Convergence between GNAT‐assessed implicit and explicit personality

Abstract

Two studies investigated the characteristics and correlates of implicit personality measures provided by the Go/No‐Go Association Task (GNAT), a variant of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Extraversion was assessed in Study 1, and all Big‐Five factors in Study 2. Of interest were the convergent validity of the measures with explicit personality and their reliability. The results demonstrate that the GNAT metric (d') is reliable, and has convergent validity, only when systematic variance in the GNAT indices is controlled. We also provide preliminary evidence for the predictive utility of GNAT indices of implicit extraversion and neuroticism by examining their ability to predict reaction times. The results suggest that this task provides a promising method for assessing implicit personality. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Reliability of the Go/No Go Association Task

“…Reported aggregate reliabilities range from r = .20 for a sample of 50 participants who completed six blocks of 60 trials (Nosek & Banaji, 2001) to r = .65 for 195 participants who completed four blocks each comprising 48 trials (Rudolph et al, 2008). In contrast, single-block reliabilities are a little higher ranging from r = .52 for 195 participants who completed 4 blocks each comprising 48 trials (Rudolph et al, 2008) to r = .76 for a single block of 96 trials measuring the implicit association between "self" and "extraversion" (Boldero et al, 2007). It is interesting to observe that this pattern is reversed with test-retest reliabilities.…”

“…The transparency and complexity of self-concept (e.g., Devos, Viera, Diaz, & Dunn, 2007), personality (e.g., Boldero, Rawlings, & Haslam, 2007) and implicit self-esteem (e.g., Boucher, Peng, Shi, & Wang, 2009;Rudolph, Shröder-Abé, Schütz, Gregg, & Sedikides, 2008).…”

“…non-summed scores as suggested by the application of classical reliability approaches without discussion or justification (e.g., Boldero et al, 2007;Rudolph et al, 2008) or implicitly acknowledge and sidestep the problem by using reaction time-based scores (e.g., D). Finally, there is disagreement over whether reliability should be calculated for whole GNATs (i.e., multiple blocks) or for individual blocks without any discussion of which is more appropriate to report and why.…”

Delving Beyond Conscious Attitudes: Validation of an Innovative Tool for Assessing Parental Implicit Attitudes Toward Physical Punishment

“…Prior to running analyses, we performed a transformation on the d′ scores to control for shared method variance (e.g., general levels of ability, effort expended, sustained attention). Following previous recommendations, we calculated a reciprocally residualized variable for both positive and negative associations about discipline (e.g., Boldero, Rawlings, & Haslam, 2007). We accomplished this by regressing the d′ score for the discipline-good trials on the d′ score for discipline-bad trials and then saving the unstandardized residual score.…”

Mothers’ implicit appraisals of their adolescents as unlovable: Explanatory factor linking family conflict and harsh parenting.

“…This interpretation is supported by a positive correlation between SES, which includes maternal education, and mothers’ performance on all four trials: r s ranged from .19 to .36. The recommended procedure for removing this common method variance is to regress performance for one valence onto performance for the opposite valence (e.g., Boldero, Rawlings, & Haslam, 2007; Lee et al, 2010; Sturge-Apple et al, 2015a). …”