Changing the affective valence of the stimulus items influences the IAT by re-defining the category labels

By Cassandra L. Govan, Kipling D. Williams. 2004

168 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8d24c6cb577e6ef2d49f44f9b6c8cbf4f9d9c70e

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

Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: an integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. (2006, background): “, & Greenwald, A. G. (2001). On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals.”
Unresolved problems with the “I”, the “A”, and the “T”: A logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) (2006, background): “…concerned with methodological issues such as cross-category associations, task-switching, strategic recoding, or label vs stimulus influence (articles coded ‘‘d’’; Govan & Williams, 2004; Klauer & Mierke, 2005; Mierke & Klauer, 2001, 2003; J. P. Mitchell et al., 2003; Rothermund & Wentura, 2004;…”
12. Formation, change, and contextualization of mental associations: determinants and principles of variations in implicit measures (2010, result): “Similar effects were obtained by Govan and Williams (2004), who showed a reversal of participants' implicit preference for flowers over insects when the particular stimuli used in the task (e.g., butterfly, skunkweed) suggested a reversed evaluation of the two categories (i.e., flowers as negative…”
The Implicit Association Test at Age 7: A Methodological and Conceptual Review (2007, background): “At the same time, the stimulus items, as a set, can affect the construal of the target category (Govan & Williams, 2004; Mitchell, et al., 2003; Nosek et al., 2005; Steffens & Plewe, 2001).”
Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method Variables and Construct Validity (2005, background): “…of the category labels do affect IAT scores.8 This reinforces a similar point made elsewhere regarding the importance of selecting appropriate exemplars to represent the attributes and categories of direct interest (Govan & Williams, 2004; Mitchell, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003; Steffens & Plewe, 2001).”
Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. (2009, background): “…by the attitudes and stereotypes concerning the categories (e.g., “Black person,” “White person”; De Houwer, 2001) but also by the individual stimuli used to represent the categories (e.g., a particular Black or White face; Bluemke & Friese, 2006; Govan & Williams, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2003).”
Development of Indirect Measures of Conscientiousness: Combining a Facets Approach and Network Analysis (2015, background): “…and impulse control.3 It has been shown that the choice of particular stimuli can substantially influence the IAT effect (Bluemke & Friese, 2006; Govan & Williams, 2004), suggesting that the mixed results could be due to the fact that these researchers assessed different things under the same…”
The influence of experimentally created extrapersonal associations on the Implicit Association Test (2006, methodology): “The Wndings of De Houwer (2001), Olson and Fazio (2003), and Govan and Williams (2004) imply that the IAT does not measure the automatic activation of evaluations in response to exemplars, but rather, the association between the dual meanings of any given response option.”