In contrast to the original Implicit Association Test (IAT), the Single-Target Implicit Association Test (ST-IAT) measures the evaluation of a target object without the need to simultaneously evaluate a counter-category. The present research investigates (a) whether position within a series of several ST-IATs affects reliability and validity, and (b) whether the ST-IAT exhibits adequate construct validity if the target objects are closely interrelated. We address these questions by taking five interrelated yet distinct political parties in Germany as an exemplary domain. The ST-IAT reliably and validly assessed attitudes towards political parties (Study 1). Serial position effects did not affect the results. The ST-IATs mostly captured a specific party evaluation and exhibited discriminant validity. At the same time, discriminant validity was limited among parties within one wing of the political left-right spectrum that underlies implicit and explicit party evaluations (Study 2). If used with caution, the ST-IAT can be a valuable supplement to implicit measures in the case of multiple single-target assessments. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.The aim of this paper is to illuminate the usefulness of a new implicit measure tailored to assess automatic affective reactions-the Single-Target Implicit Association Test (ST-IAT;Wigboldus, Holland, & van Knippenberg, 2004; cf. Karpinski & Steinman, 2006)-and to explore the methodological properties of this recent offspring of the well-known Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). In particular, we investigate whether the ST-IAT can achieve what has not been demonstrated for other implicit tools so far, namely, to reliably and validly assess the evaluation of several (five) interrelated target objects-while remaining resistant to fatigue or exercise effects in a line of repeated measurements.Scientists have developed several indirect approaches to tapping automatic affective components that are important for guiding spontaneous behaviour (Fazio & Olson, 2003). The IAT has gained particular support as a tool for the assessment of such spontaneous evaluations. While acknowledging the IAT's valuable features (flexibility, reliability, validity;Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2006), it has been pointed out that (a) IATs provide only an ambiguous answer to the question of the absolute evaluation of target concepts (Blanton, Jaccard, Gonzales, & Christie, 2006;Fiedler, Messner, & Bluemke, 2006;Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2005), (b) the choice of a counter-category against which the target object of interest is contrasted may pose a natural complement (e.g. men vs. women), but in many cases the choice of category is highly subjective (compare a liberal/conservative IAT to a liberal/socialist IAT; Karpinski, 2004) and (c) the evaluation of multiple target concepts such as social groups within a multi-ethnic nation (e.g. White vs. Asian Americans, White vs. African Americans, African vs. Asian Americans; Devos & Banaji, 2005) requires num...