Validity of the Salience Asymmetry Interpretation of the IAT: Comment on Rothermund and Wentura (2004)

Greenwald, Anthony G.; Nosek, Brian A.; Banaji, Mahzarin R.; Klauer, Karl Christoph

doi:10.31234/osf.io/bkvsp

Cited by 5 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…the two attribute categories are easily distinguishable on the basis of just one dimension, for example, valence" (p. 158). Greenwald et al (2005) observed that this strategic recoding interpretation could alternatively be stated in terms of association strengths (see 3-4 and Figure 1). Rothermund et al (2009) have suggested a similar interpretation, writing that "recoding [can] occur automatically-that is, without a conscious plan or strategy (i.e., recoding can result from an implicit learning of covariations between features and responses)".…”

Section: -8 What Alternatives or Additions To An Associative Strengmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…(c) Figure-ground asymmetries between stimulus items in contrasted categories or (alternately stated) greater salience of stimulus items in one of the two contrasted categories than the other. Greenwald, Nosek, Banaji, and Klauer (2005) evaluated this alternative interpretation in existing literature and in two experiments, finding that manipulated figure-ground asymmetries did not have the effects expected by Rothermund and Wentura.…”

Section: -8 What Alternatives or Additions To An Associative Strengmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Implicit Association Test at age 20: What is known and what is not known about implicit bias

Ag¹,

Brendl²,

Cai³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[Version 3 (uploaded 21 April 2020) provides corrected list of co-authors and commenters; the ms. is otherwise unchanged from Versions 1 and 2.] Scientific interest in unintended discrimination that can result from implicit attitudes and stereotypes (implicit biases) has produced a large corpus of empirical findings. In addition to much evidence for validity and usefulness of Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures, there have been psychological critiques of empirical findings and theoretical disagreements about interpretation of IAT findings. Because of public attention drawn by the concept of implicit bias, commercial and other applications based on the concept of implicit bias have been developed by non-psychologists—some of these applications are not appropriately guided by the existing body of research findings. This article is in 5 parts: (1) review of best practices for research use of IAT measures, (2) summary of what has been confidently learned from empirical research using IAT measures, (3) accepted and controversial theoretical interpretations of IAT findings, (4) significant questions about the IAT and implicit bias that still await answer, and (5) questions arising in attempts to apply research findings to remedy unintended discrimination due to implicit biases.

show abstract

Section: -8 What Alternatives or Additions To An Associative Strengmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: -8 What Alternatives or Additions To An Associative Strengmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Implicit Association Test at age 20: What is known and what is not known about implicit bias

Ag¹,

Brendl²,

Cai³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although one might assume that scholarly criticism is unwelcome, we -as researchers identified with the IAT -find it extremely valuable. This value is evident in the several recent publications of method-focused IAT work (e.g., Cai et al, 2004;Greenwald et al, 2003;Greenwald, Nosek, Banaji, & Klauer, 2005;Greenwald et al, 2006;Mierke & Klauer, 2003;Pinter & Greenwald, 2005). Without the instigation provided by scholarly criticism of the IAT, there would have been less motivation to pursue questions of method.…”

Section: Metric Meaningfulness Of Sensitivity (D') Measures In Signalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequential Validity of the Implicit Association Test: Comment on Blanton and Jaccard (2006)

Greenwald¹,

Nosek²,

Narayanan³

2016

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numeric values of psychological measures often have an arbitrary character before research has grounded their meanings, thereby providing what S. J. Messick (1995) called consequential validity (part of which H. Blanton and J. Jaccard, 200x, now identify as metric meaningfulness). Some measures are predisposed by their design to acquire meanings easily — an example being the sensitivity measure of signal detection theory. Others are less well prepared — illustrated by most self-report measures of self-esteem. Counter to Blanton and Jaccard’s characterization, the Implicit Association Test (IAT) has properties that predispose it to acquire consequential validity rapidly. With over 250 publications since 1998, there is now much evidence for consequential validity of the IAT. The IAT has attracted more scholarly criticism than have other measures designed for similar purposes. We speculate as to why the IAT is an attractive target.

show abstract

“…word length, stimulus familiarity, salience asymmetries; cf. Dasgupta et al, 2000;Greenwald et al, 2005).…”

Section: Accounts For the Iat Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Implicit Association Tests for the Assessment of Implicit Personality Self-Concept

Schnabel

Asendorpf

Greenwald

2008

The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment: Volume 2 — Personality Measurement and Testing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Validity of the Salience Asymmetry Interpretation of the IAT: Comment on Rothermund and Wentura (2004)

Cited by 5 publications

References 14 publications

The Implicit Association Test at age 20: What is known and what is not known about implicit bias

The Implicit Association Test at age 20: What is known and what is not known about implicit bias

Consequential Validity of the Implicit Association Test: Comment on Blanton and Jaccard (2006)

Using Implicit Association Tests for the Assessment of Implicit Personality Self-Concept

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About