Attitudes and the Implicit Association Test.

By Andrew Karpinski, James L. Hilton. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2001

850 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dd470cdfd3371c10a452d142cf50848c644d2783

How researchers see this paper

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

In Applied Psychology

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Discrimination and the Implicit Association Test (2007, background): “…the strong form of the environmental associations hypothesis, in which it is argued that IAT scores are attributable primarily to cultural, rather than personal, attitudes (Arkes & Tetlock, 2004; Olson & Fazio, 2004; Karpinski & Hilton, 2001; cf. Karpinski et al., 2005 for a more moderate version).”
Predictive validity of an Implicit Association Test for assessing anxiety. (2002, neutral): “* p Ͻ .05 (two-tailed). response conflicts (De Houwer, 2001), environmental associations (Karpinski & Hilton, 2001), task-set switching (Mierke & Klauer, 2001), and figure-ground asymmetries (Rothermund & Wentura, 2001).”
Contact, Perspective Taking, and Anxiety as Predictors of Stereotype Endorsement, Explicit Attitudes, and Implicit Attitudes (2007, background): “Implicit attitude results support an environmental association model interpretation (e.g. Karpinski & Hilton, 2001).”
Explicit Evidence on the Import of Implicit Attitudes: The IAT and Immigration Policy Judgments (2010, background): “22 Let's say, for instance, that scores on the IAT reflect one's knowledge that society devalues Latino immigrants relative to White immigrants, but that one does not necessarily endorse this view (e.g., Arkes and Tetlock 2004; Olson and Fazio 2004; Karpinski and Hilton 2001).”
Ten Frequently Asked Questions About Implicit Measures and Their Frequently Supposed, But Not Entirely Correct Answers (2009, background): “Second, the claim that only some of these associations are inherently personal whereas others are inherently extrapersonal (e.g., Olson & Fazio, 2004) implies that the representation of associations in memory can differ as a function of their source ( Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006 ).”
Implicit affect in organizations (2009, result): “…as McClelland et al. (1989) found that implicit and explicit motives can be completely uncorrelated or even contradictory, implicit attitudes as gauged by instruments such as the IAT often differ from or even contradict reported or explicit attitudes (Karpinski & Hilton, 2001; Wilson et al., 2000).”
Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination: Theoretical and empirical overview (2010, background): “Some contend that implicit measures of bias primarily represent overlearned and ‘habitual’ cultural associations rather than attitudes (Karpinski & Hilton, 2001).”
Is the Implicit Association Test a Valid and Valuable Measure of Implicit Consumer Social Cognition (2004, background): “Others have argued that the IAT might also capture an attitude object's environmental or cultural associations instead of just one's evaluation of the object (Karpinski & Hilton, 2001).”
Automatic associations and discrimination in hiring: : Real world evidence (2010, background): “, in a situation in which there is little reason to believe that participants would have been concerned with controlling their explicit attitudes, see Karpinski and Hilton (2001). 14”
No Place for Nostalgia in Science: A Response to Arkes and Tetlock (2004, background): “In contrast, merely known associations are extraneous to a person’s attitude (for a similar position, see Karpinski & Hilton, 2001).”
Implicit Behavioral Mimicry: Investigating the Impact of Group Membership (2006, background): “related, implicit and explicit attitudes are at least partially separate (Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Karpinski & Hilton, 2001) and that they may have independent power in explaining behavior (Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001; Karpinski & Hilton, 2001 ).”