Voluntary Controllability of the Implicit Association Test (IAT)

By Do-Yeong Kim. 2003

308 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1c8c2714471cb8d96f6fc52c70dd57806fdc221e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Explicit Evidence on the Import of Implicit Attitudes: The IAT and Immigration Policy Judgments (2010, background): “And, because this second IAT immediately followed the first one, it is possible that subjects might adjust their performance to this second IAT in light of completing one already (Kim 2003; Fiedler and Bluemke 2005).”
Unresolved problems with the “I”, the “A”, and the “T”: A logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) (2006, methodology): “Although successful faking could not be demonstrated by other researchers (Asendorpf et al, 2002 , Study 2; Banse et al, 2001 ; Egloff & Schmukle, 2002 ; Foroni & Mayr, 2005 ; Kim, 2003a ; Steffens, 2004 , Study 1), the instructions they gave to participants may have been too weak and ineffect”
Predicting the Vote: Implicit Attitudes as Predictors of the Future Behavior of Decided and Undecided Voters (2008, background): “In fact, it has been shown that implicit attitudes may be investigated through the IAT even when participants try to conceal them (Asendorpf, Banse, & Muecke, 2002; Banse, Seise, & Zerbes, 2001; Egloff & Schmuckle, 2002; Fiedler & Bluemke, 2005; Kim, 2003; Steffens, 2004).”
The Implicit Association Test at Age 7: A Methodological and Conceptual Review (2007, unknown): “…two factors – experience with the IAT and explicit instructions about how to control IAT scores – increase fakeability (Asendorpf, Banse, & Mucke, 2002; Asendorpf, Banse, & Schnabel, 2006; Banse, Seise, & Zerbes, 2001; Egloff & Schmukle, 2002; Kim, 2003; Perugini & Leone, 2004; Steffens, 2004).”
Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. (2009, background): “Asendorpf, Banse, and Mücke (2002) obtained similar findings with a shyness selfconcept IAT, as did Kim (2003) with a race attitude IAT measure.”
Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluation. (2005, background): “Implicit measures tend to be resistant to deliberate alteration, whereas explicit measures are vulnerable to it (Foroni & Mayr, 2005; Kim, 2003).”
Why do Westerners self‐enhance more than East Asians? (2009, background): “…on the IAT (with other attitudes) can be faked by savvy participants and may not be indicative of only automatic processes (Conrey, Sherman, Gawronski, Hugenberg, & Groom, 2005; Fiedler, & Bluemke, 2005; Kim, 2003; Steffens, 2004; see also Banse, Seise, & Zerbes, 2001; Egloff & Schmukle, 2002).”
Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: an integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. (2006, background): “This interpretation is also applicable to studies showing that instructions to fake a particular attitude influenced only explicit but not implicit attitudes (e.g., Banse, Seise, & Zerbes, 2001; Kim, 2003).”
Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. (2009, background): “Some showed that IAT effects were largely unaffected by instructions to fake a certain attitude (e.g., Asendorpf et al., 2002; Banse et al., 2001; Egloff & Schmukle, 2002; Kim, 2003), whereas others suggested that participants can intentionally influence IAT effects (e.”
Novel attitudes can be faked on the Implicit Association Test (2007, result): “This argument might seem implausible given existing research suggesting that IAT eVects are diYcult to fake, provided that it is the Wrst time that one completes an IAT (e.g., Fiedler & Bluemke, 2005; Kim, 2003; SteVens, 2004).”
Untangling the links between narcissism and self‐esteem: A theoretical and empirical review. (2008, unknown): “…know what is being measured or what their responses reveal when they complete the IAT, this instrument presumably bypasses most people’s ability to present a falsely positive self (Do-Yeong, 2003; Steffens, 2004; but see Fiedler & Bluemke, 2005, for evidence that people can ‘fake’ the IAT).”
Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention (2012, unknown): “This section also explained the general logic behind how the IAT measures implicit bias (without giving the participants a specific strategy to “beat the IAT”; Kim, 2003) and dispelled alternate explanations for IAT bias (e.”
The effect of priming gender roles on women's implicit gender beliefs and career aspirations (2010, unknown): “We used the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to measure both stereotypes and self-concept because its sensitivity to context effects and predictive utility is well established (Blair, 2002; Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009), and it is relatively free from social desirability bias and othe”
Ten Frequently Asked Questions About Implicit Measures and Their Frequently Supposed, But Not Entirely Correct Answers (2009, background): “Kim, D. (2003). Voluntary controllability of the Implicit Association Test (IAT).”
12. Formation, change, and contextualization of mental associations: determinants and principles of variations in implicit measures (2010, result): “…studies did not find any evidence for variations in measurement scores as a function of faking instructions (e.g., Banse, Seise, & Zerbes, 2001; Kim, 2003), more recent research showed small but significant influences for Greenwald and colleagues' (1998) Implicit Association Test (e.g.,…”