Cited by 209Social and Intergroup PsychologyPsychometric Methodologies and TestingRacial and Ethnic Identity Research

Best research practices for using the Implicit Association Test

Open access
Greenwald, Anthony G., Brendl, Miguel, Cai, Huajian, Cvencek, Dario, Dovidio, John F., Friese, Malte, Hahn, Adam, Hehman, Eric +14 more·2022·Behavior Research Methods

Abstract

Interest in unintended discrimination that can result from implicit attitudes and stereotypes (implicit biases) has stimulated many research investigations. Much of this research has used the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to measure association strengths that are presumed to underlie implicit biases. It had been more than a decade since the last published treatment of recommended best practices for research using IAT measures. After an initial draft by the first author, and continuing through three subsequent drafts, the 22 authors and 14 commenters contributed extensively to refining the selection and description of recommendation-worthy research practices. Individual judgments of agreement or disagreement were provided by 29 of the 36 authors and commenters. Of the 21 recommended practices for conducting research with IAT measures presented in this article, all but two were endorsed by 90% or more of those who felt knowledgeable enough to express agreement or disagreement; only 4% of the totality of judgments expressed disagreement. For two practices that were retained despite more than two judgments of disagreement (four for one, five for the other), the bases for those disagreements are described in presenting the recommendations. The article additionally provides recommendations for how to report procedures of IAT measures in empirical articles.

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 · 10.3758/s13428-021-01624-3

Cites

67 of 68 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?

  • These attitudes may be explicit or implicit.

    “Finally, these attitudes may be explicit (consciously accessible and measurable by self-report) or implicit (largely unconscious and testable through indirect measures (e.g., Implicit Association tasks (IAT), Greenwald et al., 2022)).”

    From Are Attributions of Consciousness to AI Chatbots Epistemically Innocent? (2026) · cites this paper as Greenwald et al., 2022

    The Introduction’s “Definition of ‘implicit’” section contrasts implicit and explicit attitudes and recommends distinguishing them by indirect versus direct measurement. The “Measurement characteristics of IAT measures” section identifies the IAT as an indirect measure. But the paper cautions that an indirect measure is not a pure indicator of unconscious processes, so it does not support describing implicit attitudes as largely unconscious. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  2. Cvencek, D., Greenwald, A. G., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2012). Balanced identity theory: Evidence for implicit consistency in social cognition. In Gawronski, B., & Strack, F. (Eds.), Cognitive consistency: A unifying concept in social psychology (pp. 157–177). Guilford Press.
  3. Cvencek, D., et al. (2020). Meta-analytic evaluation of IAT and self-report measures in testing balanced identity theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, in press. 32493120
  4. Lane, K. A., Banaji, M. R., Nosek, B. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2007). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: IV. What we know (so far) (Pp. 59–102). In B. Wittenbrink & N. S. Schwarz (Eds.). Implicit measures of attitudes: Procedures and controversies.: Guilford Press.
  5. Lu, Y. (2016) Can propositions be used in the Implicit Association Test? Undergraduate honors thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Washington.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Greenwald, A. G., Brendl, M., Cai, H., Cvencek, D., Dovidio, J. F., Friese, M., Hahn, A., Hehman, E., Hofmann, W., Hughes, S., Hussey, I., Jordan, C., Kirby, T. A., Lai, C. K., Lang, J. W. B., Lindgren, K. P., Maison, D., Ostafin, B. D., Rae, J. R., Ratliff, K. A., Spruyt, A., & Wiers, R. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Saarland University (DE)
  • University of Cologne (DE)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Wilfrid Laurier University (CA)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of Warsaw (PL)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Greenwald, Anthony G.
Venue
Behavior Research Methods
Published
2021-09-13
Volume
54
Issue
3
Pages
1161-1180
ISSN
  • 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-3528
OpenAlex
W3200635405
Cited by
209
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 20 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
37.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • edoc (University of Basel) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/S00274X/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
Keywords
Implicit Association Test, implicit bias, implicit attitudes, stereotypes, research best practices, measurement validity, reporting procedures
MeSH terms
Association, Attitude, Humans

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