Read with Caution: This Blog May Change What You Think You Think About the Things About Which You Think

Implicit Association Tests (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1988) are used to reveal an individual's internal thoughts because we do not always understand the inner workings of our own mind. Basically, IAT's examine the discrepancies between our conscious thoughts and beliefs, and our unconscious thoughts and beliefs. In addition, IAT's measure the association between two concepts, such as a politician and religiosity. An IAT works by asking the individual to report his or her attitudes on a specific subject by categorizing and distinguishing between two polar opposites within the topic (i.e. age: old and young, race: black and white, weight: fat and thin, etc.). Words or images representing the categories appear on the screen and the individual taking the test must sort the word or image into its category. The tasks are timed and involve multiple parts, in which the categories change or switch sides (left and right) of the screen.

The IAT's that I took were: Disability ('Disabled - Abled' IAT), Religion ('Judaism - Other Religions' IAT), 2008 Presidential Election IAT, Arab-Muslim ('Arab Muslim - Other People' IAT), and Presidents ('Presidential Popularity' IAT).

For the most part, my test results were consistent with my conscious beliefs. The two IAT's concerning past presidents and presidential candidates stated that I had a moderate automatic preference for Bill Clinton over George W. Bush, and a moderate automatic preference for Barack Obama over John McCain. These results were in line with my conscious thoughts, because if asked about my political preferences, I would say that I prefer Clinton over Bush, and Obama over McCain. However, for the IAT's concerning Disability, Religion, and Arab-Muslim beliefs, my test results were not what I would consider consistent with my conscious beliefs. For example, I have friends with disabilities, I have friends and family members who are Jewish, and I have friends who are Muslim. But my results for each of these tests revealed that I have moderate or slight automatic preferences for people without disabilities, people of religions other than Judaism, and people of ethnicities other than Arab-Muslim.

I think the reason why I obtained results consistent with my conscious beliefs on the IAT's concerning political preferences was because both of the categories in the two tests (Clinton and Bush, Obama and McCain) have both negative and positive connotations. However, due to the media and society in general, people with disabilities, people who are Jewish, and people who are Arab-Muslim tend to be seen as having negative connotations more often than they are viewed as having positive connotations. It is possible that I was primed to rate people outside of these three categories as more preferable. Although I openly accept people with disabilities, people who are Jewish, and people who are Arab-Muslim, comments from those around me who might not accept people who fit into these categories may have influenced my unconscious attitudes towards them.

I think the IAT is showing my "true" attitude on the tests of political preferences, but I think the IAT is showing attitudes that I am working to change on the tests about Disability, Religion, and Arab-Muslim beliefs. I believe that I am in transition when it comes to my beliefs about these three categories. My parents are very open-minded and accepting, thus I was raised to be accepting of others and their differences, but I was also taught to understand the importance of learning and experiencing things for myself. For this reason, I have been exploring (and will continue to explore) my relationships with others who differ from me. I accept who they are and their differences, but I am still susceptible to "popular beliefs". For example, although I work to encourage acceptance of people with disabilities, popular beliefs (which I and others hear on a daily basis) may say that people with disabilities are not as good as people without disabilities, and this may alter our perceptions of people with disabilities unconsciously. Therefore, I am in transition and learning to accept others and their differences, yet I do feel as though I am influenced by those around me, my social context.

Completing the IAT's did make me think about stereotypes and prejudice differently from how I did before because it showed me that conscious acceptance of a group of people does not necessarily signify unconscious acceptance of that group. Although I consciously state that I accept others who differ in disability, religion, and ethnicity, unconsciously, I am not fully accepting of these groups of people. It just goes to show that we can always work harder to avoid thinking less of people simply because of their membership in a specific group, regardless of whether or not this 'membership' is chosen or unchosen. Just because we can say that we accept someone who is considered different does not mean that we really believe it, even when we think we do! It is possible that we create stereotypes and prejudice each day in our unconscious, without ever realizing it or bringing attention to it.

The IAT that I decided to retake was the Disability ('Disabled - Abled' IAT). I tried focusing in more on the test itself and what positivity and/or negativity in relation to people with or without disabilities meant to me on a personal level, instead of just taking the test as an indifferent, apathetic participant in a study. I ended up being successful because my results the second time around revealed that I have a slight automatic preference for people with disabilities compared to people without disabilities. This makes me think that the IAT could use some work. Although these tests do make us think more carefully about stereotyping and the fact they we may be guilty of it unconsciously, as soon as we realize this, we have the potential to change our test results because we are actively trying to obtain specific results, as opposed to our first test-taking experience, in which we go in without specific goals. Basically, if the IAT's are intended to be taken more than once, some revisions need to be made to take into account the fact that an individual's results the first time he or she takes the test may influence his or her goals and expectations for the second time the individual takes the test.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1988). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.