Unconscious Knowledge Assessment The Unconscious Knowledge Assessment is a Go/No Go Association Task (GNAT; Nosek & Banaji, 2001), which is a measure of implicit association. That is, the unconsciously stored association between concepts stored in long- term memory. LABS A simple way to understand what is meant by implicit association is to think about how easily two concepts can be thought together. For example, what most easily comes to mind in response to each of the following? BREAD. DOCTOR. DOG. The chances are you thought BUTTER, NURSE, and CAT or BONE. This is because these concepts frequently occur together in the world, in language, and in our thinking. That is, they are strongly associated. The GNAT, as with all measures of implicit association, is based on this idea. FAQ S 1. Could the result reflect the order of the target pairings? I had to first respond to one category together with NEGATIVE words, then same category with POSITIVE words. I then found the second pairing hard because I had just done the first block. ANSWER: The order in which tests are administered does make a difference to the overall result in some tests. However, the difference is small and we are careful to administer the blocks in the same order so that the scores are meaningful and consistent for everyone who completed the measure. In addition, there are four procedural components that reduce this small order effect. First, the target labels are present throughout the measure to remind you of the targets, no matter which block you are completing. Second, we ask you to take a short break between blocks to help you make a conceptual break between blocks. This is followed by a set of practice trials (and another brief block) to assist you to focus on the targets for a block. Finally, you will actually improve from one block to the next because of practice effects that counter the order effect. 2. I received feedback during the assessment (i.e, Xs) that I thought were incorrect. Was the test wrong? ANSWER: You will receive feedback that you have made an incorrect response if you press the key in response to any word or picture that was not a named target, or if you fail to respond to a word or picture that was a named target. Often people receive feedback when they think they have responded to a target, but have done so more slowly than permitted. It is unlikely that this will have occurred too often, although it can affect performance if you were distracted by it. There are some constraints that can increase the likelihood of responding too slowly to the wrong target. These include being distracted/tired/stressed or completing the assessment while using a remote desktop connection. The quality of your computer or internet connection will not affect the accuracy of your feedback. 3. I was distracted/had a headache/had a bad day when I was doing the test. Does this affect my result? ANSWER: Each of these factors has the potential to reduce your overall accuracy/performance. However, it is more likely to have inhibited your ability to complete the assessment and therefore resulted in you not receiving a report at all due to having inconclusive results. If you do believe that any of these factors had a significant impact on your performance, we maybe be able to organise an opportunity for you to complete the measure again at a more suitable time. 4. Could my age/dexterity/reaction speed affect my result? ANSWER: As with the previous question, these factors do have the potential to reduce your overall accuracy/ performance. However, they are more likely to have inhibited your ability to complete the assessment at all rather than having skewed your results in any particular direction. This is because the effect would be the same for all parts of the assessment. If you do believe that any of these factors had a significant impact on your performance, please contact us and we may be able to assist in providing another opportunity to complete the measure.
5. Could my most recent experiences affect my results? ANSWER: It is unlikely for your most recent experiences have affected your results significantly, but it is possible that it may have shifted your results slightly. For example, a moderate result might become a slight result for a particular measure. This is more likely to be the case if you have been ruminating heavily on a specific event or example related to measure you are completing. For example, if you were be thinking about a recent sexist event you experienced it might increase the likelihood of stereotype threat when completing a measure related to gender. Just as thinking about a specific counter-stereotypical example (a strong female leader) might have the opposite effect. 6. Can my implicit association be faked? ANSWER: There is good empirical evidence that implicit associations under the conditions used in this version of the measure (e.g., short durations) cannot be faked. Even by experts. 7. How does the GNAT measure implicit association? ANSWER: The GNAT asks you to pair two concepts (e.g., MEN and LEADERSHIP). The more closely associated the two concepts are, the easier it is to respond to them using a single key which means any block which pairs these concepts as targets will be completed with greater accuracy (i.e., fewer errors). In contrast, concepts that are unrelated or antithetical will be very difficult to pair (i.e., respond to with a single key) and will produce many errors (i.e., poor accuracy). As a result, an index of accuracy can be used to see how related or associated these concepts are. This is done very rapidly to ensure you don t have time to intentionally change your response. Thus, the index is a measure of implicit association and reflects a basic unit of unconscious knowledge (sometimes bias). If you would like to know more about the GNAT, then please refer to the Cognicity Labs GNAT Information Sheet available in the support materials. 8. What does it mean if I get a test result that I don t believe describes me? ANSWER: Remember, unconscious knowledge is not chosen or endorsed. It is acquired from our experience of the world, which means that it reflects many things we are exposed to that we don t necessarily agree with. For example, if you watch TV, you are likely to see many cultural stereotypes that you may not agree with. Similarly, gender roles and stereotypes are common in media, advertising, and even in the homes we grew up in. You may hold different beliefs, values, or attitudes to those you are exposed to; however, implicit associations are an internalisation of the world we encounter and, for this reason, can be very different from the beliefs, values, or attitudes we choose. 9. Do women, for example, show an implicit association between women and leadership, and men show an association between men and leadership given this may be their personal experience? ANSWER: People s experience can affect their implicit associations, otherwise this would be a cultural measure rather than an individual one. However, research has found that while people differ in the degree to which they implicitly associate groups (e.g., men and women) and attributes (e.g., POSITIVE, LEADERSHIP), people s responses tend to be similar in terms of the direction (e.g., MEN>WOMEN LEADERSHIP; WOMEN>MEN HOME). This is theorised to be because of the pervasiveness of cultural messages, images, and general experiences of, for example, gender roles and stereotypes. As a result, even women leaders, and men who have been stay-at-home parents, are likely to produce the similar, although attenuated, implicit associations. 10. What can I do about an implicit association that I would rather not have? ANSWER: It is very possible to possess an automatic association that you would rather not have. However, it is important to recognise that implicit associations are only one component of how you think, feel, and act. So, it is possible that, while this implicit association exists, it may be little more than an automatic tendency that can be overridden by conscious and purposive thought and action. However, if you really wish to change your implicit associations you can seek experiences address them. For example, you could take the time to read material that presents a different implicit association (e.g., read about women leaders), or even imagine different experiences (i.e., make a list of women leaders). For an example of the effectiveness of imagining counterstereotypes of women, see Blair, Ma, & Lenton, 2001. One thing to consider is that you can, with an understanding of your unconscious knowledge or bias, remain alert to the existence of the undesired implicit association, recognising that it may influence your thoughts, feelings, or actions. Additionally, you may decide to embark on consciously planned actions that can compensate for known unconscious knowledge. This may involve planning to identify bias hotspots, and address these.
Method Unlike the much older psychoanalytic free association task (e.g., as given above), the GNAT assesses people s implicit associations in a way that is both individually meaningful as well as comparable across people. This is because, rather than each person idiosyncratically generating the concept that most easily comes to mind for them in relation to a specific cue, the GNAT assesses the strength of the implicit associations between the same concepts for all respondents (e.g., women and work). Consequently, this GNAT produces an index of implicit association strength for each person who completed the same measure, which means the distribution of all results can be generated. From a respondent s perspective, the GNAT assesses implicit associations by having respondents pair the concepts of interest both in mind, and behaviourally by assigning both targets to a single key response. For this reason, the GNAT is called a shared response method. This feature is what makes the GNAT seems difficult when trying to pair two unrelated and easy when two highly wrelated concepts. Consider the following example: Target Present Target Absent Fruit Banana Good Target Labels Fruit Spider Good Target Labels Stimuli Stimuli Correct Response: Press spacebar or touch the screen. In this case the stimuli matches the target labels as it is a fruit word. It is therefore a TARGET. Correct Response: Do nothing. In this case the stimuli does NOT match the target labels as it is neither a fruit nor good word. It is therefore NOT a target. In this example, degree to which the concepts women and work are related in memory will define how easy it is to respond to the concepts using the single (spacebar) key. However, as this would be simple and easy under untimed conditions and would, more importantly, assess much more than implicit associations (e.g., conscious classification of the stimuli, and even whether or not a correct response was very short (<1 second) response deadlines are used. These time limits ensure respondents are permitted little time to think about their responses allowing the implicit associations to determine performance on the task. It is worthy of note that the shared key method is the source of the only objection respondents typically have to completing this measure. Specifically, people often object to being asked to pair targets that they do not consciously endorse as being related1 (i.e., because this does not reflect my views ). This is easily addressed by explaining that the GNAT, by measuring the strength of implicit associations, isn t asking respondents to agree with the pairing, it is just asking respondents to respond as directed.
Scoring and Interpretation The GNAT is scored by calculating the number of correct response and incorrect responses for each block (i.e., pairing). The ratio of these is then used to calculate the index of implicit association also known as sensitivity (d ) based on Signal Detection Theory (Green & Swets, 1966). Scores typically range from slightly above 0 to 5 with higher scores indicate stronger implicit associations. Performance at or below chance (i.e., 50%) results in a d score 0 and are an indication that the task was either too difficult or not understood. These scores are rarely interpreted unless this occurs for a single block. In such a case a score of at or near 0 indicates that there is no implicit association between the concepts. A single implicit association is of limited use as the index itself is not directly interpretable like many psychological measures (e.g., a liking rating of 11, even on a defined scale meaningless without a reference point). However, in combination with other implicit associations, it is possible to determine implicit biases and implicit preferences. For example, an implicit gender- workplace bias would be indicated by a stronger implicit association between men and leadership compared to women and leadership. Reliability A recent paper showed that the reliability of the GNAT, that is the degree to which a GNAT is a consistent, stable, and repeatable measure of implicit associations, can be very good, comparable even with gold standard psychological measures (Williams & Kaufmann, 2012). However, the reliability of the GNAT reflects the quality of method design (e.g., instructions to respondents, size and consistency of stimuli sets) and other features of the design (e.g., length of blocks). Following the recommendations of Williams and Kaufmann (2012) ensures the GNAT measure is highly reliable, and calculable for a given sample. Validity The GNAT has been used to assess implicit attitudes and cognitions including gender and race- based attitudes (Mitchell, Nosek, &Banaji, 2003; Nosek & Banaji, 2001), as well as implicit stereotyping (e.g., Allen, Sherman, Conrey, & Stroessner, 2009; Blair, Ma, & Lenton, 2001; Gonsalkorale, von Hippel, Sherman, & Klauer, 2009), and implicit prejudice (e.g., Sherman, Stroessner, Conrey, & Azam, 2005; Smith, Dijksterhuis, & Chaiken, 2008) which has contributed to understandings of important social issues including workplace inequity, and discrimination. The GNAT has also proved useful for understanding consumer behaviour (e.g., genetically modified food; Spence & Townsend, 2006, 2007). A more recent applications of the GNAT has been its use clinical assessment and treatment, with evidence demonstrating its use with substance- use (Houbens, Wiers, & Roefs, 2006), fear chronic pain (Leeuw, Peters, Wiers, & Vlaeyen, 2007) and phobic clients (Teachman, 2007). Finally, the GNAT has also been used as a tool for education (Kaufmann, 2012), by providing a basis for self- understanding and change. Taken together, these findings demonstrate the validity and utility of the GNAT for understanding, predicting, and addressing behaviour across a range of settings.
References Allen, T. J., Sherman, J. W., Conrey, F. R., & Stroessner, S. J. (2009). Stereotype strength and attentional bias: Preference for confirming versus disconfirming information depends on processing capacity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5), 1081. Blair, I. V., Ma, J. E., & Lenton, A. P. (2001). Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of unconscious stereotypes through mental imagery. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81(5), 828-841. Gonsalkorale, K., von Hippel, W., Sherman, J. W., & Klauer, K. C. (2009). Bias and regulation of bias in intergroup interactions: Unconscious attitudes toward Muslims and interaction quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 161-166. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: Wiley. Houben, K., Wiers, R. W., & Roefs, A. (2006). Reaction time measures of substance-related associations. In R. W. Wiers & A. W. Stacy (Eds.), Handbook of unconscious cognition and addiction (pp. 91-104). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Kaufmann, L. M. (2012). The Go/No Go Association Task as a New Technology for Teaching Anti-Prejudice. proceedings of the ASCILITE Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, 25-28 November 2012. Leeuw, M., Peters, M. L., Wiers, R. W., & Vlaeyen, J. W. S. (2007). Measuring fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain using unconscious measures. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 36(1), 52-64. Ranganath, K. A., Smith, C. T., & Nosek, B. A. (2008). Distinguishing automatic and controlled components of attitudes from direct and indirect measurement methods. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2), 386-396. Sherman, J. W., Stroessner, S. J., Conrey, F. R., & Azam, O. A. (2005). Prejudice and stereotype maintenance processes: Attention, attribution and individuation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 89(4), 607-622. Smith, P. K., & Dijksterhuis, A., & Chaiken, S. (2008). Subliminal exposure to faces and racial attitudes: Exposure to White makes Whites like Blacks less. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 50-64. Spence, A., & Townsend, E. (2006). Unconscious attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) foods: A comparison of context-free and context-dependent evaluations. Appetite, 46(1), 67-74. Spence, A., & Townsend, E. (2007). Predicting behavior towards genetically modified food using unconscious and explicit attitudes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(2), 437-457. Teachman, B. A. (2007). Evaluating unconscious spider fear associations using the Go/No Go Association Task. Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 38(2), 156-167. Williams, B. J. & Kaufmann, L. M. (2012). Reliability of the Go/No Go Association Task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 897-891. Mitchell, J. P., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Contextual variations in unconscious evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 132(3), 455-469. Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The Go/No-Go Association Task. Social Cognition, 19(6), 625-664. Nosek, B. A. (2005). Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 565-584.