The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition.

By Andrew Karpinski, Ross B. Steinman. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2006

1,114 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Marketing, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/92746bc251bda103d449f26d8fc59585ba958c74

How researchers see this paper

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

In Marketing

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. (2009, background): “…that several commentators on IAT measures have urged: appraising the construct validity of IAT measures (Arkes & Tetlock, 2004; Blanton & Jaccard, 2006; De Houwer, Teige-Mocigemba, Spruyt, & Moors, in press; Fiedler, Messner, & Bluemke, 2006; Karpinski & Hilton, 2001; Rothermund & Wentura, 2004).”
Three ways to resist temptation: The independent contributions of executive attention, inhibitory control, and affect regulation to the impulse control of eating behavior (2009, methodology): “We assessed participants’ automatic affective reactions toward peanut mm Karpinski & Steinman, 2006 ).”
Impulsive versus reflective influences on health behavior: a theoretical framework and empirical review (2008, methodology): “As expected, the SC-IAT predicted consumption behavior in a taste-and-rate task better for participants low rather than high in trait self-control.”
When and why do implicit measures predict behaviour? Empirical evidence for the moderating role of opportunity, motivation, and process reliance (2008, methodology): “…priming (Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986), the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and its variants (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998; Karpinski & Steinman, 2006), the Extrinsic Affective Simon Task (EAST, De Houwer, 2003), or the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP, Payne, Cheng,…”
A wonderful life: experiential consumption and the pursuit of happiness (2015, methodology): “In support of this idea, Mann and Gilovich (in preparation, Study 2), using a Single-Category Implicit Association Test (Karpinski & Steinman, 2006), found that people associate money with material possessions more strongly than they do with experiences.”
How Advergame Content Influences Explicit and Implicit Brand Attitudes: When Violence Spills Over (2013, methodology): “Instead, it allows the researcher to measure the D score within only one category or target (Karpinski and Steinman 2006) but uses the same procedure as the traditional IAT by measuring reaction time and errors (Greenwald, Nosek, and Banaji 2003).”
Being a Body: Women’s Appearance Related Self-Views and their Dehumanization of Sexually Objectified Female Targets (2012, neutral): “Vaes and colleagues (2011) used a Single-Category Implicit Association Test (i.e., SC-IAT; Karpinski and Steinman 2006) to assess the extent to which sexually objectified women were associated with uniquely human (e.”
Reliability and validity of the Single‐Target IAT (ST‐IAT): assessing automatic affect towards multiple attitude objects (2008, methodology): “First, Karpinski and Steinman (2006) explicitly questioned the ST-IAT’s reliability despite its similarities with the SC-IAT, raising the question of whether response windows are a crucial feature of single-target assessments if they are to reach satisfying levels of reliability.”
The rich—love them or hate them? Divergent implicit and explicit attitudes toward the wealthy (2017, methodology): “To measure implicit attitudes, participants completed two SC-IATs, a Rich SC-IAT and Middle-Class SC-IAT (in counterbalanced order across participants), following the procedure of Karpinski and Steinman (2006).”
The effects of an imagery intervention on implicit and explicit exercise attitudes (2015, background): “The choice of an appropriate contrast to the object or concept of interest is critical but straightforward for many research questions, but for others it can be more difficult (Karpinski & Steinman, 2006).”
Reducing Implicit Prejudice (2013, background): “Further diversification of implicit measures, such as using ones that rely less on contrasting groups (e.g., Brief IAT, Sriram & Greenwald, 2009; Go/No-Go Association Task, Nosek & Banaji, 2001 ; or Single-Target IAT, Karpinski & Steinman, 2006) or ones that do not rely on explicit categories at all”
Mental representations of social values (2010, methodology): “Furthermore, scores on the Value-SC-IAT were less strongly related to social desirability than the SVS but were related to scores on a measure of value-expressive behavior (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003), even when controlling for the SVS.”