Talk:Implicit-association test

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Heather-L, Lbroc001 (article contribs).

Sentence fragment needs fix

"Neither of these trends of attributing more positive or negative attributes to a specific sexual identity as seen with homosexual respondents" is not a sentence, and I cannot discern what meaning was intended. Could somebody who understands the intended meaning (or source) please fix? I thought maybe "as" was a typo for "is" and might have made a minor fix of it as such, but then this sentence would directly contradict the previous sentence, without any bridging acknowledgement of mixed results if indeed that's the case. I would like someone more familiar with the subject to resolve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.246.18 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion

I feel terrible to delete an entire paragraph, not that it was necessarily wrong, but it was a vague and unrelated to an entry on Implicit Association Test. The relationship between brain imaging and psychological studies is important - and part of some other page or topic, not part of the IAT page. There are many ways in which imaging is being used to connect social and pyschological concepts, for better or for worse, for example search for neuroeconomics-related articles on google. --Minik 00:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The last link...

I think that the last link

Test of Unconscious Identification - similar to the IAT using open source software

is not relevant to IAT. IAT is realy powerfull tool, and the test on the link up there doesnt deserve a place on the IAT page.

What to do with unreferenced material?

I'd like to see someone either add references, or have us remove some of the unsupported material here. As a researcher in the field, the IAT is treated with the same respect other measures are--that is, not the be all end all, but something useful for certain purposes. These 'caveats' make it seem like criticism of the IAT has been particularly forceful; most of the critiques have been answered, and many of the critics themselves use the IAT where they feel it is appropriate, so the tenor of the comments here is misleading. I'd like to hear responses if anyone feels that isn't an accurate portrayal, otherwise I'll go ahead and make some changes in a few days. SlipperyN 01:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph in question seems strikingly out of step with the rest of the article. I am not familiar with the literature so I cannot comment intelligently about IAT. However, as a layman, my impression is that the paragraph in question is in no way informative, extremely vague, and has a tone of an opinion piece. Citations will help but, details are sorely needed. Please be specific about the criticisms raised and any attempts to answer those criticisms if the paragraph is to remain. twotonkatrucks 06:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I made changes and provided references. Feedback welcome! SlipperyN 15:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Violations in References Section

Claiming that something is 'one-sided' without providing argument and references is a violation of NPOV. In any case, the debates are covered in the main text of the article so don't need to be rehashed in what is simply a list of external links! If people want to add more to the controversy, that may be fair as long as an accurate portrayal of the overall view of the field is portrayed--but weasel words like 'one-sided' are not appropriate, nor is repeating critiques that are already in the text in the external links section.SlipperyN 14:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

IAT in Clinical Research

I have no experience with the use of IAT-like methods in clinical research, but that section (sentence) either needs some work or should be removed. The specific textual mention of Bethany Teachman's research is out of place on a methods page. If Teachman's work is the example that should be used, the citation should also go to somewhere more informative than her homepage.Surfoslo (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision May 2011

Hi everyone, I'm a social psychologist who is working on a study that involves the IAT. I thought I would simultaneously try to improve this article as I go through the literature. I just started and plan to add more content in the upcoming days/weeks. I'm open to any and all suggestions for improvement. I'd like to upload an image of an IAT screenshot, but just need to figure out how to do that without violating any copyrights. Hopefully we can get this up to "Good Article" status. Haley love (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Screenshots of copyrighted software can be uploaded under fair use. Screenshots of open source software can usually be uploaded under a free license. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

IAT or I-AT

I've reverted edits by JorisvS to render "Implicit Association Test" as "Implicit-Association Test" (with hyphen). The unhyphenated version is the WP:COMMONNAME. Any evidence to the contrary? —Eustress ^talk 19:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's the association that's implicit, not the test, so the hyphen is correct. Punctuation and formatting do not fall under COMMONNAME. If you were going to claim that, you'd need to capitalize, but we don't do that either. Clarity is important with technical jargon, and falsely implying that the IAT is an implicit test of association is not helpful. In the lit where the audience can be expected to be familiar with the terminology or the concepts, hyphens are commonly dropped, but we have a general audience and so do not have that luxury. — kwami (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

New critiques to add from Chronicle of higher ed article?

I don't have time to go through and add myself, but this new source from the Chronicle of Higher Ed might be worth integrating into the article: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-We-Really-Measure-Implicit/238807 -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The main arguments of this journalistic piece are found in an an under review article. This article, when published, might make a better reference to be added directly? Ianhussey (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interest. I am a lead author of the under review article. I am not familiar with Wikipedia's norms, but I'm happy to review any updated text for accuracy/clarity when it is published. I do not check this account, so you can find my current contact info at http://calvinklai.weebly.com. - Calvin Lai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asocialpsychologist (talk • contribs) 01:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Some updates and Changes that Should be Implemented?

I think more expansion on how technology shifted the use of IAT would be useful. What about Phone applications? How about public knowledge of the test? I think these are things that would be useful to include and give the page a more updated feel. The article could use some work in generally expanding on the Types of IATs and the Reliability and Validity. I'm hoping to spruce those sections up a bit. Lbroc001 (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Just wanted to post a list of references I've found that could be used to update the article a bit. I've provided a short description of what each one can contribute as well. All feedback welcome! For anyone else, FYI, Lbroc001 and I are Psychology grad students tasked to work together on this article. We've both read through all the previous discussion. If there's anything else you want us to know, please say so!

The Observer summary of 20 years of IAT; still need to review for relevant contents

Establishes IAT's use for measuring implicit bias related to disabiities (to add to the list of applications)

Study supporting use of IAT for predicting suicide

Study showing IAT use in predicting suicidal ideation

Combined with the other two articles above, shows growing evidence for IAT use in predicting sucidal ideation and behavior - an important application to add to the list

Textbook with entire chapter on IAT, including discussion of theory, IAT scoring, reliability, (in-depth) validity, a possible explanation for differences in explicit versus implicit bias measurements, and effects of context on measuring implicit and explicit bias

Heather-L (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  

AI confirms IAT

Think of using this in this article: "Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases" . In short and simplifying it, IAT results strongly correlate with (objective) word frequency in corpora and with real life data, e.g. "Figure 1. Occupation-gender association..."

Zezen (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Valence section makes no sense

"Research with the Sexuality IAT shows that homosexual individuals have an implicit preference for heterosexuals, associating them with more positive attributes, and associating homosexuals with negative attributes. In contrast, bisexual individuals indicated a preference for heterosexuals over homosexuals, specifically as a result of attributing homosexuals to negative attributes."

What is the contrast here? According to this, despite slight differences in wording, both homosexuals and bisexuals indicated have an implicit preference for heterosexuals over homosexuals? Or was there a typo and homosexuals actually have an implicit preference for homosexuals?

"Neither of these trends of attributing more positive or negative attributes to a specific sexual identity as seen with homosexual respondents.[23]"

This is an incomplete sentence and I can't even tell what it's trying to say. Seems that something was deleted before "as seen with homosexual respondents".