Understanding the role of executive control in the Implicit Association Test: Why flexible people have small IAT effects

Abstract

The goal of the present research was to investigate the role of three central-executive functions-switching of mental sets, inhibition of prepotent responses, and simultaneous storage and processing (i.e., working-memory capacity)-in accounting for method variance in the Implicit Association Test (IAT). In two studies, several IATs with unrelated contents were administered along with a battery of central-executive tasks, with multiple tasks tapping each of the above executive functions. Method variance was found to be related to the switching factor, but not to the inhibition factor. There was also evidence for a small independent contribution of the working-memory capacity factor. The findings constrain process accounts of the IAT, lending support to an account in terms of task-set switching, and they have consequences for applications.

Attitudinal and Non-Attitudinal Components of IAT Performance

“…The Quad model does not provide an exhaustive account of IAT performance, which is certainly influenced by processes that are not included in the model, including recoding (e.g., Chang & Mitchell, 2011;De Houwer et al, 2005;Kinoshita & Peek-O'Leary, 2005, 2006Meissner & Rothermund, 2013;Rothermund et al, 2009;Rothermund & Wentura, 2001, 2004Rothermund et al, 2005), task-set shifts and task-set simplification (e.g., Mierke & Klauer, 2001Klauer et al, 2010), and speed-accuracy tradeoffs (e.g., Brendl et al, 2001;Klauer et al, 2007). Klauer and colleagues have already demonstrated method variance in IAT performance related to task switching ability Mierke & Klauer, 2001.…”

“…We are aware of very little research that directly investigates the attitude-specific versus non-attitudinal nature of the processes that contribute to evaluative responses on implicit measures of attitude (but see Klauer et al, 2010;Mierke & Klauer, 2001. The purpose of the current research was to directly examine this question in the context of IAT performance.…”

Working Memory Capacity: Is There a Bilingual Advantage?

“…The executive function of switching is less strongly related to updating and inhibition (e.g., Klauer et al, 2010;Miyake et al, 2000) suggesting that WM span may not predict switch costs between bilinguals and monolinguals. Indeed, some studies have reported a bilingual advantage in switching (e.g., Prior & Gollan, 2011;Prior & Macwhinney, 2009), although even this effect has not been consistent (e.g., Hernández et al, 2013;Paap & Greenberg, 2013).…”

“…Building on this model, Friedman, Miyake, Young, DeFries, Corley, and Hewitt (2008) showed that "inhibition" correlates almost perfectly with "general executive function" and strongly correlates with "updating." Similarly, other studies have reported a strong relationship between inhibition ability and WM span (e.g., Klauer, Schmitz, Teige-Mocigemba, & Voss, 2010;Unsworth & Spillers;2010). Given this strong relationship, if bilinguals have an inhibitory control advantage, a similar advantage should be observed on WM tasks.…”

Two Signatures of Implicit Intergroup Attitudes

“…No such relationship appeared with respect to self-reported bias, suggesting that the effect is rooted in an automatic association between anger and social categories. An advantage of this task was its suitability for young children, for whom lengthy reaction time measures may not be appropriate (Ratcliff, Love, Thompson, & Opfer, 2012), especially measures like the IAT which centrally implicate executive function capacities (such as task switching; Klauer, Schmitz, Teige-Mocigemba, & Voss, 2010) that are notoriously unstable developmentally (e.g. Davidson, Amso, Anderson, & Diamond, 2006).…”