Cited by 179Psychometric Methodologies and TestingSocial and Intergroup PsychologyPsychological Testing and Assessment

Understanding and Using the Brief Implicit Association Test: Recommended Scoring Procedures

Open access
Nosek, Brian A., Bar-Anan, Yoav, Sriram, N., Axt, Jordan, Greenwald, Anthony G.·2014·PLoS ONE

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

A brief version of the Implicit Association Test (BIAT) has been introduced.The present research identified analytical best practices for overall psychometric performance of the BIAT.In 7 studies and multiple replications, we investigated analytic practices with several evaluation criteria: sensitivity to detecting known effects and group differences, internal consistency, relations with implicit measures of the same topic, relations with explicit measures of the same topic and other criterion variables, and resistance to an extraneous influence of average response time.The data transformation algorithms D outperformed other approaches.This replicates and extends the strong prior performance of D compared to conventional analytic techniques.We conclude with recommended analytic practices for standard use of the BIAT. Understanding and Using the Brief Implicit Association Test: I. Recommended Scoring ProceduresEven the most brilliant research ideas can flounder if data collection procedures and data analytic strategies applied in the pursuit of these ideas are suboptimal.Research efficiency, the knowledge gained in proportion to resources invested, can be improved by maximizing the quality of procedural and analytical methods.Numerous paradigms in mental chronometry, such as Stroop and lexical-decision tasks, define constructs derived from contrasting response latencies between performance conditions [1].The Implicit Association Test (IAT) [2] is a

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0110938

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A general limitation of self-reports is that the consciously reported attitude or other measure can be intentionally exaggerated or suppressed.

    “Una limitación general de los auto-reportes es que la actitud u otra medida consciente reportada puede ser exagerada o suprimida de manera intencional.”

    From El estudio de la polarización afectiva: una mirada metodológica (2022) · cites this paper as Nosek et al., 2014

    The Method for Political Attitude Studies (Measures; page unavailable) lists self-report measures, and the Evaluation Criteria section discusses how they relate to implicit measures. Neither passage says that respondents can intentionally exaggerate or suppress their reported attitudes; searches for deliberate distortion, faking, and socially desirable responding found no passage addressing that point. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In sensitive topics, there is much social pressure not to publicly express certain opinions or attitudes, such as racial discrimination.

    “Esto es particularmente relevante en temas sensibles, en los que existe mucha presión social para no expresar públicamente ciertas opiniones o actitudes, como puede ser, por ejemplo, la discriminación racial (Nosek et al., 2014).”

    From El estudio de la polarización afectiva: una mirada metodológica (2022) · cites this paper as Nosek et al., 2014

    The Evaluation Criteria section discusses implicit racial attitudes, and the Measures section lists self-reports of racial preferences, but neither addresses social pressure against publicly expressing discriminatory attitudes. Searches for social pressure and social-desirability bias found no passage in our copy that supports the attributed claim; page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

8 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [17]Yamaguchi S, Greenwald AG, Banaji MR, Murakami F, Chen D, et al (2007) Apparent universality of positive implicit self-esteem. Psychol Sci 18: 498– 500. 17576261
  2. [22]Greenwald AG, Nosek BA (2008) Attitudinal dissociation: What does it mean? In: Petty RE, Fazio RH, Brinol Peditors. Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp.65–82.
  3. [39]Chang BPI, Mitchell CJ (2009) Processing fluency as a source of salience asymmetries in the Implicit Association Test. Q J Exp Psychol 62: 2030– 2054. 19253092

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nosek, B. A., Bar-Anan, Y., Sriram, N., Axt, J., & Greenwald, A. G.
Affiliations
  • Center for Open Science (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Nosek, Brian A.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-12-08
Volume
9
Issue
12
Pages
e110938
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3124598427
Cited by
179
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
16.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
Brief Implicit Association Test, Implicit Association Test, implicit measures, scoring methods, reaction time (psychology), internal consistency, explicit measures, psychometric properties, response latency, group differences
MeSH terms
Attitude, Female, Humans, Male, Psychological Tests, Comprehension

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review