The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is used to assess attitude beyond the limitations of explicit measurements. Nevertheless, the test requires opposition between two attitude objects and also measures an extra-personal dimension of attitude that may reflect associations shared collectively. The first limitation can be overcome by using a Single Category IAT and the second by a personalized version of IAT. This study compares attitudes to smoking measured using a Single Category IAT with a personalized version of the test. The results, collected from 111 students, showed that the Single Category IAT did not distinguish smokers from non-smokers; smokers had negative scores. The personalized version did distinguish smokers from non-smokers, and smokers' scores seem to be neutral.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlantonH.JaccardJ. (2006) Arbitrary metrics in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(1), 27–41. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.1.27.
2.
BradleyB. P.MoggK.WrightT.FieldM. (2003) Attentional bias in drug dependence: vigilance for cigarette-related cues in smokers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 17, 66–72. DOI: 10.1037/0893-164X.17.1.66.
3.
BrendlC.MarkmanA.MessnerC. (2001) How do indirect measures of evaluation work? Evaluating the inference of prejudice in the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 760–773. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.760.
4.
De HouwerJ. (2002) The Implicit Association Test as a tool for studying dysfunctional associations in psychopathology: strengths and limitations. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 33, 115–133. DOI: 10.1016/s005-7916(02)00024-1.
5.
De HouwerJ.CustersR.De ClercqA. (2006) Do smokers have a negative implicit attitude toward smoking?Cognition and Emotion, 20(8), 1274–1284. DOI: 10.1080/02699930500484506.
6.
GawronskiB.PetersK. R.LeBelE. P. (2008) What makes mental associations personal or extra-personal? Conceptual issues in the methodological debate about implicit attitude measures. Social and Personality Compass, 2, 1022–1023.
7.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. K. (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.
8.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003) Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197.
9.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.SriramN. N. (2006) Consequential validity of the Implicit Association Test: comment on Blanton and Jaccard (2006). American Psychologist, 61(1), 56–61. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.1.56.
10.
HanH.OlsonM. A.FazioR. H. (2006) The influence of experimentally created extra-personal associations on the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(3), 259–272. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.006.
11.
HuijdingJ.de JongP. J.WiersR.W.VerkooijenK. (2005) Implicit and explicit attitudes toward smoking in a smoking and a nonsmoking setting. Addictive Behaviors, 30(5), 949–961. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.09.014.
12.
KarpinskiA.HiltonJ. L. (2001) Attitudes and the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 774–788. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.774.
13.
KarpinskiA.SteinmanR. (2006) The single category Implicit Association Test as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 16–32. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.16.
14.
LaneK. A.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A.GreenwaldA. G. (2007) Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: IV. What we know (so far) about the method. In WittenbrinkB.SchwarzN.WittenbrinkB.SchwarzN. (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes. New York: Guilford Press. Pp. 59–102.
15.
MoggK.BradleyB. P.FieldM.De HouwerJ. (2003) Eye movements to smoking-related pictures in smokers: relationship between attentional biases and implicit and explicit measures of stimulus valence. Addiction, 98, 825–836.
16.
MoorsA.SpruytA.De HouwerJ. (2010) In search of a measure that qualifies as implicit: recommendations based on a decompositional view of automaticity. In GawronskiB.PayneB. (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: measurement, theory, and applications. New York: Guilford Press. Pp. 19–37.
17.
NosekB. A.HansenJ. J. (2008) Personalizing the Implicit Association Test increases explicit evaluation of target concepts. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 226–236. DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759.24.4.226.
18.
OlsonM.FazioR. (2004) Reducing the influence of extrapersonal associations on the Implicit Association Test: personalizing the IAT. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 653–667. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.653.
19.
ProchaskaJ.DiClementeC.NorcrossJ. (1992) In search of how people change: applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47(9), 1102–1114.
20.
ProjetITC. (2011) Rapport national ITC France. Université de Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada; Institut national de prevention et d'éducation pour la santé (INPES), institut national du cancer (INCa), Paris, France. Retrieved from http://www.inpes.sante.fr/etudes/itc/pdf/ITC_rapport_FR_2.pdf.
21.
RobinsonM. D.MeierB. P.ZetochaK. J.McCaulK. D. (2005) Smoking and the Implicit Association Test: when the contrast category determines the theoretical conclusions. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 27(3), 201–212.
22.
ShermanS.RoseJ.KochK.PressonC.ChassinL. (2003) Implicit and explicit attitudes toward cigarette smoking: the effects of context and motivation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22(1), 13–39.
23.
SwansonJ. E.RudmanL. A.GreenwaldA. G. (2001) Using the Implicit Association Test to investigate attitude-behaviour consistency for stigmatised behaviour. Cognition and Emotion, 15(2), 207–230. DOI: 10.1080/0269993004200060.
24.
Teige-MocigembaS.KlauerK.ShermanJ. W. (2010) A practical guide to implicit association tests and related tasks. In GawronskiB.PayneB.GawronskiB.PayneB. (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: measurement, theory, and applications. New York: Guilford Press. Pp. 117–139.
