Performance on implicit measures reflects construct-specific and nonconstruct-specific processes. This creates an interpretive issue for understanding interventions to change implicit measures: Change in performance could reflect changes in the constructs of interest or changes in other mental processes. We reanalyzed data from six studies (N = 23,342) to examine the process-level effects of 17 interventions and one sham intervention to change race implicit association test (IAT) performance. Diffusion models decompose overall IAT performance (D-scores) into construct-specific (ease of decision-making) and nonconstruct-specific processes (speed–accuracy trade-offs, non-decision-related processes like motor execution). Interventions that effectively reduced D-scores changed ease of decision-making on compatible and incompatible trials. They also eliminated differences in speed–accuracy trade-offs between compatible and incompatible trials. Non-decision-related processes were affected by two interventions only. There was little evidence that interventions had any long-term effects. These findings highlight the value of diffusion modeling for understanding the mechanisms by which interventions affect implicit measure performance.
BrandstätterV.LengfelderA.GollwitzerP. M. (2001). Implementation intentions and efficient action initiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 946–960. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.5.946
2.
CalanchiniJ.LaiC. K.KlauerK. C. (2020). Reducing implicit racial preferences: III. A process-level examination of changes in implicit preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000339
3.
CalanchiniJ.ShermanJ. W. (2013). Implicit attitudes reflect associative, non-associative, and non-attitudinal processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 654–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12053
4.
CameronC. D.Brown-IannuzziJ. L.PayneB. K. (2012). Sequential priming measures of implicit social cognition: A meta-analysis of associations with behavior and explicit attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 330–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312440047
5.
ConreyF. R.ShermanJ. W.GawronskiB.HugenbergK.GroomC. J. (2005). Separating multiple processes in implicit social cognition: The Quad Model of implicit task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 469–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.469
6.
DevineP. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5
7.
DovidioJ. F.KawakamiK.GaertnerS. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.62
8.
FazioR. H.JacksonJ. R.DuntonB. C.WilliamsC. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.69.6.1013
9.
FiedlerK.BluemkeM. (2005). Faking the IAT: Aided and unaided response control on the Implicit Association Tests. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2704_3
10.
FinlayK. A.StephanW. G. (2000). Improving intergroup relations: The effects of empathy on racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1720–1737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02464.x
11.
ForoniF.MayrU. (2005). The power of a story: New, automatic, associations from a single reading of a short scenario. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 139–144. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196359
12.
ForscherP. S.LaiC. K.AxtJ. R.EbersoleC. R.HermanM.DevineP. G.NosekB. A. (2019). A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117, 522–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000160
13.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Psychology Press.
14.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F.AnastasioP. A.BachmanB. A.RustM. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000004
15.
GermarM.SchlemmerA.KrugK.VossA.MojzischA. (2014). Social influence and perceptual decision making: A diffusion model analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213508985
GreenA. R.CarneyD. R.PallinD. J.NgoL. H.RaymondK. L.IezzoniL. I.BanajiM. R. (2007). Implicit bias among physicians and its prediction of thrombolysis decision for Black and White patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1231–1238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0258-5
18.
GreenwaldA.McGheeD.SchwartzJ. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
19.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB.BanajiM. (2003a). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197
20.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB.BanajiM. (2003b). “Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm”: Correction to Greenwald et al. (2003). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, Article 481. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087889
21.
GreenwaldA. G.PoehlmanT. A.UhlmannE. L.BanajiM. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17–41. doi:10.1037/a0015575
HaidtJ. (2003). Elevation and the positive psychology of morality. In KeyesC. L. M.HaidtJ. (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 275–289). American Psychological Association.
24.
Joy-GabaJ. A.NosekB. A. (2010). The surprisingly limited malleability of implicit racial evaluations. Social Psychology, 41, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000020
25.
KatzI.HassR. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming status of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893–905. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.893
26.
KlauerK. C. (2014). Random-walk and diffusion models. In ShermanJ.GawronskiB.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual process theories of the social mind (pp. 139–152). Guilford Press.
27.
KlauerK. C.StahlC.VossA. (2011). Multinomial models and diffusion models. In KlauerK. C.VossA.StahlC. (Eds.), Cognitive methods in social psychology (pp. 367–390). Guilford Press.
28.
KlauerK. C.VossA.SchmitzF.Teige-MocigembaS. (2007). Process components of the Implicit Association Test: A diffusion-model analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.353
29.
KurdiB.SeitchikA. E.AxtJ. R.CarrollT. J.KarapetyanA.KaushikN.TomezskoD.GreenwaldA.G.BanajiM.R. (2019). Relationship between the Implicit Association Test and intergroup behavior: A meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 74, 569–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000364
30.
LaiC. K.HoffmanK. M.NosekB. A. (2013). Reducing implicit prejudice. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12023
31.
LaiC. K.MariniM.LehrS. A.CerrutiC.ShinJ.-E. L.Joy-GabaJ. A.… NosekB. N. (2014). Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1765–1785. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036260
32.
LaiC. K.SkinnerA. L.CooleyE.MurrarS.BrauerM.DevosT.… NosekB. A. (2016). Reducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 1001–1016. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000179
33.
LercheV.VossA. (2017). Retest reliability of the parameters of the Ratcliff Diffusion Model. Psychological Research, 81, 629–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0770-5
34.
NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2001). The Go/No-go Association task. Social Cognition, 19, 625–666.
35.
NosekB. A.SmythF. L.HansenJ. J.DevosT.LindnerN. M.RanganathK. A.BanajiM. R. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 36–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701489053
36.
OlsonM. A.FazioR. H. (2006). Reducing automatically-activated racial prejudice through implicit evaluative conditioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205284004
37.
OswaldF. L.MitchellG.BlantonH.JaccardJ.TetlockP. E. (2013). Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032734
RatcliffR. (2014). Measuring psychometric functions with the diffusion model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 870–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034954
40.
RatcliffR.SmithP. L.BrownS.McKoonG. (2016). Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 260–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007
41.
RichesonJ. A.NussbaumR. J. (2004). The impact of multiculturalism versus color-blindness on racial bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.002
42.
RiekB. M.ManiaE. W.GaertnerS. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
43.
RöhnerJ.EwersT. (2016a). How to analyze (faked) Implicit Association Test data by applying diffusion model analyses with the fast-dm software: A companion to Röhner & Ewers (2016). The Quantitative Methods in Psychology, 12, 220–231. https://doi.org/10/20982/tqmp.12.3.p220
44.
RöhnerJ.EwersT. (2016b). Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff: Construct- and faking-related variance on the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Behavior Research Methods, 48, 243–258. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0568-1
45.
RöhnerJ.Schröder-AbèM.SchützA. (2011). Exaggeration is harder than understatement, but practice makes perfect! Faking success in the IAT. Experimental Psychology, 58, 464–472. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000114
46.
RöhnerJ.Schröder-AbéM.SchützA. (2013). What do fakers actually do to fake the IAT? An investigation of faking strategies under different faking conditions. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.02.009
47.
RöhnerJ.ThossP. J. (2018). EZ: An easy way to conduct a more fine-grained analysis of faked and nonfaked Implicit Association Test (IAT) data. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 14, 17–35. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.14.1.p017
SchmitzF.VossA. (2012). Decomposing task-switching costs with the diffusion model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 222–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026003
50.
SearsD. O.HenryP. J. (2005). Over thirty years later: A contemporary look at symbolic racism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 95–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37002-X
51.
SpaniolJ.MaddenD. J.VossA. (2006). A diffusion model analysis of adult age differences in episodic and semantic long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.1.101
52.
SritharanR.GawronskiB. (2010). Changing implicit and explicit prejudice: Insights from the Associative-Propositional Evaluation Model. Social Psychology, 41, 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000017
53.
StrackF.DeutschR. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1
54.
ToddA. R.BurgmerP. (2013). Perspective taking and automatic intergroup evaluation change: Testing an associative self-anchoring account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 786–802. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031999
55.
TurnerR. N.CrispR. J. (2010). Imagining intergroup contact reduces implicit prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X419901
56.
Van RavenzwaaijD.DonkinC.VandekerckhoveJ. (2016). The EZ diffusion model provides a powerful test of simple empirical effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 547–446. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1081-y
57.
VossA.NaglerM.LercheV. (2013). Diffusion models in experimental psychology: A practical introduction. Experimental Psychology, 60, 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000218
58.
VossA.RothermundK.GastA.WenturaD. (2013). Cognitive processes in categorical and associative priming: A diffusion model analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 536–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029459
59.
VossA.RothermundK.VossJ. (2004). Interpreting the parameters of the diffusion model: An empirical validation. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1206–1220. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196893
60.
VossA.VossJ. (2008). A fast numerical algorithm for the estimation of diffusion model parameters. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 52, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2007.09.005
61.
VossA.VossJ.KlauerK. C. (2010). Separating response-execution bias from decision bias: Arguments for an additional parameter in Ratcliff’s diffusion model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63, 539–555. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711009X477581
62.
WagenmakersE. J.van der MaasH. L.GrasmanR. P. (2007). An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194023
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
