Completing the Implicit Association Test Reduces Positive Intergroup Interaction Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is frequently suggested that increasing awareness of intergroup bias and limited control over biased responses can improve intergroup interaction behavior. Some uses of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) epitomize this approach to improving intergroup relations. However, if completing the IAT enhances caution and inhibition, reduces self-efficacy, or primes categorical thinking, the test may instead have negative effects. Two experiments demonstrated that when White individuals completed a race-relevant IAT prior to an intergroup interaction (as compared with when they did not), their interaction partner left the exchange feeling less positively regarded. No such effect was evident when White individuals completed a race-irrelevant IAT (Study 1) or an explicit prejudice measure (Study 2) before the exchange, or when their interaction partner was White (Study 1). Mediation analyses (Study 2) suggested that White participants who completed the IAT communicated less positive regard because they adopted a cautious approach to the interaction, limiting their self-disclosure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".