Talk:Implicit-association test

message: "Neither of these trends of attributing more positive or negative attributes to a specific sexual identity as seen with homosexual respondents"
is not a sentence, and I cannot discern what meaning was intended.  Could somebody who understands the intended meaning (or source) please fix?  I thought maybe "as" was a typo for "is" and might have made a minor fix of it as such, but then this sentence would directly contradict the previous sentence, without any bridging acknowledgement of mixed results if indeed that's the case. I would like someone more familiar with the subject to resolve this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.246.18 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence fragment needs fix 

message: I feel terrible to delete an entire paragraph, not that it was necessarily wrong, but it was a vague and unrelated to an entry on Implicit Association Test.  The relationship between brain imaging and psychological studies is important - and part of some other page or topic, not part of the IAT page. There are many ways in which imaging is being used to connect social and pyschological concepts, for better or for worse, for example search for neuroeconomics-related articles on google. --Minik 00:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: I'd like to see someone either add references, or have us remove some of the unsupported material here.  As a researcher in the field, the IAT is treated with the same respect other measures are--that is, not the be all end all, but something useful for certain purposes.  These 'caveats' make it seem like criticism of the IAT has been particularly forceful; most of the critiques have been answered, and many of the critics themselves use the IAT where they feel it is appropriate, so the tenor of the comments here is misleading.  I'd like to hear responses if anyone feels that isn't an accurate portrayal, otherwise I'll go ahead and make some changes in a few days. SlipperyN 01:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made changes and provided references.  Feedback welcome! SlipperyN 15:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with unreferenced material? 

message: Claiming that something is 'one-sided' without providing argument and references is a violation of NPOV.  In any case, the debates are covered in the main text of the article so don't need to be rehashed in what is simply a list of external links!  If people want to add more to the controversy, that may be fair as long as an accurate portrayal of the overall view of the field is portrayed--but weasel words like 'one-sided' are not appropriate, nor is repeating critiques that are already in the text in the external links section.SlipperyN 14:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Violations in References Section

message: I have no experience with the use of IAT-like methods in clinical research, but that section (sentence) either needs some work or should be removed. The specific textual mention of Bethany Teachman's research is out of place on a methods page. If Teachman's work is the example that should be used, the citation should also go to somewhere more informative than her homepage.Surfoslo (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: IAT in Clinical Research

message: Hi everyone, I'm a social psychologist who is working on a study that involves the IAT. I thought I would simultaneously try to improve this article as I go through the literature. I just started and plan to add more content in the upcoming days/weeks. I'm open to any and all suggestions for improvement. I'd like to upload an image of an IAT screenshot, but just need to figure out how to do that without violating any copyrights. Hopefully we can get this up to "Good Article" status. Haley love (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Screenshots of copyrighted software can be uploaded under fair use. Screenshots of open source software can usually be uploaded under a free license. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision May 2011

message: I've reverted edits by JorisvS to render "Implicit Association Test" as "Implicit-Association Test" (with hyphen). The unhyphenated version is the WP:COMMONNAME. Any evidence to the contrary? —Eustress talk 19:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's the association that's implicit, not the test, so the hyphen is correct.  Punctuation and formatting do not fall under COMMONNAME.  If you were going to claim that, you'd need to capitalize, but we don't do that either.  Clarity is important with technical jargon, and falsely implying that the IAT is an implicit test of association is not helpful.  In the lit where the audience can be expected to be familiar with the terminology or the concepts, hyphens are commonly dropped, but we have a general audience and so do not have that luxury.  — kwami (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: IAT or I-AT

message: I don't have time to go through and add myself, but this new source from the Chronicle of Higher Ed might be worth integrating into the article: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-We-Really-Measure-Implicit/238807
-Dan Eisenberg (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New critiques to add from Chronicle of higher ed article? 

message: Think of using this in this article: "Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases" . In short and simplifying it, IAT results strongly correlate with (objective) word frequency in corpora and with real life data, e.g. "Figure 1. Occupation-gender association..." 
Zezen (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  AI confirms IAT 

message: :: Research with the Sexuality IAT shows that homosexual individuals have an implicit preference for heterosexuals, associating them with more positive attributes, and associating homosexuals with negative attributes.  In contrast, bisexual individuals indicated a preference for heterosexuals over homosexuals, specifically as a result of attributing homosexuals to negative attributes.
What is the contrast here?  According to this, despite slight differences in wording, both homosexuals and bisexuals indicated have an implicit preference for heterosexuals over homosexuals?  Or was there a typo and homosexuals actually have an implicit preference for homosexuals?
:: Neither of these trends of attributing more positive or negative attributes to a specific sexual identity as seen with homosexual respondents.
This is an incomplete sentence and I can't even tell what it's trying to say.  Seems that something was deleted before "as seen with homosexual respondents".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C07F:C00:E01F:9A44:F909:8B4E (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valence section makes no sense 

message: "Implicit Association Test" or "implicit association test" is what is universally used, both in scholarship and popular media. I have not seen a single instance where it is written "implicit-association test", with the hyphen. It was moved in 2013 to "Implicit association test" citing common usage, but reverted with the message "punctuation per MOS". The person who reverted the edit elaborated here on this talk page that "Punctuation and formatting do not fall under COMMONNAME", but I don't see where the Manual of Style says that. The Manual of Style does say, however, that "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." WP:NAMINGCRITERIA says:
* Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
* Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
* Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. 
* Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. 
* Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.
By the "naturalness" criterion, "implicit association test" is significantly better than "implicit-association test", which I have not seen in the first nine pages of Google search results outside of Wikipedia. In addition, hyphenation rules in English are not very firm, and I think common usage both in scholarship and in respected media overrides the instinct to hyphenate a compound noun modifier.
I'd almost argue for capitalization based on how common usage seems to make it into a proper noun, but some sources do use lowercase "the implicit association test", and this article also can discuss implicit association tests besides the original one, so we can keep the article title lowercase. —Enervation (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Implicit association test" (without hyphen)