The present research sought to explore the inherent ambiguity characteristic of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) as a function of the vague response labels that are typically employed. The goals were three-fold: 1) demonstrate the malleability of the traditionally employed IAT as a function of ambiguous valence labels; 2) investigate the consequences of the malleability by reexamining prior research interpreting the malleability of the IAT as an evidence of attitude change when no such change seemed likely; and 3) explore how the ambiguity present in the evaluative labels may also impact the construal of the category labels (ambiguity in the category labels).
Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrate the malleability of the IAT, as traditionally implemented. IAT scores are shown to be influenced by conversational norms and by perspective mindsets induced by an unrelated preceding task. Then, Experiments 3 and 4 illustrate how the malleability of the IAT can lead to the mistaken inference that attitude change has occurred even when there is very good reason to believe it has not. Experiments 5 and 6 demonstrate the ambiguity of the category labels (vis-à-vis) the ambiguous valence labels and how atypical stimulus exemplars can lead to redefinition of the category labels. Lastly, Experiment 7 illustrates the value of focused and unambiguous evaluative labels for deterring category redefinition. Together, the experiments suggest methodological improvements to enhance the validity of IAT measures.