scholarly journals Testing of a paper-and-pencil Personalized Single Category Implicit Association Test (SC-IAT-P)

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brigitte Bardin ◽  
Stéphane Perrissol ◽  
Jacques Py ◽  
Yoann Fos ◽  
Nicolas Souchon
2011 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
pp. 219-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Stieger ◽  
Anja S. Göritz ◽  
Andreas Hergovich ◽  
Martin Voracek

The Implicit Association Test (IAT) provides a relative measure of implicit association strengths between target and attribute categories. In contrast, the Single Category Implicit Association Test (SC–IAT) measures association strength with a single attribute category. This can be advantageous if a complementary category—as used in the IAT—cannot be composed or is undesired. If the SC–IAT is to be a meaningful supplement to the IAT, it should meet the same requirements. In an online experiment with a large and heterogeneous sample, the fakability of both implicit measures was investigated when measuring anxiety. Both measures were fakable through specific instruction (e.g., “Slow down your reactions”) but unfakable through nonspecific faking instruction even though nonspecific instruction was given immediately before the critical blocks (e.g., “Alter your reaction times”). When comparing the methodological quality of both implicit measures, the SC–IAT had lower internal consistency than the IAT. Moreover, with specific faking instructions, the SC–IAT was possible to fake to a larger extent than the IAT.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ottavia M. Epifania ◽  
Pasquale Anselmi ◽  
Egidio Robusto

<div>The indirect investigation of psychological constructs has become prominent in social sciences thanks to the so-called implicit measures. Different implicit measures can be administered concurrently to the same respondents for obtaining detailed and multifaceted information on the constructs of interest. In this study, a Rasch analysis of accuracy and time responses of two commonly used implicit measures is presented. The focus in on the concurrent administration of the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald et al., 1998) and the Single Category IAT (SC-IAT; Karpinski & Steinman, 2006). Linear Mixed-Effects Models are used to address the within– and between–measures sources of variability and to obtain a Rasch parametrization of the data. By disentangling the respondent’s contribution from the stimulus contribution to the observed responses, these models allow for delving deeper on the functioning of the IAT and the SC-IAT, as well as for grasping a better understanding of the processes driving a behavioral decision. Implications of the results for social sciences and future research directions are discussed.</div>


2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 125-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Chas ◽  
Verónica Betancor ◽  
Naira Delgado ◽  
Armando Rodríguez-Pérez

Abstract. Three studies were conducted to determine whether outgroups were dehumanized through animalization since childhood. Using the Implicit Association Test (IAT), in Study 1 we found faster reaction times in the compatible condition (ingroup names and human words, outgroup names and animal words), compared with the incompatible condition (ingroup names and animal words, outgroup names and human words). In Study 2, we used a paper-and-pencil design and found that the association between animal-related words and outgroups was more prevalent in comparison to ingroups. The participants of Study 3 selected a larger number of animal-related words to describe the outgroups than their own groups. Results revealed that the tendency to animalize is a process that begins during early childhood.


2014 ◽  
Vol 115 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brigitte Bardin ◽  
Stéphane Perrissol ◽  
Jacques Py ◽  
Céline Launay ◽  
Florian Escoubès

The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is used to assess attitude beyond the limitations of explicit measurements. Nevertheless, the test requires opposition between two attitude objects and also measures an extra-personal dimension of attitude that may reflect associations shared collectively. The first limitation can be overcome by using a Single Category IAT and the second by a personalized version of IAT. This study compares attitudes to smoking measured using a Single Category IAT with a personalized version of the test. The results, collected from 111 students, showed that the Single Category IAT did not distinguish smokers from non-smokers; smokers had negative scores. The personalized version did distinguish smokers from non-smokers, and smokers' scores seem to be neutral.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document