7 40 Test 2 Unpleasant or Arabic Pleasant or English Unconscious motivation. Part I: Implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers 435 Figure 3 A trial of the IAT. The correct answer here would be the left button (E) because the stimulus Honest belongs to Pleasant. In the actual test, Pleasant, Unpleasant, and their stimuli appeared in green font, while Arabic, English, and their stimuli appeared in white. The order of the combined tasks was not counterbalanced because coun- terbalancing can artificially suppress explicit–implicit correlations (Banse, Seise, & Zerbes, 2001; Gawronski, 2002) and sometimes artificially inflates them (Hofmann et al., 2005). When an incorrect response was given, a red X appeared and the participant had to correct the error, by pressing the other button, before proceeding to the next trial. The stimuli in the test blocks were alternatively drawn from the Arabic and English categories (odd-numbered trials) and from the Pleas- ant and Unpleasant attributes (even-numbered trials). Each stimulus was selected randomly and without replacement, and therefore all stimuli were used once be- fore any were reused. Split-half analysis based on even-versus-odd trials showed that the IAT had very good reliability (Spearman-Brown’s ρ = .83). All participants were taking the IAT for the first time. The software used was Inquisit 4 (2014). The IAT scores were coded so that a positive score reflected implicit prefer- ence for the L2 group, and a negative score reflected implicit preference for the L1 group. The IAT is a relative measure, in that a positive score indicates preference for the L2 group but does not necessarily imply negative attitudes toward the L1 group (i.e., only more positive attitudes toward the L2 group). For this reason, in- stead of using the conventional terminology that describes learners as having pos- itive versus negative attitudes toward the L2 group, they are labelled here simply as having implicit preference for the L2 group versus the L1 group, respectively. 5.2.2. Explicit measures The participants also completed nine self-reported attitudinal and motivational scales that seemed particularly relevant when drawing comparisons between explicit and implicit dispositions: Ali H. Al-Hoorie 436 1. Attitudes toward English-Speaking People (3 items, Cronbach’s α = .85). Example item: “I wish I could have many more English friends.” 2. Attitudes toward Learning English (4 items, α = .74). Example item: “Learning English is very interesting.” 3. The Ideal L2 Self (4 items, α = .78). Example item: “I can imagine myself mastering English one day.” 4. The Ought-to L2 Self (3 items, α = .65). Example item: “I must study Eng- lish because it will earn me respect in the society.” A higher score in each of these four scales, adapted from Taguchi et al. (2009), indicated more positive attitudes. Three other scales measured the strength of affiliation to one’s own group and the desire to preserve and spread its values: 5. Fear of Assimilation (5 items, α = .78), adapted from Taguchi et al. (2009). Example item: “I think that the interest in the West has a nega- tive influence on the Arab culture.” 6. Ethnocentrism (5 items, α = .74), adapted from Neuliep and McCroskey (1997). Example item: “I find it difficult to work together with people who have different customs.” 7. Religious Attitudes (4 items, α = .71), developed for this study. Example item: “The idea of sharing my Islamic faith with my non-Muslim friends is always present in my mind.” A higher score in each of these three scales reflected stronger L1 group affilia- tion. The above seven scales all involved a 7-point Likert response format rang- ing from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Finally, the instrument also in- cluded two semantic differential scales developed for this study: 8. Attitudes toward the English (10 bipolar adjective scales, α = .74). 9. Attitudes toward Arabs (10 bipolar adjective scales, α = .84). The ten adjectives used in these two scales were identical to each other, and to the stimuli used for the Pleasant and Unpleasant attributes of the IAT (though clean and dirty were dropped from the semantic differential scales; see Appen- dix A for the complete list). Semantic differential scales were used here instead of Likert scales due to the observation that a higher explicit–implicit consistency is found when implicit scores are compared with scores from semantic differen- tial scales (Hofmann et al., 2005). Because the participants were residing in the UK, both explicit and implicit measures addressed British speakers of English specifically. All materials in the explicit and implicit measures were also trans- lated into Arabic to avoid language interference. Unconscious motivation. Part I: Implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers 437 5.3. Procedure During a one-to-one meeting with the researcher, each participant responded to items randomly drawn in a fixed order from the seven Likert scales, to the Arab semantic differential scale, to the English semantic differential scale, to the implicit test, to demographic questions, and to the Religious Attitudes scale, in this sequence—all on a computer. The explicit and implicit parts were not coun- terbalanced because previous research has documented little order effect (see Lane et al., 2007). The procedure followed in this study was endorsed by the ethics committee at the researcher’s institution. 5.4. Data analysis For the implicit test, the analysis closely followed the improved scoring algo- rithm, called the D Measure, recommended by Greenwald, Nosek, and Banaji (2003). The four test blocks were included in the analysis, and the latency of each incorrect response was replaced with the block mean plus 600 ms error penalty. The analysis differed from the recommended algorithm in two ways, however. First, the 10,000 ms latency threshold used to determine and exclude extreme responses, which was selected “somewhat arbitrarily” (Greenwald et al., 2003, p. 201), was replaced with the more stringent threshold of 5,000 ms. Despite the stringency of this new procedure, virtually all participants had less than 10% latencies that were slower than 5,000 ms, thus no participant had to be excluded because of it. Second, the standard IAT score ranges from –2 to +2 (Nosek & Sriram, 2007), with conventional break points of >.15, >.35, and >.65 signifying slight, moderate, and strong implicit preference, respectively. The IAT scores were multiplied by 1.5 here so that the new scale ranged from –3 to +3. The break points therefore became .20, .50, and 1.0 after rounding. In addition to its intuitive appeal, this rescaling made the IAT scores directly comparable to scores derived from the explicit measures. For the explicit measures, all items were centered on zero, so that they also ranged from –3 to +3. Following Greenwald et al. (2003), a relative explicit measure was obtained from the two semantic differential scales using a formula adapted from the D Measure in order to facilitate comparison with the implicit scores: − × 1.5, where En is Attitudes toward the English, Ar is Attitudes toward Arabs, and SDinclusive is their combined standard deviation. The resulting score, called the Explicit D Ali H. Al-Hoorie 438 Measure here, ranged from almost –3 to +3 (from –2.92 to +2.92 to be exact) and correlated very strongly with the mean of these two semantic differential scales (r = .96, p < .001). 6. Results 6.1. Descriptive statistics Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics of the variables and their inter-corre- lations. The Explicit D Measure had a neutral mean but a relatively higher stand- ard deviation—indicating wide disagreement among the participants—while the Implicit D Measure suggests that the overall sample was actually moderately inclined more toward their L1 group. The newly developed Religious Attitudes scale correlated moderately to strongly with Ethnocentrism and Fear of Assimi- lation, suggesting that it also reflects an aspect of L1 group affiliation. The table also shows that the participants expressed generally positive explicit attitudes toward English-speaking people and toward learning English and had high ideal L2 selves. This was to be expected given that the sample was made up of individuals who chose to go to the UK to study English. This positive slant would make the case more interesting if subsequent analyses reveal that some participants have an influential L1 implicit preference operating beneath this positive surface. Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for the overall sample (N = 365). All scales are centered on zero and range from -3 to +3 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Attitudes to English-speaking People 1.59 1.05 — 2. Attitudes to Language Learning 1.77 0.84 .41*** — 3. Ideal L2 Self 1.95 0.77 .17** .17*** — 4. Ought-to L2 Self 0.77 1.27 .30*** .32*** .15** — 5. Fear of Assimilation 0.00 1.29 –.14** –.06 –.07 .14** — 6. Ethnocentrism –0.65 1.29 –.10† .13* –.03 .19*** .53*** — 7. Religious Attitudes 1.17 1.40 –.02 .12* .04 .01 .34*** .48*** — 8. Attitudes to Arabs (SDS) 0.73 0.90 .05 .04 .12* .03 .11* .27*** .29*** — 9. Attitudes to the English (SDS) 0.77 0.76 .36*** .20*** –.03 .19*** –.20*** –.11* –.10† .12* — 10. Explicit D Measure 0.01 1.11 .21*** .13* –.10† .09 –.22*** –.30*** –.27*** –.70*** .56*** — 11. Implicit D Measure –0.78 0.61 .02 .00 –.01 –.03 –.24*** –.16** –.18*** –.11* .02 .07 Note. SDS = sematic differential scale. *** p ≤ .001, ** p ≤ .01, * p ≤ .05, † p < .10. The correlations in Table 3 show that the Explicit and Implicit D Measures did not correlate with each other. However, they did behave similarly in correlat- ing negatively with all three L1 group affiliation scales. There were no significant Unconscious motivation. Part I: Implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers 439 differences in how strongly they correlated with these three scales (the strong correlations between the Explicit D Measure and the two semantic differential scales were merely an artifact of being derived from them). Finally, in line with previous research, females outperformed males both in the implicit test, t(363) = 1.91, p = .057, d = 0.22, and in the Ideal L2 Self, t = 4.93, p < .001, d = 0.57. 6.2. RQ 1: Openness to the L2 group This question is concerned with whether participants with explicit–implicit congru- ence (i.e., Type 1 in Table 1) would exhibit more openness to the L2 group than would incongruent participants (Type 4 in Table 1). Because both of these types share positive attitudes toward L2 speakers at the explicit level, this part of the analysis included only participants who obtained a score higher than the neutral zero (i.e., positive) in Attitudes toward English-speaking People. This is the first step. The two types differ in their implicit attitudes, hence the participants selected in the first step were then subdivided based on their Implicit D Measure scores into those in the upper and lower quartiles (i.e., excluding middle-range participants). As a result, this two-step selection procedure produced two subgroups with con- trasting implicit attitudes but commonly shared positive explicit attitudes. A t-test demonstrated that participants who exhibited explicit–implicit con- gruence also exhibited significantly more positivity in Attitudes toward English- speaking People (M = 2.05, SD = 0.75, n = 78) than the ones with explicit–implicit incongruence (M = 1.81, SD = 0.77, n = 84), t(160) = 1.99, p = .048, d = 0.32. These results lend support to the view that explicit–implicit congruence predicts more openness to the L2 group. Table 4 contains a summary of the differences in the other group-related scales. All results are also consistent with this view. Table 4 Differences between participants with explicit–implicit congruence (n = 78) and incongruence (n = 84) Scale Group M SD t d Fear of Assimilation Congruent –0.42 1.27 3.35*** 0.53 Incongruent 0.28 1.36 Ethnocentrism Congruent –0.96 1.27 2.49** 0.39 Incongruent –0.45 1.34 Religious Attitudes Congruent 0.82 1.44 3.11** 0.49 Incongruent 1.47 1.22 Attitudes toward Arabs Congruent 0.50 0.89 2.48** 0.40 Incongruent 0.85 0.86 Note. Bonferroni correction have been implemented. Adding length of residence in an English-speak- ing country and age as covariates does not influence these results. ** p ≤ .01, *** p = .001. Ali H. Al-Hoorie 440 A two-step log-likelihood cluster analysis based on these five scales read- ily yielded two clusters with a ratio of 1.05. A t-test showed that the cluster showing more explicit openness to the L2 group also scored significantly higher in the implicit test, t(363) = 3.60, p < .001, d = 0.38. This suggests that implicit attitudes are associated with openness to the L2 group for the sample overall. Further analyses showed that this effect is markedly stronger within the male subsample, t(250) = 3.27, p = .001, d = 0.41; but not statistically significant for the female subsample, t(106) = 1.49, p = .14, d = 0.29. These results suggest that implicit attitudes are especially relevant for male language learners. 6.3. RQ 2: Personality coherence This question compared the correlation coefficients for learners with implicit preference for the L1 versus L2 groups. An analysis was conducted based on a median-split of the Implicit D Measure scores. Table 5 presents the results for the two genders. Typically, researchers examine the first column (i.e., rall), which pools all participants regardless of their implicit attitudes. The next two columns separate those with a low implicit score showing preference for the L1 group (the rL1-pref column) from those with a high implicit score showing preference for the L2 group (the rL2-pref column). The crucial part is the last column. It examines whether the correlation coefficients in the rL1-pref and rL2-pref columns differ sig- nificantly. (That is, two correlation coefficients might be different [e.g., .20 vs. .22] but the magnitude of this difference may not be large enough to warrant statistical significance.) This column reports Fisher’s r-to-z transformation, which is a standard approach to comparing correlation coefficients (Kenny, 1987, p. 275). Dörnyei and Chan (2013) for example have used it to compare correlation pairs related to the motivation to learn two different languages. Table 5 shows a total of 17 instances in which pairs of correlation coeffi- cients differed significantly between the two subgroups (the full correlation ta- bles are available in Appendix B). As mentioned above, the rall column—which does not take implicit attitudes into account—is the one typically examined by researchers. However, when the participants were separated based on their im- plicit attitudes, the correlations of the L1 preference participants dropped to non-significance in 14 instances, whereas the correlations of the L2 preference participants became even stronger. For example, for females, Attitudes toward L2 Speakers and Attitudes toward L2 Learning appeared moderately correlated for the overall sample, which is the expected result from the literature as re- viewed above. However, the next two columns show that this pattern actually holds only when implicit attitudes toward the L2 group are favorable. This sug- gests that pooling these two different groups can be misleading. Unconscious motivation. Part I: Implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers 441 Table 5 Correlations for males and females comparing the overall sample, those with L1 and L2 implicit preference, and the difference between the latter two groups Scales rall (n = 257) rL1-pref (n = 128) rL2-pref (n = 129) z Male Explicit D Measure Implicit D Measure .14* –.08 .21* 2.32* Explicit D Measure Attitudes to L2 Speakers .18** .03 .33*** 2.48* Explicit D Measure Attitudes to L2 Learning .13* –.04 .29*** 2.68** Attitudes to L2 Learning Attitudes to the English (SDS) .21*** .09 .32*** 1.91† Attitudes to L2 Learning Fear of Assimilation –.08 .08 –.23** 2.49** Attitudes to L2 Speakers Ideal L2 Self .31*** .04 .32*** 2.31* Implicit D Measure Fear of Assimilation –.27*** –.11 –.34*** 3.68*** Implicit D Measure Ethnocentrism –.19** –.01 –.22** 1.69† Implicit D Measure Religious Attitudes –.21*** –.05 –.29** 1.97* Implicit D Measure Attitudes to Arabs –.12* .05 –.19* 1.92* Attitudes to L2 Speakers Fear of Assimilation –.13* –.06 –.27** 1.72† Attitudes to L2 Speakers Attitudes to Arabs (SDS) .03 .18* –.10 2.24* Scales rall (n = 108) rL1-pref (n = 54) rL2-pref (n = 54) z Female Attitudes to L2 Speakers Attitudes to L2 Learning .34*** .05 .61*** 3.33*** Implicit D Measure Ideal L2 Self –.02 –.08 .29* 1.91† Explicit D Measure Ethnocentrism –.12 .08 –.29* 1.91† Attitudes to L2 Learning Implicit D Measure –.09 –.32* .11 2.23* Attitudes to the English—SDS Ethnocentrism .06 .27* –.18 2.32* Note. All hypotheses are two-tailed. SDS = semantic differential scale. † p < .10, * p ≤ .05, ** p ≤ .01, *** p ≤ .001. In the only three instances in which this pattern was reversed, the corre- lations that emerged for those with L1 preference were theoretically somewhat unexpected. It is not clear why the women had a negative correlation between Ali H. Al-Hoorie 442 L2 learning attitudes and implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers, or why the more they rated the English favorably the more they were also ethnocentric. Also, the men tended to rate the two groups similarly as if they did not see much differ- ence between them. These results suggest that learners with lower implicit at- titudes do not seem to follow theoretically expected patterns. Future research is needed to shed more light on the motivation of this group of learners. Again, this effect is more marked for males than females, as fewer signifi- cant differences emerged from the female subsample. This pattern supports the results related to RQ 1 showing that implicit attitudes play a larger role for males. Overall, therefore, the results demonstrate that pooling learners without regard to their level of implicit attitudes carries the danger of masking salient internal differences that may in turn suppress the overall correlation coefficient.3 6.4. RQ 3: Moderating the L2 MSS This question examined whether implicit attitudes moderate the relationship between (explicit) attitudes toward L2 speakers and the ideal L2 self, and be- tween the ideal L2 self and attitudes toward learning English. A multi-group structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis was conducted using Amos 22 (Arbuckle, 2013). The SEM analysis followed the recommended two-step ap- proach of examining the measurement model before proceeding to the struc- tural model (for details, see Appendix C). The results for the overall sample, displayed in Figure 4 above the arrows and in Table 6, show that both paths are statistically significant. Again, these are the typical results researchers obtain when they do not take implicit attitudes into account. However, when implicit attitudes were taken into account, a dif- ferent picture emerged. Learners with an L2 preference outperformed their L1 preference counterparts in the path from Attitudes toward English-speaking People to the Ideal L2 Self (z = 1.88, p < .10), while the opposite pattern emerged in the other path (z = 2.48, p < .05). These results suggest that learners resort to the L2 group to develop their ideal L2 selves only when their implicit attitudes toward that group are favora- ble. At the same time, these learners—because of their favorable attitudes at the implicit level—may not need to consciously resort to their ideal L2 selves to remain motivated; their motivation may be maintained spontaneously. This pattern implies that a conscious ideal L2 self is more relevant to learners with lower 3 The Bonferroni correction was not implemented in this part of the analysis following the convention in the field. Language motivation researchers do not correct for multiple compari- sons when they use correlations (like those in Table 3), and the present analysis is intended to show what the results might look like when implicit attitudes are taken into account. Unconscious motivation. Part I: Implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers 443 implicit attitudes toward the L2 group, and that because of their lower implicit attitudes these learners might derive their ideals from sources other than the L2 group to sustain their motivation. Thus, implicit attitudes seem to reveal a more nuanced picture of language motivation, showing very different motiva- tional dynamics underlying these two types of learners. Figure 4 Standardized coefficients of final model for all participants (above the arrows) and for those who had L1 vs. L2 implicit preference (under the arrows). Indicators and error terms were deleted for simplicity. The structural model had an adequate fit, χ²(75) = 199.701, p < .001, χ²/df = 2.663, GFI = .943, CFI = .945, RMSEA = .048, PCLOSE = .660. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05. Table 6 Standardized and unstandardized coefficients, standard errors, and crit- ical ratios in the final model for the overall sample, and for participants with L1 vs. L2 implicit preference Path Group β B SE CR Attitudes toward L2 People → Ideal L2 Self Overall .16 0.13 .05 2.51* L1-pref .05 0.04 .07 0.51 L2-pref .28 0.23 .08 3.09** Ideal L2 Self → Attitude toward L2 Learning Overall .30 0.40 .09 4.48*** L1-pref .45 0.62 .14 4.34*** L2-pref .13 0.17 .12 1.45 Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. 7. Discussion Conventional L2 motivation theories tend to portray language learners as ra- tional agents, varying along one (conscious) dimension: a continuum from high to low motivation. This is evident both in theoretical discussions and in actual empirical investigations where self-report questionnaires and interviews are predominant. The present paper has presented the first study in the L2 field using the IAT to examine language learners’ implicit attitudes. The results demonstrate that another (unconscious) dimension has important implications for language learning motivation. The implicit attitudes construct may therefore have the potential to move the field forward toward interesting directions. Attitudes to English- Speaking People Ideal L2 Self Attitudes to Language Learning .16* .05 / .28** .30*** .45*** / .13 Ali H. Al-Hoorie 444 Implicit attitudes also appeared more relevant to males than to females. This supports previous research showing that females tend to exhibit more pos- itivity toward languages (vs. math and science) both explicitly and implicitly, and consequently they may have less reason to develop explicit–implicit incongru- ence. Implicit attitudes may therefore be a valuable pathway for a better under- standing of gender differences in language learning. The present study also of- fers support for the utility of religious attitudes for Arab learners as a further indicator of openness to the L2 group. It is still unclear to what extent this would be useful in societies in which religion is not a salient aspect. That implicit attitudes correlated negatively with L1 group affiliation in- vites speculation on the nature of implicit attitudes. Originally, fear of assimila- tion was investigated primarily in the Canadian context, where French speakers were at risk of being assimilated into the dominant Anglophone culture (e.g., Clément, 1980). Today, with the unprecedented worldwide spread of the English language, fear of assimilation may no longer be confined to minorities living in the shadows of another dominant group. Many learners around the world feel that Global English is a form of Westernization invading their cultural distinctive- ness (see Dörnyei, Csizér, & Németh, 2006, for an in-depth analysis), especially if we remember that the basis of fear of assimilation is the threat to perceived ethnolinguistic vitality (i.e., language status, demography, and institutional sup- port; see Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor, 1977). The ensuing fear of assimilation need not be explicit, however, considering the undeniable advantages of English pro- ficiency for one’s future career. A learner faced with this situation may be bound to experience ambivalent feelings reflecting an explicit–implicit conflict. Further research is needed to scrutinize these hypotheses. 8. Limitations One potential limitation of this study is that the sample contains a mixture of different ages and educational levels. In fact, because of this diversity, a stand- ardized measure of L2 achievement was not feasible. Therefore, little can be said about the extent to which implicit attitudes are relevant to actual classroom learning. In addition, the female sample was smaller, which limits the generali- zability of the results. Another limitation is the exclusive reliance on the IAT. Since no measure is perfect, utilizing other measures of implicit attitudes in fu- ture research would be more informative. Nosek, Hawkins, and Frazier (2011), for example, review 20 different implicit measures. In a first attempt to address some of these limitations, a follow-up study by Al-Hoorie (in press) involved undergraduate language learners from one institu- tion, and so a measure of L2 achievement could be obtained. These participants Unconscious motivation. Part I: Implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers 445 also had very similar ages and most had never visited an English-speaking coun- try. They performed the Single-target Implicit Association Test (Wigboldus, Holland, & van Knippenberg, 2005), and their results showed that implicit atti- tudes were indeed able to predict L2 achievement. Moreover, implicit attitudes still predicted achievement after controlling for the other explicit variables in the study (e.g., the ideal L2 self, attitudes toward the learning situation, in- tended effort), suggesting that the effect of implicit attitudes is not mediated by those variables. Additionally, this effect could not be explained either by social desirability biases or by other cognitive confounds. These findings serve to rein- force the relevance of implicit attitudes to language learning. 9. Conclusion This paper has argued that the implicit side of attitudes and motivation may con- stitute a more important component in the overall understanding of language learning motivation than is currently acknowledged in mainstream theories. Fo- cusing entirely on explicit attitudes and motivation in empirical studies could mask the potential impact of any conflicting implicit attitudes. The findings of this study offer evidence that this impact can in some subgroups change the results substantially, which in turn suggests that adding an implicit dimension to our over- all understanding of motivation may be a fruitful future direction. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Zoltán Dörnyei, Phil Hiver, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft. Ali H. Al-Hoorie 446 References Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2015). Human agency: Does the beach ball have free will? In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in lan- guage learning (pp. 55-72). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Al-Hoorie, A. H. (in press). Unconscious motivation. Part II: Implicit attitudes and L2 achievement. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. Allport, G. W. (1953). The trend in motivational theory. American Journal of Or- thopsychiatry, 23(1), 107-119. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1953.tb00041.x Arbuckle, J. L. (2013). IBM® SPSS® Amos™ 22 user’s guide. Meadville, PA: Amos Development Corporation. Arkes, H. R., & Tetlock, P. E. (2004). Attributions of implicit prejudice, or “Would Jesse Jackson ‘fail’ the implicit association test?”. Psychological Inquiry, 15(4), 257-278. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli1504_01 Banse, R., Seise, J., & Zerbes, N. (2001). Implicit attitudes towards homosexual- ity: Reliability, validity, and controllability of the IAT. Experimental Psycho- logy (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie), 48(2), 145-160. doi: 10.1026//0949-3946.48.2.145 Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2010). Motivation. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 268-316). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Bessenoff, G. R., & Sherman, J. W. (2000). Automatic and controlled components of prejudice toward fat people: Evaluation versus stereotype activation. Social Cognition, 18(4), 329-353. doi: 10.1521/soco.2000.18.4.329 Clément, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a sec- ond language. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 147-154). Oxford: Pergamon. Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Math–gender stereo- types in elementary school children. Child Development, 82(3), 766-779. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x Devine, P. G., Plant, E. A., Amodio, D. M., Harmon-Jones, E., & Vance, S. L. (2002). The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: The role of motivations to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 835-848. doi: 10.1037/00223514.82.5.835 Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differ- ences in second language acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Mo- tivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9-42). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Unconscious motivation. Part I: Implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers 447 Dörnyei, Z., & Chan, L. (2013). Motivation and vision: An analysis of future L2 self images, sensory styles, and imagery capacity across two target lan- guages. Language Learning, 63(3), 437-462. doi: 10.1111/lang.12005 Dörnyei, Z., Csizér, K., & Németh, N. (2006). Motivation, language attitudes and globalisation: A Hungarian perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z., & Kubanyiova, M. (2014). Motivating learners, motivating teachers: Build- ing vision in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. D., & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, U. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Foner, N., & Alba, R. (2008). Immigrant religion in the U.S. and Western Europe: Bridge or barrier to inclusion? International Migration Review, 42(2), 360- 392. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2008.00128.x Freynet, N., & Clément, R. (2015). Bilingualism in minority settings in Canada: Integration or assimilation? International Journal of Intercultural Rela- tions, 46, 55-72. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.023 Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second-language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychol- ogie, 13(4), 266-272. doi: 10.1037/h0083787 Gawronski, B. (2002). What does the Implicit Association Test measure? A test of the convergent and discriminant validity of prejudice-related IATs. Ex- perimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psycholo- gie), 49(3), 171-180. doi: 10.1027//1618-3169.49.3.171 Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity and inter- group relations (pp. 307-348). London: Academic Press. Glaser, J., & Knowles, E. D. (2008). Implicit motivation to control prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 164-172. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp. 2007.01.002 Green, A. R., Carney, D. R., Pallin, D. J., Ngo, L. H., Raymond, K. L., Iezzoni, L. I., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Implicit bias among physicians and its prediction of thrombolysis decisions for black and white patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(9), 1231-1238. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0258-5 Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self- esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4-27. doi: 10.1037/ 0033-295X.102.1.4 Ali H. Al-Hoorie 448 Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2015). Statistically small effects of the implicit association test can have societally large effects. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 108(4), 553-561. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000016 Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual dif- ferences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464-1480. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464 Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personal- ity and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197-216. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197 Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Un- derstanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 17- 41. doi: 10.1037/a0015575 Hassler, U., & Thadewald, T. (2003). Nonsensical and biased correlation due to pooling heterogeneous samples. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 52(3), 367-379. doi: 10.1111/1467-9884.00365 Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- letin, 31(10), 1369-1385. doi: 10.1177/0146167205275613 Inquisit (Version 4.0.5.0) [Computer software]. (2014) Seattle, WA: Millisecond Software. Islam, M., Lamb, M., & Chambers, G. (2013). The L2 motivational self system and na- tional interest: A Pakistani perspective. System, 41(2), 231-244. doi: 10.1016/ j.system.2013.01.025 Kenny, D. A. (1987). Statistics for the social and behavioral sciences. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Lane, K. A., Banaji, M. R., Nosek, B. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2007). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: IV. What we know (so far) about the method. In B. Wittenbrink & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes (pp. 59-102). New York: Guilford. Lanvers, U. (2016). Lots of selves, some rebellious: Developing the Self Discrep- ancy Model for Language Learners. System, 60, 79-92. doi: 10.1016/j.sys- tem.2016.05.012 MacIntyre, P. D. (2012). The idiodynamic method: A closer look at the dynamics of communication traits. Communication Research Reports, 29(4), 361- 367. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2012.723274 Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy- saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 37-47. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.37 Unconscious motivation. Part I: Implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers 449 Macrae, C. N., Stangor, C., & Milne, A. B. (1994). Activating social stereotypes: A functional analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30(4), 370- 389. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1994.1018 McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McClelland, D. C. (1989). Motivational factors in health and disease. American Psychologist, 44(4), 675-683. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.4.675 McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96(4), 690-702. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.690 McConnell, A. R., & Leibold, J. M. (2001). Relations among the Implicit Associa- tion Test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial atti- tudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(5), 435-442. doi: 10.1006/jesp.2000.1470 Neuliep, J. W., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The development of a U.S. and gener- alized ethnocentrism scale. Communication Research Reports, 14(4), 385- 398. doi: 10.1080/08824099709388682 Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Attitude, implicit. In T. Bayne, A. Cleeremans, & P. Wilken (Eds.), The Oxford companion to consciousness (pp. 84-86). Ox- ford: Oxford University Press. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 44-59. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44 Nosek, B. A., Hawkins, C. B., & Frazier, R. S. (2011). Implicit social cognition: From measures to mechanisms. Trends in cognitive sciences, 15(4), 152-159. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.005 Nosek, B. A., & Sriram, N. (2007). Faulty assumptions: A comment on Blanton, Jaccard, Gonzales, and Christie (2006). Journal of Experimental Social Psy- chology, 43(3), 393-398. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.018 Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2013). Predict- ing ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion stud- ies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 171-192. doi: 10.1037/a0032734 Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Lan- guage Acquisition, 35(4), 655-687. doi: 10.1017/S0272263113000399 Rebuschat, P. (Ed.). (2015). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amster- dam: John Benjamins. Rudman, L. A. (2008). The validity of the Implicit Association Test is a scientific certainty. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(4), 426-429. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00081.x Ali H. Al-Hoorie 450 Schultheiss, O. C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2010). Introduction. In O. C. Schultheiss & J. C. Brunstein (Eds.), Implicit motives (pp. ix-xxvii). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schultheiss, O. C., Yankova, D., Dirlikov, B., & Schad, D. J. (2009). Are implicit and explicit motive measures statistically independent? A fair and balanced test using the pic- ture story exercise and a cue- and response-matched questionnaire measure. Jour- nal of Personality Assessment, 91(1), 72-81. doi: 10.1080/00223890802484456 Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 Motivational Self System among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66-97). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Taylor, F. (2013). Self and identity in adolescent foreign language learning. Bris- tol: Multilingual Matters. Thrash, T. M., Cassidy, S. E., & Maruskin, L. A. (2010). Factors that influence the relation between implicit and explicit motives: A general implicit–explicit congruence framework. In O. C. Schultheiss & J. C. Brunstein (Eds.), Im- plicit motives (pp. 308-346). New York: Oxford University Press. Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Implicit and self-attributed achievement mo- tives: Concordance and predictive validity. Journal of Personality, 70(5), 729-755. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.05022 Thrash, T. M., Maruskin, L. A., & Martin, C. C. (2012). Implicit-explicit motive congruence. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motiva- tion (pp. 141-156). New York: Oxford University Press. Trofimovich, P., & McDonough, K. (Eds.). (2011). Applying priming methods to L2 learning, teaching and research: Insights from psycholinguistics. Am- sterdam: John Benjamins. Ushioda, E. (2013). Motivation and ELT: Looking ahead to the future. In E. Ushioda (Ed.), International perspectives on motivation: Language learning and pro- fessional challenges (pp. 233-239). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian. Ushioda, E. (2015). Context and complex dynamic systems theory. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learn- ing (pp. 47-54). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Wigboldus, D. H. J., Holland, R. W., & van Knippenberg, A. (2005). Single target implicit associations. Unpublished manuscript. Wong, M. S., Kristjansson, C., & Dörnyei, Z. (Eds.). (2013). Christian faith and English language teaching and learning: Research on the interrelationship of religion and ELT. New York: Routledge. You, C., Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (2016). Motivation, vision, and gender: A survey of learners of English in China. Language Learning, 66(1), 94-123. doi: 10.1111/ lang.12140 Unconscious motivation. Part I: Implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers 451 APPENDIX A Implicit test stimuli Pleasant: fair, polite, cheerful, kind, hardworking, beautiful, knowledgeable, honest, opti- mistic, clean Unpleasant: unfair, impolite, cheerless, mean, lazy, ugly, ignorant, dishonest, pessimistic, dirty English: George, Elizabeth, London, Britain, Newton, Robin Hood, Shakespeare, Oxford Uni- versity, Pound Sterling, BBC Arabic: Mohammad, Fatimah, Mecca, Jordan, Ibn Khaldun, Hatim al-Tai, Al-Mutanabbi, Cairo University, Kuwaiti Dinar, Aljazeera Ali H. Al-Hoorie 452 APPENDIX B Correlation tables Table B1 Zero-order correlations for the male (above the diagonal, n = 257) and female (below the diagonal, n = 108) subsamples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Attitudes to English- speaking People — .45*** .18** .31*** –.17** –.13* –.08 .03 .30*** .18** .08 2. Attitudes to Language Learning .34*** — .21*** .34*** –.08 .09 .09 .06 .21*** .13* .03 3. Ideal L2 Self .18† .10 — .17** –.07 .06 .08 .15* .00 –.09 –.05 4. Ought-to L2 Self .27** .27** .09 — .18** .19** .02 .03 .24*** .13* –.09 5. Fear of Assimilation –.02 –.02 –.08 .04 — .55*** .35*** .18** –.24*** –.31*** –.27*** 6. Ethnocentrism –.04 .22* –.18† .21* .49*** — .52*** .32*** –.17** –.38*** –.19** 7. Religious Attitudes .13 .16† .00 –.02 .30** .38*** — .32*** –.12* –.31*** –.21*** 8. Attitudes to Arabs (SDS) .11 –.01 .02 .02 –.04 .18† .24** — .07 –.70*** –.12* 9. Attitudes to the English (SDS) .52*** .18† –.09 .08 –.09 .06 –.04 .23* — .59*** .10 10. Explicit D Measure .28** .16 –.05 .02 .00 –.12 –.19* –.70*** .49*** — .14* 11. Implicit D Measure –.11 –.09 –.02 .08 –.16† –.06 –.10 –.10 –.16† –.05 — Note. SDS = semantic differential scale. *** p ≤ .001, ** p ≤ .01, * p ≤ .05, † p < .10. Table B2 Zero-order correlations for the male participants who had L1 (below the diagonal, n = 128) and L2 (above the diagonal, n = 129) implicit preference 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Attitudes to English- speaking People — .50*** .32*** .39*** –.27** –.16† –.20* –.10 .36*** .33*** .09 2. Attitudes to Language Learning .40*** — .23** .34*** –.23** .11 .05 –.02 .32*** .29*** .03 3. Ideal L2 Self .04 .19* — .20* –.10 –.02 –.02 .14 –.04 –.10 –.01 4. Ought-to L2 Self .25** .35*** .14 — .12 .15† –.01 –.01 .26** .20* –.07 5. Fear of Assimilation –.06 .08 –.06 .22** — .51*** .39*** .17* –.22** –.30*** –.34*** 6. Ethnocentrism –.08 .09 .13 .20* .57*** — .55*** .32*** –.11 –.31*** –.22** 7. Religious Attitudes .08 .16† .18* .05 .28*** .47*** — .35*** –.13 –.33*** –.29*** 8. Attitudes to Arabs (SDS) .18* .14 .14 .05 .16† .31*** .27** — .00 –.68*** –.19* 9. Attitudes to the English (SDS) .23** .09 .05 .23** –.25** –.22** –.11 .16† — .66*** .15† 10. Explicit D Measure .03 –.04 –.07 .08 –.29*** –.42*** –.26** –.71*** .52*** — .21* 11. Implicit D Measure –.03 –.07 .01 –.03 –.11 –.01 –.05 .05 –.01 –.08 — Note. SDS = semantic differential scale. *** p ≤ .001, ** p ≤ .01, * p ≤ .05, † p < .10. Unconscious motivation. Part I: Implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers 453 Table B3 Zero-order correlations for the female participants who had L1 (below the diago- nal, n = 54) and L2 (above the diagonal, n = 54) implicit preference 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Attitudes to English- speaking People — .61*** .14 .37** .00 –.06 .16 .06 .61*** .36** –.01 2. Attitudes to Language Learning .05 — .07 .21 .05 .22 .21 .00 .22 .16 .11 3. Ideal L2 Self .20 .12 — .17 –.09 –.20 –.17 –.05 –.04 .08 .29* 4. Ought-to L2 Self .14 .32* .00 — .12 .20 –.03 –.02 .12 .08 .15 5. Fear of Assimilation –.10 –.13 –.13 –.08 — .54*** .24† .05 –.15 –.09 –.08 6. Ethnocentrism –.02 .22 –.17 .22 .34*** — .39** .22 –.18 –.29* .09 7. Religious Attitudes .08 .12 .14 –.02 .37** .36** — .37** .02 –.25† .02 8. Attitudes to Arabs (SDS) .18 –.02 .09 .07 –.22 .12 .09 — .16 –.76*** –.07 9. Attitudes to the English (SDS) .41** .14 –.16 .04 –.03 .27* –.11 .30* — .47*** –.19 10. Explicit D Measure .16 .16 –.21 –.06 .15 .08 –.13 –.63*** .53*** — –.04 11. Implicit D Measure –.10 –.32* –.08 .23† –.07 .06 –.08 –.03 –.15 –.18 — Note. SDS = semantic differential scale. *** p ≤ .001, ** p ≤ .01, * p ≤ .05, † p < .10. Ali H. Al-Hoorie 454 APPENDIX C SEM measurement and structural models The measurement model is a confirmatory factor analysis aiming to establish construct va- lidity, and so both convergent and discriminant validity had to be examined. To examine convergent validity, i.e., so that the indicators satisfactorily represent their latent constructs, three aspects were investigated. First, the rule of thumb for the construct reliability is to be .70 or higher, which was satisfied for the three constructs as shown in Table C1. Second, the average variance extracted (AVE), as the rule of thumb, should be .50 or higher. Attitudes toward English-speaking People satisfied this recommendation, but each of the Ideal L2 Self and Attitudes toward Language Learning had to have one item dropped. This improved their AVE to a satisfactory level (see Table C1). A final rule of thumb suggests that the standardized factor loadings of each indicator variable should be .50 or higher. All factor loadings were statistically significant and higher than this threshold except for one indicator of Attitudes toward Language Learning that was just under this threshold (.46). The overall trend, there- fore, suggested acceptable convergent validity. To examine discriminant validity, i.e., to make sure that the constructs are sufficiently distinct from each other, the recommended measure is that the AVE values should be greater than their respective inter-construct cor- relations squared. This was also satisfied, as shown in Table C1. Finally, most of the stand- ardized residuals did not exceed the recommended threshold of ±2.0, suggesting that the observed covariance terms fitted the estimated covariance terms. The fit of the measure- ment model was also acceptable, χ²(175) = 391.517, p < .001, χ²/df = 2.237, GFI = .928, CFI = .937, RMSEA = .034, PCLOSE = 1.00. These results suggested that the measurement model was satisfactory and that it was safe to proceed to the structural model. Table C1 Reliability and validity of the constructs in the measurement model and their inter- construct correlations CR AVE 1 2 3 1. Attitudes to Language Learning .741 .503 .709 2. Ideal L2 Self .745 .494 .356 .703 3. Attitudes to English-speaking People .853 .662 .406 .165 .813 Note. CR = construct reliability, AVE = average variance extracted. Values in the diagonal are the square roots of their respective AVE. For the structural model, the measurement invariance assumption was satisfied, indicating that the groups did not substantially differ in terms of how they understood and re- sponded to the various items. The residuals of Attitudes toward English-speaking People and Attitudes toward Language Learning correlated with each other, possibly due to their shared underlying theme related to aspects of the L2 culture. None of the standardized re- siduals exceeded ±2.5, suggesting a very good fit between the observed and estimated co- variance terms. The structural model also had an adequate fit, χ²(75) = 199.701, p < .001, χ²/df = 2.663, GFI = .943, CFI = .945, RMSEA = .048, PCLOSE = .660. There were no missing data to handle in this part of the analysis because the computer program reminded the participant if s/he left an item unanswered.