Figure-Ground Asymmetries in the Implicit Association Test (IAT)

Abstract

Abstract. Based on the assumption that binary classification tasks are often processed asymmetrically (figure-ground asymmetries), two experiments showed that association alone cannot account for effects observed in the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Experiment 1 (N = 16) replicated a standard version of the IAT effect using old vs. young names as target categories and good and bad words as attribute categories. However, reliable compatibility effects were also found for a modified version of the task in which neutral words vs. nonwords instead of good vs. bad words were used as attribute categories. In Experiment 2 (N = 8), a reversed IAT effect was observed after the figure-ground asymmetry in the target dimension had been inverted by a previous go/nogo detection task in which participants searched for exemplars of the category “young.\ The experiments support the hypothesis that figure-ground asymmetries produce compatibility effects in the IAT and suggest that IAT effects do not rely exclusively on evaluative associations between the target and attribute categories.

Not all implicit measures of attitudes are created equal: Evidence from an embodiment perspective

“…The conclusions we reach from this research converge with the contention raised by numerous authors that IAT is largely driven by abstract representations (e.g., Brendl, Markman, & Messner, 2001;De Houwer & Moors, 2007;Foroni & Mayr, 2005;Klauer, Voss, Schmitz, & Teige-Mocigemba, 2007;Rothermund & Wentura, 2001).…”

Mere acceptance produces apparent attitude in the Implicit Association Test

“…This is similar to the original interpretation of the IAT, except that the semantic relation between the target items and Nice and Nasty attributes is driven by the categorization rule, not the intrinsic properties of the target stimuli. Furthermore, according to this position, the similarity driving the IAT effect is semantic, not affective, in nature; it assumes that the cognition is Ôcold.Õ A second non-affective account of the IAT is that proposed by Rothermund and Wentura (2002) in their figure-ground contrast model. According to this view, the similarity between Accept and Nice stimuli is that they are both of low salience, and Reject and Nasty stimuli are both of high salience.…”

Do features of stimuli influence IAT effects?

“…To illustrate this diVerence, consider the following examples: the negativity of the target stimulus STASI (the former East German secret service) is extremely high for all Germans. The relationship of an attribute stimulus like SUCCESSFUL to the EastWest dimension is far less salient (Pratto & John, 1991;Rothermund & Wentura, 2001. Taken together, we expected a continuous pattern of IAT eVects as indicated by the order of IAT versions in the Wrst column of Table 1.…”

“…To date, several researchers have published ambitious models, which try to explain the cognitive processes underlying an IAT (e.g., Brendl, Markman, & Messner, 2001;De Houwer, 2001, 2003Greenwald et al, 1998;Mierke & Klauer, 2001, 2003Rothermund & Wentura, 2001SteVens et al, 2004). In only a few short years, the respective research and debate in the literature have greatly improved our understanding of what exactly leads to the emergence of an IAT eVect.…”