THE GO/NO-GO ASSOCIATION TASK

By Brian A. Nosek, Mahzarin R. Banaji. 2001

1,168 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a938200cd52bef778413f72ec0cf7914d903d36d

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

Racial prejudice predicts opposition to Obama and his health care reform plan (2010, methodology): “The attributes bad and good were represented by negative words (disaster, disgusting, evil, hate, horrible, nasty, painful, terrible) and positive words (beautiful, friendly, happy, joyful, loving, pleasure, smiling, splendid) used in research on the GNAT (Nosek & Banaji, 2001).”
Getting Explicit About the Implicit (2012, methodology): “These tasks differ on their use of response-latency measures versus signal detection statistics (e.g., the Go/No-Go Task, or GNAT; Nosek & Banaji, 2001), the ability to separate out strength of individual associations within the task (Sorting Paired Features Task, or SPF; Bar-Anan, Nosek, &…”
Attitude, Inference, Association: On the Propositional Structure of Implicit Bias (2016, methodology): “…Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald et al., 1998); the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP; Payne 2009); the Go/No-Go Association Task (GNAT; Nosek and Banaji 2001); the Sorting Paired Feature Task (SPFT; Bar-Anan, et al. 2009); the Weapon Identification Task (Payne 2001, Correll et al.…”
Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. (2009, background): “That is, the psychological attributes of the individual are inferred from the speed or accuracy with which the individual responds to certain stimuli in certain tasks (e.g., De Houwer, 2003a; Nosek & Banaji, 2001; see De Houwer, 2003b, for a structural analysis and review).”
Attributing Human Uniqueness and Human Nature to Cultural Groups: Distinct Forms of Subtle Dehumanization (2009, methodology): “The instructions indicated that the GNAT involved the classifi cation of stimuli as targets or distracters, and that participants had to classify these stimuli as rapidly and accurately as possible.”
Prototypes of race and gender: The invisibility of Black women (2010, methodology): “Fifty-six photos (14 of each gender/race category) were selected from a bank of headshots created by Nosek and Banaji (2001).”
TARGET ARTICLE: On Building a Better Process Model: It's Not Only How Many, but Which Ones and By Which Means? (2006, neutral): “Although I have used the IAT as an example, the logic is exactly the same with any implicit measure that compares compatible and incompatible trials, including the Stroop task (Stroop, 1935), evaluative priming tasks (e.g., Fazio et al., 1995), the Weapons Identification Task (e.g., Payne, 2001), th”
Implicit consumer preferences and their influence on product choice (2006, background): “overcome this limitation by assessing associations to single targets ( Nosek & Banaji, 2001;”
The Implicit Association Test at Age 7: A Methodological and Conceptual Review (2007, methodology): “Experience with the IAT Effect magnitudes with the IAT tend to decline with repeated administrations (Greenwald & Nosek, 2001; Greenwald et al., 2003).”
A History of Implicit Social Cognition Where Is It Coming From? Where Is It Now? Where Is It Going? (2010, positive): “Nosek and Banaji (2001) were the first to address this issue by developing the Go/No-go Association Task (GNAT).”
Reliability and validity of the Single‐Target IAT (ST‐IAT): assessing automatic affect towards multiple attitude objects (2008, methodology): “Among the efforts developed as non-relative measures are the Go/No-Go Association Task (GNAT; Nosek & Banaji, 2001), the Extrinsic Affective Simon Task (EAST; De Houwer, 2003), the newly developed identification-EAST (ID-EAST; De Houwer & De Bruycker, 2007a) and IATs using neutral, <blank>,…”
Do You Really Know What You Believe? Developing the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a Direct Measure of Implicit Beliefs (2006, methodology): “Some of the limitations inherent in the IAT have been addressed through the development of alternative methodologies, such as the Go/No-go Association Task (GNAT; Nosek & Banaji, 2001) and the Extrinsic Affective Simon Task (EAST; De Houwer, 2003).”
Dehumanization: An Integrative Review (2006, methodology): “In early support for its relevance, Loughnan and Haslam (2005) used the Go/No-go Association Task (GNAT; Nosek & Banaji, 2001) to demonstrate that social categories may be differentially associated with the two senses of humanness, and with animals or automata, in the manner proposed.”