Recoding processes can influence the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) in a way that impedes an unequivocal interpretation of the resulting compatibility effects. We present a modified version of the IAT that aims to eliminate recoding, the IAT-RF (short for “IAT–recoding free”). In the IAT-RF, compatible and incompatible assignments of categories to responses switch randomly between trials within a single experimental block. Abandoning an extended sequence of consistent category–response mappings undermines recoding processes in the IAT-RF. Two experiments reveal that the IAT-RF is capable of assessing compatibility effects between the nominally defined categories of the task and effectively prevents recoding. By enforcing a processing of the stimuli in terms of their task-relevant category membership, the IAT-RF eliminates the confounding of compatibility effects with task switch costs and becomes immune against biased selections of stimuli.
ArkesH. R.TetlockP. E. (2004). Attributions of implicit prejudice, or “Would Jesse Jackson ‘fail’ the Implicit Association Test?”.Psychological Inquiry15, 257–278.
2.
BackM. D.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB. (2005). Measuring task-switching ability in the Implicit Association Test.Experimental Psychology52, 167–179.
3.
BlantonH.JaccardJ.GonzalesP. M.ChristieC. (2006). Decoding the Implicit Association Test: Implications for criterion prediction.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology42, 192–212.
4.
BluemkeM.FrieseM. (2006). Do features of stimuli influence IAT effects?.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology42, 163–176.
5.
BrendlM.MarkmanA.MessnerC. (2001). How do indirect measures of evaluation work? Evaluating the inference of prejudice in the Implicit Association Test.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology81, 760–773.
6.
De HouwerJ. (2001). A structural and process analysis of the Implicit Association Test.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology37, 443–451.
7.
De HouwerJ. (2003a). The extrinsic affective Simon task.Experimental Psychology50, 77–85.
8.
De HouwerJ. (2003b). A structural analysis of indirect measures of attitudes.MuschJ.KlauerK. C.The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotionMahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc219–244.
9.
De HouwerJ.GeldofT.De BruyckerE. (2005). The Implicit Association Test as a general measure of similarity.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology59, 228–239.
10.
EichstaedtJ. (2006). Choice prediction with a balanced IAT Manuscript submitted for publication.
11.
FiedlerK.BluemkeM. (2005). Faking the IAT: Aided and unaided response control on the Implicit Association Tests.Basic and Applied Social Psychology27, 307–316.
12.
FiedlerK.MessnerC.BluemkeM. (2006). Unresolved problems with the “I”, the “A” and the “T”: A logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT).European Review of Social Psychology17, 74–147.
13.
GastA.RothermundK. (2007). No matter if senile or experienced? Effects of stimulus-selections on four different implicit measurement methods Unpublished manuscript.
14.
GovanC. L.WilliamsK. D. (2004). Changing the affective valence of the stimulus items influences the IAT by re-defining the category labels.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology40, 357–365.
15.
GrayN. S.MacCullochM. J.SmithJ.MorrisM.SnowdenR. J. (2003). Violence viewed by psychopathic murderers.Nature423, 497–498.
16.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology74, 1464–1480.
17.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A. (2001). Health of the Implicit Association Test at age 3.Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie48, 85–93.
18.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology85, 197–216.
19.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R.KlauerK. C. (2005). Validity of the salience asymmetry interpretation of the Implicit Association Test: Comment on Rothermund and Wentura (2004).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General134, 420–425.
20.
HoubenK.RothermundK.WiersR. W. (2007). Eliminating recoding in the Alcohol-IAT: An application of the IAT-RF Manuscript submitted for publication.
21.
KimD.-Y. (2003). Voluntary controllability of the Implicit Association Test (IAT).Social Psychology Quarterly66, 83–96.
22.
KinoshitaS.Peek-O'LearyM. (2005). Does the compatibility effect in the race Implicit Association Test (IAT) reflect familiarity or affect?.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review12, 442–452.
23.
KinoshitaS.Peek-O'LearyM. (2006). Two bases of the compatibility effect in the Implicit Association Test (IAT).Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology59, 2102–2120.
24.
KlauerK. C.MierkeJ. (2005). Task-set inertia, attitude accessibility and compatibility-order effects: New evidence for a task-set switching account of the IAT effect.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin31, 208–217.
25.
LewickiP.HillT.CzyzewskaM. (1992). Nonconscious acquisition of information.American Psychologist47, 796–801.
26.
McFarlandS. G.CrouchZ. (2002). A cognitive skill confound on the Implicit Association Test.Social Cognition20, 483–510.
27.
MierkeJ.KlauerK. C. (2001). Implicit association measurement with the IAT: Evidence for effects of executive control processes.Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie48, 107–122.
28.
MierkeJ.KlauerK. C. (2003). Method-specific variance in the Implicit Association Test.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology85, 1180–1192.
29.
MitchellC. J. (2004). Mere acceptance produces apparent attitude in the Implicit Association Test (IAT).Journal of Experimental Social Psychology40, 366–373.
30.
MitchellJ. P.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Contextual variations in implicit evaluation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General132, 455–469.
31.
NosekB. A.GreenwaldA. G.BanajiM. R. (2006). The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review.BarghJ. A.Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processesNew York: Psychology Press265–292.
32.
NosekB. A.HansenJ. J.The associations in our heads belong to us: Searching for attitudes and knowledge in implicit evaluation.Cognition and Emotion. in press.
RogersR. D.MonsellS. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General124, 207–231.
35.
RoßnagelC. S. (2001). Revealing hidden covariation detection: Evidence for implicit abstraction at study.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition27, 1276–1288.
36.
RothermundK.WenturaD. (2001). Figure-ground asymmetries in the Implicit Association Test (IAT).Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie48, 94–106.
37.
RothermundK.WenturaD. (2004). Underlying processes in the Implicit Association Test (IAT): Dissociating salience from associations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General133, 139–165.
38.
RothermundK.WenturaD.De HouwerJ. (2005). Validity of the salience asymmetry account of the Implicit Association Test: Reply to Greenwald, Nosek, Banaji, and Klauer.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General134, 426–430.
39.
ShiffrinR. M.SchneiderW. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory.Psychological Review84, 127–190.
40.
SteffensM. C. (2004). Is the Implicit Association Test immune to faking?.Experimental Psychology51, 165–179.
41.
SteffensM. C.LichauJ.StillY.JelenecP.AnheuserJ.GoergensN. K.HülsebuschT. (2004). Individuum oder Gruppe, Exemplar oder Kategorie? Ein Zweifaktorenmodell zur Erklärung der Reaktionszeitunterschiede im Implicit Association Test (IAT) [Individual or group, exemplar or category: A two-factor model of reaction time differences in the Implicit Association Test (IAT)].Zeitschrift für Psychologie212, 57–65.
42.
SteffensM. C.PleweI. (2001). Items’ cross-category associations as a confounding factor in the Implicit Association Test.Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie48, 123–134.
43.
StrayerD. L.KramerA. F. (1994). Strategies and automaticity: I. Basic findings and conceptual framework.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition20, 318–341.
44.
Teige-MocigembaS.KlauerK. C.RothermundK.Beyond the IAT's block structure: A single block IAT.Paper presented at the 11th Meeting of the Section of Social Psychology of the German Association of Psychology. Freiburg, GermanySeptember2007a.
45.
Teige-MocigembaS.KlauerK. C.RothermundK. (2007b). Minimizing method-specific variance in the IAT: A single block IAT Manuscript submitted for publication.
46.
TukeyJ. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysisReading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
47.
WenturaD.RothermundK. (2007). Paradigms we live by. A plea for more basic research on the IAT.WittenbrinkB.SchwarzN.Implicit measures of attitudesNew York: Guilford Press195–215.
