Date post: | 31-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | jonah-underwood |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
The Hitler You Know and Love: Piloting an Idiographic IRAP
Anke LehnertKelsey SchulerTravis SainSam KramerChad E. DrakeSouthern Illinois University Carbondale
Existing Idiographic IAT Research Olson & Fazio, 2004 (see also: Houben & Wiers, 2007)
The Implicit Association Test has gained widesreach popularity in psychology (e.g. In researching phenomena as self-esteem and prejudice)
Researchers propose that the IAT is affected by extrapersonal associations (Environmental associations (Kapinksy & Hilton, 2001))
Idiographic version of the IAT may be able to avoid these?
Existing Idiographic IAT Research
Methods to individualize the IAT „I like“ and „I don’t like” instead of “pleasant” and “unpleasant”
No error feedback
Evaluation-laden items for which there is little social consensus
Results Modified IAT resulted in weaker results, implying less prejudice
Personalized IAT correlated highly with explicit measures, behavioral intentions, and past behavior
A Preliminary Study
Explore effects of an idiographic IRAP compared to a generic IRAP
Generic IRAP stimuli – widely known historical figures: Lincoln/Hitler
Idiographic IRAPs may result in larger D-scores
Idiographic IRAP scores may correlate better with self-reported opinions about people (prediction is important)
Participants Convenience sample College students n=69 76.8% female, 23.2% male Race/ethnicity: 37 white, 27 black or African-
American, 6 Hispanic or Latino, 4 Asian, 2 American Indian or Alaska Native
Mean age: 18.67, standard deviation: 1.41 Religion: 51 Christian, 7 Other, 6 Agnostic, 3 Atheist, 1
Buddhist, 1 Muslim
Idiographic vs. Nomothetic IRAP
So far, most IRAP research has been conducted with nomothetic stimuli – meaning they were the same for all participants.
An idiographic IRAP entails stimuli provided by each participant.
Name of a Person You Regard Positively
Please print the name of someone who you personally know and have a positive relationship with. By positive, we mean a person you might describe as kind, dependable, loyal, trustworthy, fun, admirable, supportive, etc. – in other words, someone who has affected you in a very positive way. This person could be an acquaintance, friend, romantic partner, or family member. Whoever it is, it needs to be someone who you currently think and feel positively about.
Name of a Person You Regard Negatively
Please print the name of someone who you personally know and have a negative relationship with. By negative, we mean a person you might describe as cruel, dishonest, manipulative, hurtful, selfish, two-faced, heartless, etc. – in other words, someone who has affected you in a very negative way. This person could be a current or past acquaintance, friend, romantic partner, or family member. Whoever it is, it needs to be someone you currently think and feel negatively about.
Procedure – Condition 1 – Lincoln/Friend/Lincoln
or FriendIRAP
LincolnIRAP
LincolnIRAP
DemographicsNames QuestionnaireHitler/Lincoln Questionnaire Positive Relationship QuestionnaireNegative Relationship Questionnaire
Procedure – Condition 2 – Friend/Lincoln/Friend
or
FriendIRAP
FriendIRAP
LincolnIRAP
DemographicsNames QuestionnaireHitler/Lincoln Questionnaire Positive Relationship QuestionnaireNegative Relationship Questionnaire
IRAPS – Stimuli and TargetsSamples
Lincoln/Friend
Hitler/Enemy
Targets GoodFriendNiceSafeTrustworthyCaring
BadEnemyCruelDangerousSelfishHateful
Consistent Blocks / Lincoln IRAP
Abraham Lincoln
Good
Press ‘d’ for True
Press ‘k’ for False
Adolf Hitler
Good
Press ‘d’for True
Press ‘k’ for False
Abraham Lincoln
Bad
Press ‘d’ for True
Press ‘k’ for False
Adolf Hitler
Bad
Press ‘d’ for True
Press ‘k’ for False
Choose This Choose This
Choose This Choose This
Inconsistent Blocks – Lincoln IRAP
Abraham Lincoln
Good
Press ‘d’ for True
Press ‘k’ for False
Adolf Hitler
Good
Press ‘d’for True
Press ‘k’ for False
Abraham Lincoln
Bad
Press ‘d’ for True
Press ‘k’ for Different
Adolf Hitler
Bad
Press ‘d’ for True
Press ‘k’ for False
Choose This Choose This
Choose This
Choose This
Consistent Blocks – Friend IRAP
Name of Friend
Good
Press ‘d’ for True
Press ‘k’ for False
Name of Enemy
Good
Press ‘d’for True
Press ‘k’ for False
Name of Friend
Bad
Press ‘d’ for True
Press ‘k’ for False
Name of Enemy
Bad
Press ‘d’ for True
Press ‘k’ for False
Choose This Choose This
Choose This Choose This
Inconsistent Blocks – Friend IRAPName of Friend
Good
Press ‘d’ for True
Press ‘k’ for False
Name of Enemy
Good
Press ‘d’for True
Press ‘k’ for False
Name of Friend
Bad
Press ‘d’ for True
Press ‘k’ for Different
Name of Enemy
Bad
Press ‘d’ for True
Press ‘k’ for False
Choose This Choose This
Choose This Choose This
Attrition
IRAP 1 IRAP 2 IRAP 30
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
77.1
88.6 88.685.3
94.1 94.1
Lincoln-Friend-Lincoln Friend-Lincoln-Friend
Results
IRAP 1 IRAP 2 IRAP 385
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Percent Correct Averages
Condition 1 Consistent Condition 1 Inconsistent Condition 2 Consistent Condition 2 Inconsistent
IRAP 1 IRAP 2 IRAP 30
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Average Median Latency
Condition 1 Consistent Condition 1 Inconsistent Condition 2 Consistent Condition 2 Inconsistent
Results
1st IRAP
Hitler/enemy - bad
Hitler/enemy - good
Lincoln/friend - bad
Lincoln/friend - good
overall D
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Lincoln/Hitler
Friend/Enemy
pro Hitler/enemy pro Lincoln/friend
0.367
0.773**
1.170**
1.135**
0.154
0.805**
-0.383
-0.586*
0.398*
0.355
2nd IRAP
Hitler/enemy - bad
Hitler/enemy - good
Lincoln/friend - bad
Lincoln/friend - good
overall D
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Friend/Enemy
Lincoln/Hitler
pro Hitler/enemy pro Lincoln/friend
0.854**
0.607**
1.104**
1.288**
0.727**
0.262
-0.744**
-0.507**
0.488*
0.430*
3rd IRAP
Hitler/enemy - bad
Hitler/enemy - good
Lincoln/friend - bad
Lincoln/friend - good
overall D
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Lincoln/Hitler
Friend/Enemy
pro Hitler/enemy pro Lincoln/friend
0.923**
1.085**
1.406**
1.965**
0.652**
0.920**
-0.496**
-0.363*
0.540**
0.421*
Split-Half Reliabilities
Condition 1 – Lincoln / Friend / Lincoln
IRAP 1: r=.543, n=27, p=.030
IRAP 2: r=.388, n=31, p=.031
IRAP 3: r=.110, n=31, p=.555
Condition 2 – Friend / Lincoln / Friend
IRAP 1: r=.249, n=29, p=.193
IRAP 2: r=.305, n=32, p=.890
IRAP 3: r=.090, n=32, p=.625
Discussion & Limitations
Attrition (Lin/Fri/Lin: 8 out of 35, Fri/Lin/Fri: 5 out of 34)
Convenience sample, homogeneous
Maximize reliability
Generic IRAP?
Pro Hitler/enemy effect
Group difference lincoln-bad and friend-bad is unstable
No obvious correlation to self reports (no reliable self-report measures)
Split-half reliability – no obvious differences between idiographic and nomothetic IRAPs
Explore correlation with self-reports
Future research: idiographic evaluative target words