Abstract
Sriram and Greenwald (2009) introduced a new variant of the Implicit Association Test, which they termed the Brief Implicit Association Test (BIAT). The BIAT differs from a standard IAT by using less trials and by instructing participants to focus on only two of the four categories in each block. We argue that the focus manipulation of the BIAT does not suffice to fully control for focusing and recoding processes in the task. Compatibility effects in the BIAT are therefore still subject to influences that are unrelated to the conceptual relation between the target and attribute categories of the task (e.g., salience asymmetries and stimulus-based effects). Highlighting these nonassociative influences, findings with the BIAT revealed strong asymmetries in compatibility effects, reliability, and convergent validity, depending on which of the two attribute categories was selected as a focal category in the BIAT. To eliminate these problems, we recommend the use of other, recently developed variants of the IAT that prevent recoding effects by eliminating the dual-block structure of the task.
References
(2005). Measuring task-switching ability in the Implicit Association Test. Experimental Psychology, 52, 167–179.
(2009). The Sorting Paired Features Task: A measure of association strengths. Experimental Psychology, 56, 329–343.
(2006). Do features of stimuli influence IAT effects?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 163–176.
(2001). How do indirect measures of evaluation work? Evaluating the inference of prejudice in the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 760–773.
(2009). Processing fluency as a source of salience asymmetries in the Implicit Association Test. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 2030–2054.
(2003). The extrinsic affective Simon task. Experimental Psychology, 50, 77–85.
(2005). The Implicit Association Test as a general measure of similarity. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 228–239.
(
in press ). When old and frail is not the same. Dissociating category-based and stimulus-based influences on compatibility effects in four implicit measurement methods. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.(1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
(2006). The single category Implicit Association Test as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 16–32.
(2005). Does the compatibility effect in the race Implicit Association Test (IAT) reflect familiarity or affect?. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 442–452.
(2006). Two bases of the compatibility effect in the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 2102–2120.
(2002). A cognitive skill confound on the Implicit Association Test. Social Cognition, 20, 483–510.
(2001). Implicit association measurement with the IAT: Evidence for effects of executive control processes. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48, 107–122.
(2003). Method-specific variance in the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1180–1192.
(2004). Mere acceptance produces apparent attitude in the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 366–373.
(2001). The Go/No-go Association Task. Social Cognition, 19, 625–664.
(2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416–442.
(2009). Eliminating the influence of recoding in the Implicit Association Test: The recoding-free Implicit Association Test (IAT-RF). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 84–98.
(2001). Figure-ground asymmetries in the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48, 94–106.
(2004). Underlying processes in the Implicit Association Test (IAT): Dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 139–165.
(2005). Validity of the salience asymmetry account of the Implicit Association Test: Reply to Greenwald, Nosek, Banaji, and Klauer (2005). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 426–430.
(1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.
(2009). The Brief Implicit Association Test. Experimental Psychology, 56, 283–294.
(2001). Items’ cross-category associations as a confounding factor in the Implicit Association Test. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48, 123–134.
(1994). Strategies and automaticity: I. Basic findings and conceptual framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 318–341.
(2008). Minimizing method-specific variance in the IAT: A single block IAT. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 237–245.
(2007). Paradigms we live by. A plea for more basic research on the IAT. In , Implicit measures of attitudes (pp. 195–215). New York: Guilford Press.
