Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:43:14.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Increasing the Validity of Implicit Measures: New Solutions for Assessment, Conceptualization, and Action Explanation

from Section IV - Improving Measurement and Theorizing About Implicit Bias

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  aN Invalid Date NaN

By
Franziska Meissner  and
Klaus Rothermund
Edited by
Jon A. Krosnick ,
Tobias H. Stark  and
Amanda L. Scott
Jon A. Krosnick
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Tobias H. Stark
Affiliation:
Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Amanda L. Scott
Affiliation:
The Strategy Team, Columbus, Ohio
Get access

Summary

Implicit measures were introduced to explain phenomena that are characterized by a gap between self-reported attitudes and behavior. Recent meta-analyses revealed, however, that implicit measures have only limited predictive validity that goes beyond self-reports. We identify possible reasons for this failure: (a) A lack of validity that is due to the influence of extraneous processes, (b) a focus on evaluation instead of motivation, (c) a focus on associations instead of propositional beliefs, and (d) a focus on global instead of context-dependent attitudes. Recent developments in the field of implicit measures addressed these problems: (a) Statistical process models increase the internal validity of implicit measures, (b) implicit measures of wanting have the potential to predict behavior better than implicit measures of liking, (c) new paradigms provide measures of automatically activated attitudes for propositions that have an unambiguous interpretation, and (d) assessment of context-dependent beliefs is better suited to predict specific behaviors. Incorporating these developments into research on implicit bias will help to realize the initial expectations of describing, explaining, and predicting behavior in many situations.

Keywords

implicit measurespredictive validityIATattitude-behavior gapmultinomial processing tree modelswanting vs. likingpropositions vs. associationscontext-dependency
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Implicit Bias and Racism , pp. 491 - 516
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-TCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 261–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90201-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1504_01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2005). Measuring task-switching ability in the Implicit Association Test. Experimental Psychology, 52(3), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.52.3.167CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bading, K., Stahl, C., & Rothermund, K. (2020). Why a standard IAT effect cannot provide evidence for association formation: The role of similarity construction. Cognition and Emotion, 34(1), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2019.1604322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Stewart, I., et al. (2010). A sketch of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) and the Relational Elaboration and Coherence (REC) model. The Psychological Record, 60, 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batchelder, W. H., & Riefer, D. M. (1999). Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(1), 57–86. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210812CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berridge, K. C. (1996). Food reward: Brain substrates of wanting and liking. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 20, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7634(95)00033-BCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (2003). Parsing reward. Trends in Neurosciences, 26, 507–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(03)00233-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(3), 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0603_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanton, H., & Jaccard, J. (2015). Not so fast: Ten challenges to importing implicit attitude measures to media psychology. Media Psychology, 18(3), 338–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1008102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., Gonzales, P. M., et al. (2006). Decoding the Implicit Association Test: Implications for criterion prediction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 192–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bluemke, M., & Friese, M. (2006). Do features of stimuli influence IAT effects? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, R., & Agerström, J. (2016). A closer look at the discrimination outcomes in the IAT literature. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 57(4), 278–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casper, C., Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2010). Automatic stereotype activation is context dependent. Social Psychology, 41(3), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casper, C., Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2011). The activation of specific facets of age stereotypes depends on individuating information. Social Cognition, 29(4), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.4.393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, B. P. I., & Mitchell, C. J. (2009). Processing fluency as a predictor of salience asymmetries in the Implicit Association Test. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(10), 2030–2054. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802651737CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conrey, F. R., Sherman, J. W., Gawronski, B., et al. (2005). Separating multiple processes in implicit social cognition: The quad model of implicit task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 469–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.469CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corneille, O., & Hütter, M. (2020). Implicit? What do you mean? A comprehensive review of the delusive implicitness construct in attitude research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(3), 212–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320911325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, X. C., Brendl, C. M., & Ariely, D. (2010). Wanting, liking, and preference construction. Emotion, 10(3), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017987CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dai, X. C., Dong, P., & Jia, J. S. (2014). When does playing hard to get increase romantic attraction? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 521–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032989CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Houwer, J. (2003a). A structural analysis of indirect measures of attitudes. In Musch, J. & Klauer, K. C. (Eds.), The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion (pp. 219–244). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
De Houwer, J. (2003b). The extrinsic affective Simon task. Experimental Psychology, 50(2), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1026//1618-3169.50.2.77CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Houwer, J. (2014). A propositional model of implicit evaluation. Social Psychology and Personality Compass, 8(7), 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Houwer, J., & De Bruycker, E. (2007). The Identification-EAST as a valid measure of implicit attitudes toward alcohol-related stimuli. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 38(2), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2006.10.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Houwer, J., Geldof, T., & De Bruycker, E. (2005). The Implicit Association Test as a general measure of similarity. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 59(4), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087478CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Houwer, J., Heider, N., Spruyt, A., et al. (2015). The relational responding task: Toward a new implicit measure of beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(319), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Paula Couto, M. C. P., Huang, T., & Rothermund, K. (2022). Age specificity in explicit and implicit endorsement of prescriptive age stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 820739. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.820739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Paula Couto, M. C. P., & Rothermund, K. (2022). Prescriptive views of aging: Disengagement, activation, wisdom, and dignity as normative expectations for older people. In Palgi, Y., Shrira, A., & Diehl, M. (Eds.), Subjective Views of Aging. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, pp. 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dentale, F., Vecchione, M., Ghezzi, V., et al. (2020). Beyond an associative conception of automatic self-evaluations: Applying the Relational Responding Task to measure self-esteem. The Psychological Record, 70(2), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-020-00392-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, L. H., Truesdale, R., Wojcik, A., et al. (2003). Effects of deprivation on hedonics and reinforcing value of food. Physiology and Behavior, 78(2), 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(02)00978-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erdfelder, E., Auer, T. S., Hilbig, B. E., et al. (2009). Multinomial processing tree models: A review of the literature. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(3), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazio, R. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25(5), 603–637. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.603CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C., & Herr, P. M. (1983). Toward a process model of the attitude-behavior relation: Accessing one’s attitude upon mere observation of the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(4), 723–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.4.723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., et al. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.229CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fazio, R. H., & Towles-Schwen, T. (1999). The MODE model of attitude-behavior processes. In Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.), Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 97–116). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., Messner, C., & Bluemke, M. (2006). Unresolved problems with the “I,” the “A,” and the “T”: A logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 74–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280600681248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, K., & Unkelbach, C. (2011). Evaluative conditioning depends on higher order encoding processes. Cognition and Emotion, 25(4), 639–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.513497CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Förderer, S., & Unkelbach, C. (2012). Hating the cute kitten or loving the aggressive pit-bull: EC effects depend on CS-US relations. Cognition & Emotion, 26(3), 534–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.588687CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gast, A., & Rothermund, K. (2010). When old and frail is not the same. Dissociating category-based and stimulus-based influences on compatibility effects in four implicit measurement methods. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(3), 479–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903049963CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gawronski, B., & Cesario, J. (2013). Of mice and men: What animal research can tell us about context effects on automatic responses in humans. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 187–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313480096CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gawronski, B., & De Houwer, J. (2014). Implicit measures in social and personality psychology. In Reis, H. T., & Judd, C. M. (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 283–310). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawronski, B., & Hahn, A. (2019). Implicit measures: Procedures, use, and interpretation. In Blanton, H., LaCroix, J. M., & Webster, G. D. (Eds.), Measurement in Social Psychology. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, pp. 29–55.Google Scholar
Govan, C. L., & Williams, K. D. (2004). Changing the affective valence of the stimulus items influences the IAT by re-defining the category labels. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(3), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., et al. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015575CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grigutsch, L. A., Lewe, G., Rothermund, K., et al. (2019). Implicit ‘wanting’ without implicit ‘liking’: A test of incentive-sensitization theory in the context of smoking addiction using the Wanting-Implicit-Association-Test (W-IAT). Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 64, 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2019.01.002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heck, D. W., & Erdfelder, E. (2016). Extending multinomial processing tree models to measure the relative speed of cognitive processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1440–1465. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1025-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hobbs, M., Remington, B., & Glautier, S. (2005). Dissociation of wanting and liking for alcohol in humans: A test of the incentive-sensitisation theory. Psychopharmacology, 178(4), 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-004-2026-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmann, W., Friese, M., & Strack, F. (2009). Impulse and self-control from a dual-systems perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01116.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houben, K., Rothermund, K., & Wiers, R. W. (2009). Predicting alcohol use with a recoding-free variant of the Implicit Association Test. Addictive Behaviors, 34(5), 487–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.12.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, X., & Batchelder, W. H. (1994). The statistical analysis of general processing tree models with the EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 59(1), 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, T., & Rothermund, K. (2022). Automatic activation of age stereotypes: Is attention to category information sufficient for stereotype priming? Social Psychology, 53(5), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, T., & Rothermund, K. (2023a). Endorsement and embodiment of cautiousness-related age stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1091763. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1091763CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, T., & Rothermund, K. (2023b). Implicit and explicit age stereotypes assessed in the same contexts are still independent. Experimental Aging Research, 49(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2022.2039507CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & De Houwer, J. (2011). The dominance of associative theorizing in implicit attitude research: Propositional and behavioral alternatives. The Psychological Record, 61(3), 465–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, S., Hussey, I., Corrigan, B., et al. (2016). Faking revisited: Exerting strategic control over performance on the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(5), 632–648. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, T. A., Friedman, N. P., Bartholow, B. D., et al. (2015). Toward a comprehensive understanding of executive cognitive function in implicit racial bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(2), 187–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin, Z. (2016). Disentangling recoding processes and evaluative associations in a gender attitude implicit association test among adult males. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(11), 2276–2284. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1126290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jusepeitis, A., & Rothermund, K. (2022). No elephant in the room: The incremental validity of implicit self-esteem measures. Journal of Personality, 90(6), 916–936. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12705CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jusepeitis, A., & Rothermund, K. (2023). Is there something you don’t tell me? Evidence for the incremental predictive validity of indirectly assessed self-esteem using the Propositional Evaluation Paradigm. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(2), 163–204. https://doi.org/10.1086/266945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinoshita, S., & Peek-O’Leary, M. (2005). Does the compatibility effect in the race Implicit Association Test (IAT) reflect familiarity or affect? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(3), 442–452. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193786CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinoshita, S., & Peek-O’Leary, M. (2006). Two bases of the compatibility effect in the Implicit Association Test (IAT). The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(12), 2102–2120. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210500451141CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klauer, K. C. (2010). Hierarchical multinomial processing tree models: A latent-trait approach. Psychometrika, 75(1), 70–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9141-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klauer, K. C., & Kellen, D. (2018). RT-MPTs: Process models for response-time distributions based on multinomial processing trees with applications to recognition memory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 82, 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2017.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klauer, K. C., & Mierke, J. (2005). Task-set inertia, attitude accessibility, and compatibility-order effects: New evidence for a task-set switching account of the Implicit Association Test effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(2), 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271416CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klauer, K. C., Schmitz, F., Teige-Mocigemba, S., et al. (2010). Understanding the role of executive control in the Implicit Association Test: Why flexible people have small IAT effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(3), 595–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903076826CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klauer, K. C., Stahl, C., & Voss, A. (2012). Multinomial models and diffusion models. In Klauer, K. C., Voss, A., & Stahl, C. (Eds.), Cognitive Methods in Social Psychology. Abridged edition (pp. 331–354). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Klauer, K. C., Voss, A., Schmitz, F., et al. (2007). Process components of the Implicit Association Test: A diffusion-model analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koranyi, N., Brückner, E., Jäckel, A., et al. (2020). Dissociation between wanting and liking for coffee in heavy drinkers. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 34(12), 1350–1356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881120922960CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koranyi, N., Grigutsch, L. A., Algermissen, J., et al. (2017). Dissociating implicit wanting from implicit liking: Development and validation of the Wanting-Implicit-Association-Test (W-IAT). Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 54, 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.08.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koranyi, N., & Meissner, F. (2015). Handing over the reins: Neutralizing negative attitudes toward dependence in response to reciprocal romantic liking. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(6), 685–691. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615580169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornadt, A. E., Meissner, F., & Rothermund, K. (2016). Implicit and explicit age stereotypes for specific life domains across the life span: Distinct patterns and age group differences. Experimental Aging Research, 42(2), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2016.1132899CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kornadt, A. E., & Rothermund, K. (2011). Contexts of aging: Assessing evaluative age stereotypes in different life domains. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 66(5), 547–556. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbr036CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kornadt, A. E., & Rothermund, K. (2015). Views on aging: Domain-specific approaches and implications for developmental regulation. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 35(1), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1891/0198-8794.35.121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(1), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295211007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraus, A. A., & Scholderer, J. (2015). Indirect measurement of motivation: Developing and testing a motivational recoding-free Implicit Association Test (m-IAT-RF). Social Psychology, 46(3), 142–156. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurdi, B., Seitchik, A. E., Axt, J. R., et al. (2019). Relationship between the Implicit Association Test and intergroup behavior: A meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 74(5), 569–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000364CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Litt, A., Khan, U., & Shiv, B. (2010). Lusting while loathing: Parallel counterdriving of wanting and liking. Psychological Science, 21(1), 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609355633CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matzke, D., Dolan, C. V, Batchelder, W. H., et al. (2015). Bayesian estimation of multinomial processing tree models with heterogeneity in participants and items. Psychometrika, 80(1), 205–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-013-9374-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McFarland, S. G., & Crouch, Z. (2002). A cognitive skill confound on the Implicit Association Test. Social Cognition, 20(6), 483–510. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.20.6.483.22977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meissner, F., Grigutsch, L. A., Koranyi, N., et al. (2019). Predicting behavior with implicit measures: Disillusioning findings, reasonable explanations, and sophisticated solutions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02483CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meissner, F., & Rothermund, K. (2013). Estimating the contributions of associations and recoding in the Implicit Association Test: The ReAL model for the IAT. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030734CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meissner, F., & Rothermund, K. (2015a). The insect-nonword IAT revisited: Dissociating between evaluative associations and recoding. Social Psychology, 46(1), 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meissner, F., & Rothermund, K. (2015b). A needle in a haystack: Isolating implicit self-esteem in the self-esteem IAT. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Meissner, F., & Rothermund, K. (2015c). A thousand words are worth more than a picture? The effects of stimulus modality on the Implicit Association Test. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(7), 740–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615580381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mierke, J., & Klauer, K. C. (2001). Implicit association measurement with the IAT: Evidence for effects of executive control processes. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48(2), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1026//0949-3946.48.2.107CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mierke, J., & Klauer, K. C. (2003). Method-specific variance in the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1180–1192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1180CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, C. J. (2004). Mere acceptance produces apparent attitude in the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(3), 366–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, J. P., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Contextual variations in implicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(3), 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.3.455CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moran, T., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2013). The effect of object-valence relations on automatic evaluation. Cognition and Emotion, 27(4), 743–752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Müller, F., & Rothermund, K. (2012). Talking loudly but lazing at work – Behavioral effects of stereotypes are context dependent. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(5), 557–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, F., & Rothermund, K. (2019). The Propositional Evaluation Paradigm: Indirect assessment of personal beliefs and attitudes. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2385. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02385CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(2), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271418CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. In Bargh, J. A. (Ed.), Frontiers of Social Psychology: Social Psychology and the Unconscious. The Automaticity of Higher Mental Processes (pp. 265–292). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., et al. (2013). Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032734CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palfai, T. P., & Ostafin, B. D. (2003). Alcohol-related motivational tendencies in hazardous drinkers: Assessing implicit response tendencies using the modified-IAT. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(10), 1149–1162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00018-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pasek, J., & Krosnick, J. A. (2010). Optimizing survey questionnaire design in political science: Insights from psychology. In Leighley, J. (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199235476.003.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, B. K., Burkley, M. A., & Stokes, M. B. (2008). Why do implicit and explicit attitude tests diverge? The role of structural fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 16–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Payne, B. K., Cheng, C. M., Govorun, O., et al. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perugini, M., Richetin, J., & Zogmaister, C. (2010). Prediction of behavior. In Gawronski, B., & Payne, B. K. (Eds.), Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications (pp. 255–277). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Peters, K. R., & Gawronski, B. (2011). Are we puppets on a string? Comparing the impact of contingency and validity on implicit and explicit evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211400423CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Remue, J., De Houwer, J., Barnes-Holmes, D., et al. (2013). Self-esteem revisited: Performance on the implicit relational assessment procedure as a measure of self-versus ideal self-related cognitions in dysphoria. Cognition & Emotion, 27(8), 1441–1449. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.786681CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Remue, J., Hughes, S., De Houwer, J., et al. (2014). To be or want to be: Disentangling the role of actual versus ideal self in implicit self-esteem. PloS One, 9(9), e108837. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108837CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riefer, D. M., & Batchelder, W. H. (1988). Multinomial modeling and the measurement of cognitive processes. Psychological Review, 95(3), 318–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (1993). The neural basis of drug craving – An incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Research Reviews, 18(3), 247–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0173(93)90013-PCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothermund, K., Grigutsch, L. A., Jusepeitis, A., et al. (2020). Research with implicit measures: Suggestions for a new agenda of sub-personal psychology. Social Cognition, 38, S243–S263. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2020.38.supp.s243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothermund, K., Teige-Mocigemba, S., Gast, A., et al. (2009). Minimizing the influence of recoding in the Implicit Association Test: The recoding-free Implicit Association Test (IAT-RF). The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(1), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701822975CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2001). Figure-ground asymmetries in the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48(2), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1026//0949-3946.48.2.94CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2004). Underlying processes in the Implicit Association Test: Dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 139–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.139CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothermund, K., Wentura, D., & De Houwer, J. (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(3), 426–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.3.426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffens, M. C., & Plewe, I. (2001). Items’ cross-category associations as a confounding factor in the Implicit Association Test. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48(2), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1026//0949-3946.48.2.123CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220–247. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teige-Mocigemba, S. & Klauer, K. C. (2015). Implicit Association Test. In Wright, J. D. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed., vol. 11, pp. 703–708). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teige-Mocigemba, S., Klauer, K. C., & Rothermund, K. (2008). Minimizing method-specific variance in the IAT: A single block IAT. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.24.4.237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teige-Mocigemba, S., Klauer, K. C., & Sherman, J. W. (2010). Practical guide to Implicit Association Tests and related tasks. In Gawronski, B., & Payne, B. K. (Eds.), Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications (pp. 117–139). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Tibboel, H., De Houwer, J., Dirix, N., et al. (2017). Beyond associations: Do implicit beliefs play a role in smoking addiction? Journal of Psychopharmacology, 31(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881116665327CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tibboel, H., De Houwer, J., Spruyt, A., et al. (2011). Testing the validity of implicit measures of wanting and liking. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 42, 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2011.01.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tibboel, H., De Houwer, J., Spruyt, A., et al. (2015a). Heavy social drinkers score higher on implicit wanting and liking for alcohol than alcohol-dependent patients and light social drinkers. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 48, 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.04.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tibboel, H., De Houwer, J., & Van Bockstaele, B. (2015b). Implicit measures of “wanting” and “liking” in humans. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 57, 350–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.09.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Dessel, P., De Houwer, J., & Smith, C. T. (2018). Relational information moderates approach-avoidance instruction effects on implicit evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 184, 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.03.016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Stülpnagel, R., & Steffens, M. C. (2010). Prejudiced or just smart? Intelligence as a confounding factor in the IAT effect. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 218(1), 51–53. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409/a000008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wentura, D., & Degner, J. (2010). A practical guide to sequential priming and related tasks. In Gawronski, B., & Payne, B. K. (Eds.), Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications (pp. 95–116). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Wentura, D., & Rothermund, K. (2007). Paradigms we live by: A plea for more basic research on the Implicit Association Test. In Wittenbrink, B., & Schwarz, N. S. (Eds.), Implicit Measures of Attitudes: Procedures and Controversies (pp. 195–215). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25(4), 41–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00619.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiers, R. W., Van Woerden, N., Smulders, F. T. Y., et al. (2002). Implicit and explicit alcohol-related cognitions in heavy and light drinkers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(4), 648–658. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-843X.111.4.648CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wigboldus, D. H. J., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (2003). When stereotypes get in the way: Stereotypes obstruct stereotype-inconsistent trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 470–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.470CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107(1), 101–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.1.101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiswede, D., Koranyi, N., Müller, F., et al. (2013). Validating the truth of propositions: Behavioral and ERP indicators of truth evaluation processes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(6), 647–653. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss042CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zanon, R., De Houwer, J., Gast, A., et al. (2014). When does relational information influence evaluative conditioning? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(11), 2105–2122. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.907324CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×