FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Books, abstracts, thesis

Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |

«The Brief Implicit Association Test 1 The Brief Implicit Association Test N. Sriram University of Virginia Anthony G. Greenwald University of ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

The Brief Implicit Association Test 1

The Brief Implicit Association Test

N. Sriram

University of Virginia

Anthony G. Greenwald

University of Washington

corresponding author

N. Sriram Anthony G. Greenwald

Department of Psychology Department of Psychology

University of Virginia University of Washington

Charlottesville, VA 22904 Seattle, WA 98195

nsriram@virginia.edu agg@u.washington.edu voice: (206) 543-7227 FAX: (206) 685-3157 The Brief Implicit Association Test 2 Abstract The Brief Implicit Association Test (BIAT) consists of 2 blocks of trials (total: 40–64 trials) that use the same 4 categories and the same stimulus-response mappings as the 2 combined tasks of a standard IAT (176 trials). The BIAT’s instructions focus the subject’s attention on just 2 of the 4 categories. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that attitude BIATs had satisfactory validity when good (but not bad) was a focal category, and that identity IATs had satisfactory validity when self (but not other) was a focal category. Experiment 2 also showed that a good-focal attitude BIAT and a self-focal identity BIAT were psychometrically similar to standard IAT measures of the same constructs. Experiment 3 presented each of 6 BIATs twice, showing that procedural variables had no more than minor influences on the resulting implicit measures. Experiment 4 further demonstrated successful use of the BIAT to measure implicit stereotypes.

Word count = 149 The Brief Implicit Association Test 3 In ten years since its introduction, the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) has been used in several hundred studies to provide measures of association strengths. The associations investigated have often corresponded to attitudes, identities, and stereotypes (Greenwald et. al, 2002). Attitude IATs combine a concept classification (e.g., Coke vs. Pepsi) with an attribute classification representing positive vs. negative valence (e.g., pleasant vs. unpleasant). Identity (or self-concept) IATs combine contrast of self vs. other with a nominal contrast (e.g., male vs. female; family vs. career; math vs. arts) or a trait contrast (e.g., strong vs. warm; large vs. small). Stereotype IATs combine social group categories (e.g., male vs. female; Asian vs. Hispanic) with nominal or trait contrasts.

In combined task blocks of the IAT, subjects switch between classifying exemplars of one contrast (e.g., Pepsi vs. Coke) and exemplars of the other contrast (e.g., pleasant vs. unpleasant) on consecutive trials. In a {pleasant+Pepsi}|{unpleasant+Coke} combined task, pleasant and Pepsi are mapped to one response (e.g., left key) and unpleasant and Coke to the other response (e.g., right key). A second combined task block reverses the response mappings of one of the contrasts (e.g., {pleasant+Coke}|{unpleasant+Pepsi}). If Pepsi is more strongly associated with positive valence than Coke, classification should be faster in the {pleasant+Pepsi}|{unpleasant+Coke} block than in the {pleasant+Coke}|{unpleasant+Pepsi} block.

Various strategies can be used in performing the IAT’s combined tasks. One strategy is to prepare equally for all four of the category–response mappings (e.g., pleasant–left; Pepsi–left;

unpleasant–right; Coke–right). Alternately, subjects can focus on just the two mappings associated with (say) the left–side response, giving themselves an added mental note to give the

–  –  –

focus of published research, designed variations on IAT procedures (e.g., the Go/No-go task of Nosek & Banaji, 2001 and the single-category IATs of Karpinski & Steinman, 2006 and Wigboldus, in press) have had at least the partial intent of managing the subject’s performance strategy. The present research investigates a new modification of the IAT — a Brief Implicit Association Test (BIAT) — that uses simplified instructions and was hoped to reduce spontaneous variation in subject strategy.

The IAT has four categories, each mapped onto one of two responses. The BIAT instructs respondents to focus on just two of the IAT’s category–response mappings in each combined task. One category is focal in both combined tasks, meaning that one other category is focal in neither. Prior to each of the two tasks, subjects are shown two category labels together with their exemplars and are instructed (a) to “keep them in mind”, (b) to respond to items from these two categories with the “match” (or “yes”) response key, and (c) to respond to any other stimuli with an alternative “mismatch” (or “no”) response key. With two blocks and a total of fewer than 80 trials, the BIAT substantially reduces administration time relative to the standard 5-step IAT procedure, which is often done with seven blocks of trials, which usually involve approximately 180 trials.

The four experiments in this report investigate properties of the BIAT. Experiment 1 provides initial assessments of the BIAT’s psychometric properties, unexpectedly finding that it matters which subset of the four category–response mappings is selected for focus. Experiment 2 establishes convergence between BIAT and standard IAT measures of attitude and identity.

Experiment 3 extends the BIAT to additional attitude and identity topics, and also to stereotypes.

–  –  –

Collectively, the four experiments establish the ability of the BIAT to function effectively in the range of domains in which standard IAT measures have been successfully used.

–  –  –

Subjects Participants were undergraduate students from the University of Washington Psychology Department’s undergraduate subject pool, who provided their data at desktop computers in individual cubicles.

Design of the Brief IAT Each BIAT is composed of two combined-task blocks, each of which can be described by its two focal categories (e.g., a block with pleasant and Pepsi focal might be followed by a block with pleasant and Coke focal). All BIATs use exemplars of four categories, but only three are focal during the two combined tasks. The category that is focal in both combined tasks (pleasant in the example just given) has a contrasting category that remains non-focal in both tasks (unpleasant in this example). BIAT names list the four categories, placing the category that remains non-focal last and marking it also with parentheses. The implicit soft-drink BIAT measure in this example is named Coke–Pepsi/pleasant–(unpleasant). As a further convention the order of listing indicates interpretation of scores. High scores indicate greater strength of the association of the first-listed category with the third. In the Coke–Pepsi/pleasant–(unpleasant) BIAT, scores above zero indicate that the Coke–pleasant association is stronger than the Pepsi– pleasant association.

Procedure Prior to completing BIATs, subjects completed parallel self-report measures of strength of

–  –  –

for the upcoming block’s two focal categories (see Figure 1). These are typically distinguished from each other not only by category identity but also by visual format (e.g., text vs. image, or distinct fonts if both are textual). Subjects required an average of about 10 seconds to process the BIAT block instructions.

After the instruction page display, the lists of exemplars of the focal categories disappeared, but the focal category labels remained in view. On each BIAT trial, an exemplar of one of the four categories appeared in center screen. If the initial response to a stimulus was in error, subjects were obliged to give a second response, and latency was recorded to the correct response. This created a built-in error penalty, which is also a property of standard IAT measures (cf. Greenwald, et al., 2003). The interval between the correct response on one trial and presentation of the next stimulus was 400 ms1.

Response errors were signaled by a red “X”, which appeared centered below the stimulus and disappeared immediately when the correct response was made. The studies were administered in individual subject stations using Inquisit 2.0 (Millisecond Inc., 2005) to control computer displays and data recording. At the conclusion, subjects received on-screen debriefing information.

Analysis Strategy Measures of association strength based on IATs and BIATs were computed using the D measure (Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003), which is an effect-size-like measure with possible range of −2 to +2. D is computed as the difference between mean latencies of the two BIAT blocks divided by the inclusive (not pooled) standard deviation of latencies in the two blocks.

–  –  –

of alternative strategies for using latencies from the IAT’s two tasks (Greenwald et al., 2003;

Sriram, Nosek, & Greenwald, 2007).

To estimate internal consistency of BIAT measures, split-half reliabilities were computed by partitioning the trials in each of the two blocks into two parallel subsets. For example, in the 32trial blocks used in Experiments 1 and 2, one subset consisted of trials {1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32} and the other subset consisted of the remaining 16 trials. In the 16-trial blocks of Experiments 3 and 4, one subset had trials {1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16} and the other subset had the remaining eight trials. D measures for each subset were computed from the differences between mean latencies of the same subset in the two blocks, divided by the inclusive standard deviation of these latencies. Internal consistency was estimated as the correlation between these split halves. Each BIAT was administered twice, permitting computation also of a test–retest estimate of reliability.

Explicit attitude measures include (a) the difference between separately rated strengths of association of contrasted concepts with positive or negative valence (e.g., difference between liking ratings for cola brands) and (b) single-item Likert-format measures of relative preference between the contrasted categories. Similar combinations based on sets of three items were used to obtain measures of relative strength of associations of self with contrasted identities based on gender and ethnicity. As described by Greenwald et al. (2003), the correlations between implicit and parallel explicit measures served as the primary validity criteria for attitude and identity BIATs. The stereotypes examined in this research were ones that had been demonstrated to be societally pervasive in previous research (Nosek et al., 2007b). Partly because of limited individual-difference variation, implicit–explicit correlations are weaker for these than for the

–  –  –

main test of validity of BIAT measures was their ability to detect the same stereotype that had been found in previous research with standard IAT measures.

Data analyses used hierarchical multiple regressions. In the first step of these the D score, as criterion, was regressed onto counterbalanced experimental design factors and their interactions.

In the second step, the parallel self-report measure was added as a predictor. In the third and final step, interactions of the explicit predictor with design factors were added as predictors. For attitude and identity measures, evidence for BIAT validity took the form of significant prediction of the IAT measure by the self-report measure in the second step. Evidence for validity was strengthened if the self-report measure’s relationship to the BIAT-measure criterion was not moderated by design factors in the third step.

–  –  –

Overview Experiment 1 was conducted shortly before the 2004 US Presidential Election. An attitude BIAT contrasting valence associations with the two candidates assessed implicit candidate preference. An identity BIAT, measuring the association between self and gender was also included. Previous research has shown substantial implicit–explicit correlations in these domains (e.g., Aidman & Carroll, 2003; Greenwald et al., 2003; Nosek, 2005; Rudman, Greenwald, & McGhee, 2001). These correlations, which were expected to be at least moderate in size, should provide a useful check on the validity of the BIAT format.

Unlike standard IATs, each BIAT has up to four variants that differ on which of the four component categories is never focal in the two combined-task blocks. In the candidate attitude BIATs, two of these four variants were compared — Kerry–Bush/good(–bad) and Bush–

–  –  –

the category bad was never focal, and the measure was scored so that strong associations of Kerry with good received high scores. The second was scored in the same direction (association of Kerry with bad received low scores) and the category good was never focal. The two gender identity BIATs were identified as female–male/self(–other) and male–female/other(–self), both scored so that stronger associations of female with self than with other would receive high scores..

Stimuli In the Kerry–Bush/good–(bad) and Bush–Kerry/bad–(good) BIATs, four face images of each presidential candidate were used as category exemplars. Exemplars for good were the four words, happy, warm, love, and friend; exemplars for bad were angry, cold, hate, and enemy.

Stronger associations of Bush with good than bad received high scores. For the female– male/self–(other) and male–female/other–(self) BIATs the categories were female (female, woman, girl, she), male (male, man, boy, he), self (I, me, mine, self), and other (they, them, their, other). Stronger associations of female with self than with other received high scores.

Design Each subject completed two repetitions in immediate succession of each of the four 64-trial BIATs, including both variants of the candidate attitude and the gender identity measures. Order of combined tasks within BIATs was counterbalanced across subjects. For example, the Kerry– Bush/good–(bad) was either ordered as {good+Bush} followed by {good+Kerry} or as {good+Kerry} followed by {good+Bush}. Each block had 32 trials and the 2–block BIAT sequence was repeated in succession. For half the subjects, the good and self versions preceded

–  –  –

Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |

Similar works:

«Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Visualization for Computer Security (VizSEC 2008), Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, September 15, 2008, pages 80-86. Show Me How You See: Lessons from Studying Computer Forensics Experts for Visualization T.J. Jankun-Kelly1, Josh Franck2, David Wilson1, Jeffery Carver3, David Dampier1, and J. Edward Swan II1 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Mississippi State University {tjk,dw152,dampier,swan}@cse.msstate.edu Department of...»

«Seminararbeit Neuere Psychologische Fachliteratur LV: 720584 Prof. Dr. Karl Leidlmair SS 2009 Andy Clark: „Being there – Putting Brain, Body and World together again“ von Christina Scheidlberger Petra Schwab Inhaltsverzeichnis Zur Person Andy Clark 1. Embodiment 1.1 Embodied, embedded cognition (EEC) 2. Scaffolding 2. 1 Begriffserklärung Scaffolding 2.2 Definition Scaffolding 2. 3 External Memory/ Memory Scaffolding 3. Storehouse-Metapher und ihre Auswirkungen 4. Being and representing...»

«2 C.G. JUNG-FORUM e-Journal der ÖGAP ISSN 1997-1141 Editorial Dies ist die erste Ausgabe des C.G. JUNG-FORUMS, des e-Journals der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Analytische Psychologie. Enthalten sind alphabetisch gereihte Beiträge von Mitgliedern und ein Gastbeitrag, sowie das Programm der nächsten Drei-Länder-Tagung (Berlin, 4.-7. September 2008). Die Texte wurden nach Möglichkeit im Original übernommen und nur geringfügig adaptiert. Das Copyright © der Autorinnen/der Autoren ist...»

«I STI N TUTE INSTITUT + TEC HN O LO G Y TEC HN IK AN D UN D ED UC ATI N O BI UN G LD Simone Kirpal, Astrid Biele Mefebue »Ich habe einen sicheren Arbeitsplatz, aber keinen Job.« Veränderung psychologischer Arbeitsverträge unter Bedingung von Arbeitsmarktflexibilisierung und organisationaler Transformation ITB-Forschungsberichte 25/2007 März 2007 Simone Kirpal, Astrid Biele Mefebue »Ich habe einen sicheren Arbeitsplatz, aber keinen Job.« Veränderung psychologischer Arbeitsverträge unter...»

«Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology http://jcc.sagepub.com Dialecticism and the Co-occurrence of Positive and Negative Emotions Across Cultures Julie Spencer-Rodgers, Kaiping Peng and Lei Wang Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2010; 41; 109 DOI: 10.1177/0022022109349508 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/41/1/109 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology...»

«The Brief Implicit Association Test 1 The Brief Implicit Association Test [In press, Experimental Psychology] N. Sriram University of Virginia Anthony G. Greenwald University of Washington Note: The University of Washington has applied for patent on the BIAT method. The patent is managed by Project Implicit, a non-profit organization of which the second author is an officer. Both the University of Washington and Project Implicit authorize free use of the BIAT method and published stimuli for...»

«Moral Sense und Self-Command Samuel Richardsons und Jane Austens Verhältnis zur Moralphilosophie des 18. Jahrhunderts Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades des Doktors der Philosophie bei der Fakultät für Geisteswissenschaften Departments Sprache, Literatur, Medien I und II der Universität Hamburg vorgelegt von Frank Berger aus Hamburg Hamburg, 2008 Als Dissertation angenommen von der Fakultät für Geisteswissenschaften, Departments Sprache, Literatur, Medien I und II der Universität...»

«1 Published in Anthropological Quarterly, 73.1 (2000), 20-34. THE HUMAN MOTIVATIONAL COMPLEX : EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AND THE CAUSES OF HUNTER-GATHERER FIGHTING Azar Gat Part I: Primary Somatic and Reproductive Causes At the centre of this study is the age-old philosophical and psychological inquiry into the nature of the basic human system of motivation. Numerous lists of basic needs and desires have been put together over the centuries, more or less casually or convincingly. The most recent ones...»

«Freie Universität Berlin Fachbereich Philosophie und Geisteswissenschaften II Institut für Philosophie Theatre and Magic in the Elizabethan Renaissance Gabriela Dragnea Horvath Erscheinungsjahr: 2012 GUTACHTER-LISTE Gutachter 1 Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann Gutachter 2 Prof. Dr. Anne Eusterschulte Datum der letzten mündlichen Prüfung (Disputationsdatum): 23.07.2010 CONTENTS Acknowledgements 6 List of Figures 8 1. INTRODUCTION 9 1.1 Motivation of the Conceptual Choice 9 1.2 Semantic...»

«ABSTRACT Title of Document: MEASURING WISHFUL THINKING: THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A NEW SCALE Angela H. Eichelberger, Ph.D., 2007 Directed by: Professor Harold Sigall, Department of Psychology This dissertation describes the development and validation of a 10-item scale measuring individual differences in wishful thinking, or the degree to which individuals’ desires bias their judgments. A study was conducted to investigate the new scale’s psychometric properties, as well as its...»

«Learning efficient auditory codes using spikes predicts cochlear filters Evan Smith1 Michael S. Lewicki2 evan@cnbc.cmu.edu lewicki@cnbc.cmu.edu Departments of Psychology1 & Computer Science2 Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition Carnegie Mellon University Abstract The representation of acoustic signals at the cochlear nerve must serve a wide range of auditory tasks that require exquisite sensitivity in both time and frequency. Lewicki (2002) demonstrated that many of the filtering...»

«Waiting lines and customer satisfaction WAITING LINES AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION M.S. Sridhar* Abstract: The paper points out certain quantitative methods largely ignored by library service providers, highlights the importance of customer participation in service delivery process, examines the concepts service quality and customer satisfaction, emphasises the need for appropriately handling waiting lines in service organisations, presents briefly the theory of waiting lines (queueing theory),...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.book.xlibx.info - Free e-library - Books, abstracts, thesis

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.