PubMed · 8175371
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J Chatterjee. 1994. Reply to Gray.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8175371/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Since its first publication in 1998, the Implicit Association Test (IAT) has been used repeatedly to measure implicit attitudes and other automatic associations. Although there have also been a few studies critical of the IAT, there now exists substantial evidence for the IAT's convergent and discriminant validity, including new evidence reported in several of the articles in this special issue. IAT attitude measures have often correlated only weakly with explicit (self-report) measures of the same associations. It therefore seems appropriate to conclude that the IAT assesses constructs that are often (but not always) distinct from the corresponding constructs measured by self-report.
In their article, "Testing two theories of conceptual combination: Alignment versus diagnosticity in the comprehension and production of combined concepts," F. J. Costello and M. T. Keane (2001) evaluate the role of alignment in the interpretation of noun-noun combinations. They found that participants were not strongly biased to prefer and produce interpretations with alignable differences. Instead, participants sometimes preferred and produced interpretations with nonalignable differences. These results are surprising given that most research has found advantages of alignable differences over nonalignable differences. Costello and Keane also found that feature diagnosticity better predicted their results, and they concluded that alignment does not play an important role in conceptual combination. However, drawing on recent work, the author of the present article gives an alternative interpretation of Costello and Keane's results, showing that alignment is crucial in conceptual combination. The author also shows that the dual-process model accounts for their results.
Three years ago, Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz (1998) presented a new method to measure differential evaluative association of two target concepts: the Implicit Association Test (IAT). It has been asserted that the IAT allows for the assessment of implicit attitudes by comparing response times in two combined discrimination tasks. Although the distribution and employment of this method has been quite successful, the processes underlying IAT-effects, as well as the psychometric properties of specific IAT-variants, have received relatively little attention up to now. The articles included in the present special issue especially focus on these aspects.