The implicit association test measures bias via response latency on concept-sorting tasks.

Evidence

The IAT (Greenwald et al., 1998) is a relatively new measure of implicit social cognition that, to date, has not been used in religiosity–prejudice research. In general, IATs indirectly measure strengths of associations between different concepts as participants sort words (and sometimes pictures) into categories representing those concepts. … One assumption underlying race IATs is that categorization tasks are easier for Whites when two concepts that share a response are positively associated (e.g., White and good) than when the concepts are negatively associated (e.g., White and bad) or weakly associated (see Greenwald et al., 2002, for a review of IAT theory). — Wade C. Rowatt and Lewis M. Franklin, Christian Orthodoxy, Religious…, 25

Categorization

• DEFINE: Explains how the IAT works — faster sorting when positively-associated concepts share a response key reveals implicit association strength.
• ADDENDUM: Directly serves the reader’s aim: this is the implicit measure against which professed religious conviction will be checked, testing self-report versus measured-bias divergence.
• XREF: connects to: IAT response latency reveals implicit prejudice even absent self-reported bias — Wade C. Rowatt and Lewis M. Franklin, Christian Orthodoxy, Religious…, 26; Implicit biases can be consciously overridden through deliberate attention — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 1362; Conjunction fallacy tasks can indirectly measure implicit group stereotyping (+5 more)

Related

• IAT response latency reveals implicit prejudice even absent self-reported bias (similarity 0.90)
• Implicit measures reveal prejudice that explicit self-report instruments cannot capture (similarity 0.86)
• Implicit measures are required to study nonconscious gender stereotypes (similarity 0.84)
• The IAT measures group patterns, not individual bias levels (similarity 0.83)
• Laboratory models of unconscious cognition enabled research on implicit social cognition (similarity 0.83)
• Implicit measures reveal attitudes people cannot or will not report (similarity 0.80)
• The IAT measures speeded positive-negative associations to status groups (similarity 0.80)
• Implicit biases can be consciously overridden through deliberate attention (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• IAT response latency reveals implicit prejudice even absent self-reported bias #expands (0.92) — Wade C. Rowatt and Lewis M. Franklin, Christian Orthodoxy, Religious…, 26
• Implicit measures reveal prejudice that explicit self-report instruments cannot capture #expands (0.88) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 759
• Implicit social cognition research reveals prejudice operating below conscious awareness #expands (0.85)
• Implicit measures are required to study nonconscious gender stereotypes #expands (0.80) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 778
• Implicit biases can be consciously overridden through deliberate attention #qualifies (0.75) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 1362
• Conjunction fallacy tasks can indirectly measure implicit group stereotyping #expands (0.72)
• The representativeness heuristic can be repurposed as a covert measure of implicit group stereotypes #expands (0.72) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 273