Implicit Association Test (IAT)
A relative association measure based on performance under different shared response mappings.
Performance task The format describes how observations are obtained, not an evidence rating.
What it measures
Relative ease of pairing categories and attributes in a particular task.
What people do
Participants classify stimuli under alternating response mappings across seven blocks in standard protocols. Labels, exemplars, block order and practice affect the implementation.
What the scores mean
The widely used D score standardizes response-latency differences between combined blocks by the respondent’s pooled trial standard deviation and handles errors according to a defined algorithm. It is a relative contrast between two category pairings, not a direct probability of discriminatory behavior.
This explains the logic of a score. It does not supply a test form, individual result or administration manual.
Development and versions
Anthony Greenwald, Debbie McGhee and Jordan Schwartz introduced the IAT in 1998. Greenwald, Brian Nosek and Mahzarin Banaji evaluated improved D-score algorithms in 2003.
Evidence: (Greenwald et al., 1998); (Greenwald et al., 2003); (Steffens & Buchner, 2003); (Project Implicit: Frequently Asked Questions, n.d.); (Spielman et al., 2020)
Reliability and validity evidence
The 1998 paper established the paradigm, and the 2003 scoring paper compares D algorithms; Steffens and Buchner demonstrate between-situation variability in a particular IAT. Project Implicit’s explanations represent developer guidance. No score is presented here as an individual moral classification.
Evidence belongs to a version, sample and interpretation. Read the source notes for what was actually inspected.
Evidence: (Greenwald et al., 1998); (Greenwald et al., 2003); (Steffens & Buchner, 2003); (Project Implicit: Frequently Asked Questions, n.d.); (Spielman et al., 2020)
Where it is used
Research on associations, with explicit hypotheses about the categories and the behavior to be explained.
Limits and common misreadings
- Relative category pairings do not isolate one absolute attitude.
- A single occasion may not represent a stable trait.
- A difference in task latency does not determine intent or character.
Read an example
Original teaching example
A fictional researcher compares two category pairings. Faster performance in one mapping can support a relative association claim under that protocol; deciding what it predicts outside the task requires additional evidence.
Constructed for learning; this is not a result from the instrument’s validation study.
Access and permission
Check the exact software, stimulus assets and distribution terms. This site does not run an IAT or classify visitors.
Textbook connection
Related contextPsychology 2e: 2.2 Approaches to Research
Conceptual context; the instrument-specific sources in this profile provide the primary evidence.
Related measures
Read a measure critically · Explore score examples · Review research methods
Sources and inspection notes
Checked October 22, 2026. An inspection date is not a publication date. Publisher information is not presented as independent validation; abstract-only and indexed-excerpt access are identified below.
- Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.6.1464Consulted sourcePrimary research: indexed abstract
Foundational 1998 article introducing the categorized response-latency paradigm across three experiments. Does not establish individual diagnostic classification.
- Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. an improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197Consulted sourcePrimary research: indexed abstract
Alternative D-score algorithms and their evaluation inspected. Does not establish individual diagnostic accuracy or a moral classification.
- Project implicit: Frequently asked questions. (n.d.). https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/faqs.htmlDeveloper organization: explanation and interpretation guidance
Association-based interpretation and time-dependent score limitations inspected. Developer guidance is distinguished from an independent evidence review.
- Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020). Psychology 2e. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/2-2-approaches-to-researchTextbook: conceptual context
Conceptual context; the instrument-specific sources in this profile provide the primary evidence.
- Steffens, M. C., & Buchner, A. (2003). Implicit association test: Separating transsituationally stable and variable components of attitudes toward gay men. Experimental Psychology, 50(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1027//1618-3169.50.1.33Consulted sourcePrimary research: indexed abstract
Two studies found substantial between-situation variability despite internal consistency. This is a particular IAT implementation, not a coefficient for every IAT.