2013
DOI: 10.1080/00220973.2013.813357
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Implicit Association Tests of Attitudes Toward Persons With Disabilities

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
17
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
6
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, the results are limited by the heavy weight of explicit attitudes and behavioral intentions as indicators of the latent destigmatization variable. The weak association between implicit and explicit measures of attitudes is in line with existing research (Thomas, Vaughn, Doyle, & Bubb, 2014), and though weaker, the weight of implicit attitudes (DA-IAT; Pruett & Chan, 2006) as an indicator of the latent destigmatization variable was significant and in the expected direction. One possible interpretation is that explicit attitudes are more easily controllable, and that changes in explicit attitudes therefore precede changes in deeply rooted implicit attitudes that are more difficult to control—even when individuals are willing to change.…”
Section: Summary and Concluding Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Finally, the results are limited by the heavy weight of explicit attitudes and behavioral intentions as indicators of the latent destigmatization variable. The weak association between implicit and explicit measures of attitudes is in line with existing research (Thomas, Vaughn, Doyle, & Bubb, 2014), and though weaker, the weight of implicit attitudes (DA-IAT; Pruett & Chan, 2006) as an indicator of the latent destigmatization variable was significant and in the expected direction. One possible interpretation is that explicit attitudes are more easily controllable, and that changes in explicit attitudes therefore precede changes in deeply rooted implicit attitudes that are more difficult to control—even when individuals are willing to change.…”
Section: Summary and Concluding Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…The t-test result supported that participants' implicit attitudes were statistically and significantly below 0, t(171) = −5.84, p < .001. This outcome matched with a general assumption that implicit attitudes toward PWDs are negative (Thomas, Vaughn, Doyle, & Bubb, 2014). The test-retest reliability (tested within the same session) was .78 for DA-IAT, and its correlation with ATDP (Form A) was .06 (Pruett & Chan, 2006).…”
Section: Measurementsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…The stimuli used are symbols of people with disabilities and nondisabled people, and word stimuli are used to represent good and bad (Nosek et al, 2007). Several studies have shown the DA-IAT’s construct validity, discriminant validity, and reliability (Aaberg, 2012; Pruett, 2004; Pruett & Chan, 2006; Thomas, Vaughn, Doyle, & Bubb, 2014; White, Jackson, & Gordon, 2006).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%