A Thousand Words Are Worth More Than a Picture? The Effects of Stimulus Modality on the Implicit Association Test

Abstract

Implicit Association Tests (IATs) employing pictures as target stimuli usually yield smaller scores than those with verbal target stimuli, suggesting weaker attitudes in the former compared to the latter case. As the attribute dimension of attitude IATs is typically represented by words, we hypothesized the target modality effect to be actually due to a modality match between targets and attributes. We manipulated stimulus modality independently for targets and attributes and confirmed our assumption in two attitude IATs (Experiment 1: flower/insect, Experiment 2: old/young): Employing verbal attributes, IAT scores were smaller for pictorial compared to verbal targets. However, the target modality effect disappeared or was even reversed if pictures were employed as attributes. Applying the ReAL model revealed that this modality match effect is mediated by recoding processes. Importantly, evaluative associations remained unaffected by modality match and reflected equal or even stronger preferences for pictorial compared to verbal targets.

Keywords

Implicit Association Test ReAL model recoding associations pictures

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Carnevale

Fujita

Han

A. H.

Amit

(2015). Immersion versus transcendence: How pictures and words impact evaluative associations assessed by the Implicit Association Test. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 92–100. doi:10.1177/1948550614546050

Chang

B. P. I.

Mitchell

C. J.

(2009). Processing fluency as a predictor of salience asymmetries in the Implicit Association Test. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 2030–2054. doi:10.1080/17470210802651737

Chang

B. P. I.

Mitchell

C. J.

(2011). Discriminating between the effects of valence and salience in the Implicit Association Test. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 2251–2275. doi:10.1080/17470218.2011.586782

Dasgupta

McGhee

D. E.

Greenwald

A. G.

Banaji

M. R.

(2000). Automatic preference for white Americans: Eliminating the familiarity explanation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 316–328. doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1418

De Houwer

(2003). The extrinsic affective Simon task. Experimental Psychology, 50, 77–85. doi:10.1026//1618-3169.50.2.77

De Houwer

Geldof

De Bruycker

(2005). The Implicit Association Test as a general measure of similarity. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 228–239. doi:10.1037/h0087478

De Houwer

Hermans

(1994). Differences in affective processing of words and pictures. Cognition and Emotion, 8, 1–20. doi:10.1080/02699939408408925

Foroni

Bel-Bahar

(2010). Picture-IAT vs. Word-IAT: Level of stimulus representation influences on the IAT. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 321–337. doi:10.1002/ejsp.626

Gast

Rothermund

(2010). When old and frail is not the same: Dissociating category and stimulus effects in four implicit attitude measurement methods. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 479–498. doi:10.1080/17470210903049963

10.

Gonsalkorale

Sherman

J. W.

Klauer

K. C.

(2013). Measures of implicit attitudes may conceal differences in implicit associations: The case of antiaging bias. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 271–278. doi:10.1177/1948550613499239

11.

Govan

C. L.

Williams

K. D.

(2004). Changing the affective valence of the stimulus items influences the IAT by re-defining the category labels. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 357–365. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.07.002

12.

Greenwald

A. G.

McGhee

D. E.

Schwartz

J. L. K.

(1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464

13.

Greenwald

A. G.

Nosek

B. A.

Banaji

M. R.

(2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197

14.

Hinojosa

J. A.

Carretié

Valcárcel

M. A.

Méndez-Bértolo

Pozo

M. A.

(2009). Electrophysiological differences in the processing of affective information in words and pictures. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 173–189. doi:10.3758/CABN.9.2.173

15.

Kensinger

E. A.

Schacter

D. L.

(2006). Processing emotional pictures and words: Effects of valence and arousal. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 6, 110–126. doi:10.3758/CABN.6.2.110

16.

Kindt

Brosschot

J. F.

(1997). Phobia-related cognitive bias for pictorial and linguistic stimuli. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 644–648. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.106.4.644

17.

Kinoshita

Peek-O’Leary

(2006). Two bases of the compatibility effect in the Implicit Association Test (IAT). The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 2102–2120. doi:10.1080/17470210500451141

18.

Maison

Greenwald

A. G.

Bruin

R. H.

(2004). Predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test in studies of brands, consumer attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 405–415. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_9

19.

Meissner

Rothermund

(2013). Estimating the contributions of associations and recoding in the Implicit Association Test: The ReAL model for the IAT. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 45–69. doi:10.1037/a0030734

20.

Meissner

Rothermund

(2015). The insect-nonword IAT revisited: Dissociating between evaluative associations and recoding. Social Psychology, 46, 46–54. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000220

21.

Mierke

Klauer

K. C.

(2003). Method-specific variance in the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1180–1192. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1180

22.

Mitchell

C. J.

(2004). Mere acceptance produces apparent attitude in the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 366–373. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.07.003

23.

Moshagen

(2010). multiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 42–54. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.1.42

24.

Nosek

B. A.

Banaji

M. R.

Greenwald

A. G.

(2002). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration website. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 101–115. doi:10.1037//1089-2699.6.1.101

25.

Rothermund

Teige-Mocigemba

Gast

Wentura

(2009). Minimizing the influence of recoding in the Implicit Association Test: The Recoding-Free Implicit Association Test (IAT-RF). The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 84–98. doi:10.1080/17470210701822975

26.

Rothermund

Wentura

(2001). Figure-ground asymmetries in the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48, 94–106. doi:10.1026//0949-3946.48.2.94

27.

Rothermund

Wentura

(2004). Underlying processes in the Implicit Association Test: Dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 139–165. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.139

28.

Rothermund

Wentura

De Houwer

(2005). Validity of the salience asymmetry account of the Implicit Association Test: Reply to Greenwald, Nosek, Banaji, and Klauer (2005). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 426–430. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.134.3.426

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.

0.12 MB

0.00 MB