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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.1.4 · Cited by 6,682
Self-citationThe Malleability of Automatic Stereotypes and Prejudice
Blair, I. V. (2002) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0603_8 · Cited by 1,152
Implicit attitude measures: Consistency, stability, and convergent validity
Cunningham, W. A., Preacher, K. J., & Banaji, M. R. (2001) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00328 · Cited by 968
Self-citation
Cited by
Dehumanization: An integrative review
Haslam, N. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4 · Cited by 2,919
(2003) · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145225 · Cited by 1,829
Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167205275613 · Cited by 1,642
Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2012) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0028347 · Cited by 1,236
The Malleability of Automatic Stereotypes and Prejudice
Blair, I. V. (2002) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0603_8 · Cited by 1,152
Metadata
- Authors
- Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R.
- Venue
- Social Cognition
- Publisher
- Guilford Publications
- 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.