Schmidt, K., Buchanan, E. M., & Hall, B. F. (2022). Registered report: Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit measures of evaluation and identification. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 100*, 104280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104280. **Abstract**: Researchers and theorists have explained variations in the relationship between implicit and explicit measures of social cognition by citing differences in measurement and cognitive processing. The present research explored how features of measured attributes and individual differences affect the relationship between implicit and explicit measures using existing data (Hussey, Hughes, & Nosek, 2018). In the original study, participants completed measures of explicit evaluation or identification (i.e., difference scores between self-report items) and implicit evaluation or identification (i.e., the Implicit Association Test; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) for one of 95 target pairs. First, we attempted to conceptually replicate Nosek's (2005) findings that self-presentation, distinctiveness, elaboration/importance, and complementarity moderated the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluations across individuals irrespective of attribute targets. These attribute features each moderated the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluations and accounted for unique variation in implicit-explicit relations. Second, we tested whether these features affected the relationship between implicit and explicit identifications. We found moderating effects of distinctiveness and complementarity but not of the other attribute features, likely due to their operationalization. Finally, we examined whether theoretically relevant individual difference measures moderated the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluations or identifications. Across almost all analyses, these measures (i.e., socially desirable responding, self-monitoring, need for cognition, personal need for structure, and need for cognitive closure) did not moderate implicit-explicit relations. Taken together, our results suggest that relationships between implicit and explicit measures reflect individual experiences with attribute targets rather than the cultural context, targets, or individuals themselves.