h********c
发帖数: 223 | 1 You can click "demonstration" and go into the demonstration tests. The tests
messures your implicit attitudes toward various things (e.g. age, gender,
race, election, president, sexuality, asian, disability, religion, etc.) Click
on the test you want to do and follow the instruction. You must complete the
test fast enough in order to get a good result.
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ | A***A
发帖数: 98 | 2 the academic community is still debating the validity of IAT. i personally
think that it measures something, it's just i don't feel as comfortable as
Greenwald et al by calling it an implicit measure of your "prejudice" against
the african americans etc.
i find the whole approach of taking difference scores and the way of using
reaction time data as they did is basically psychometrically unsound. for
example, the constructs they're measuring with IAT are very stable traits, but
their tests ha
【在 h********c 的大作中提到】
: You can click "demonstration" and go into the demonstration tests. The tests
: messures your implicit attitudes toward various things (e.g. age, gender,
: race, election, president, sexuality, asian, disability, religion, etc.) Click
: on the test you want to do and follow the instruction. You must complete the
: test fast enough in order to get a good result.
: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
| r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 3
against
but
Reliability is the upper bound of validity. What you said makes a lot of
sense.
【在 A***A 的大作中提到】
: the academic community is still debating the validity of IAT. i personally
: think that it measures something, it's just i don't feel as comfortable as
: Greenwald et al by calling it an implicit measure of your "prejudice" against
: the african americans etc.
: i find the whole approach of taking difference scores and the way of using
: reaction time data as they did is basically psychometrically unsound. for
: example, the constructs they're measuring with IAT are very stable traits, but
: their tests ha
| a*e
发帖数: 431 | 4 A lot of people have the same complaint that IAT is not indeed measuring
prejudice or whatsoever. I am not a fan of IAT either. But once you are
involved in research topics such as prejudice, you may find it extremely hard
to explicitly measure anyone's attitude toward minority groups. IAT and other
implicit measures are worthwhile to explore.
Goldberg and Saucier once argued with Jack Block at Berkeley about the
appropriate means to understand personality. One thing that impressed me the
m
【在 A***A 的大作中提到】
: the academic community is still debating the validity of IAT. i personally
: think that it measures something, it's just i don't feel as comfortable as
: Greenwald et al by calling it an implicit measure of your "prejudice" against
: the african americans etc.
: i find the whole approach of taking difference scores and the way of using
: reaction time data as they did is basically psychometrically unsound. for
: example, the constructs they're measuring with IAT are very stable traits, but
: their tests ha
|
|
