Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,088

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Go/No-Go Association Task

Nosek, Brian A., Banaji, Mahzarin R.·2001·Social Cognition

Abstract

Theory is constrained by the quality and versatility of measurement tools. As such, the development of techniques for measurement is critical to the successful development of theory. This paper presents a technique — the Go/No-go Association Task (GNAT) — that joins a family of existing techniques for measuring implicit social cognition generally, with a focus on attitude (evaluation). To expand the measurement potential supplied by its closest cousin, the Implicit Association Test (IAT), the GNAT can be used to examine automatic social cognition toward a single target category. That is, the GNAT obtains a measure of implicit social cognition without requiring the direct involvement of complementary or contrasting objects. Also, by implementing a response deadline in the procedure, this version of the GNAT trades off response latency for sensitivity as the dependent variable measure. We illustrate the technique through a series of experiments (1–5) using simple attitude objects (bugs and fruit). In Experiment 6, the GNAT is used to investigate attitudes toward race (black and white) and gender (male and female). To explore the theoretical leverage offered by this tool, Experiment 6 puts to test a recurring question concerning automatic in-group favoritism versus out-group derogation. Results demonstrate the dual presence of both out-group derogation (e.g., negativity toward black Americans) and in-group favoritism (positivity toward white Americans), a finding that emerges because the GNAT offers the potential for separable measures of attitude toward the two groups. Through these experiments, the GNAT is shown to be an effective tool for assessing automatic preferences as well as resolving persistent questions that require measures of individual attitude objects while maintaining the advantages of response competition tasks.

Overview

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 · 10.1521/soco.19.6.625.20886

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 1,088

Metadata

Authors
Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R.
Venue
Social Cognition
Published
2001-12
Volume
19
Issue
6
Pages
625-666
ISSN
0278-016X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2112985640
Cited by
1,088
References
3
FWCI
50.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Go/No-Go Association Task. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1521/soco.19.6.625.20886
The paper
Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The Go/No-Go Association Task. Social Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.19.6.625.20886

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.