Word Association Tests of Associative Memory and Implicit Processes: Theoretical and Assessment Issues

Abstract

Word association is one of the most commonly used measures of association in cognitive science. These restS have been used ro infer association parameters in normative studies, to derive cues and primes used in diverse paradigms (semantic priming, cued recall, illusory memory), to test implicit memory in experimental studies, and to suggest the operation of implicit processes in nonexperimental work. This chapter briefly ourlines some of the historical routes and current controversies about association and summarizes basic cognitive research applying associative tests. The authors then describe benefits and limitations of the rests, as well as implications for theory and interventions on drug use. T his chapter briefly outlines some of the historical ro utes of word association and then summarizes several of the major streams of basic cognitive research revealing the value of these tests. We delineate several current controversies from this basic research and suggest why they are critical for understanding drug-related cognitions and behavior. We then address benefits, limitations , and further implications of the testS.

Self-coded indirect memory associations and

“…The variance in levels of alcohol and marijuana use was significantly correlated with corresponding substance-use memory associations that were coded using standard procedures . These findings are consistent with many previous demonstrations of concurrent prediction of substance use (Ames et al, 2007;Krank & Goldstein, 2006;Krank & Wall, 2006;Rooke, Hine, & Thorsteinsson, 2008;Stacy, 1995Stacy, , 1997Stacy et al, 2006).…”

“…These approaches share the assumption that decisions to engage in substance use are influenced by substance-use cognitions. In particular, growing evidence suggests that both implicit and explicit measures of substance-use associations not only correlate with levels of substance use but also presage initiation and escalation of substance use (Kelly, Masterman, & Marlatt, 2005;Krank & Wall, 2006;Stacy et al, 2006).…”

“…The method generates responses that are spontaneous, possibly implicit (Ames et al, 2007;Stacy et al, 2006), and accessible (Frigon & Krank, 2009). Importantly, these measures predict unique variance in substance use greater than is predicted by a variety of risk factors and explicit measures of association such as outcome expectancies (Ames et al, 2007;Krank & Goldstein, 2006;Stacy et al, 2006). Indirect word association tests are important because they capture accessible implicit memories that are relevant to substance use and that are not captured by direct methods.…”

The Dominance of Associative Theorizing in Implicit Attitude Research: Propositional and Behavioral Alternatives

“…Indeed, within the last 15 years a burgeoning industry of associative procedures has dominated social psychology research on implicit social cognition including the gNAT, the SingleCategory IAT (Karpinski & Steinman, 2006), Single-Target IAT (Wigboldus, Holland, & van Knippenberg, 2004), the Implicit Association Procedure (Schnabel, Banse, & Asendorpf, 2006), the Single-Association Test (Blanton, Jaccard, gonzales, & Christie, 2006), the Word Association Test (Stacy, Ames, & grenard, 2007), the Sorting Paired Features Task (Bar-Anan, Nosek, & Vianello, 2009), and the brief IAT (Sriram & greenwald, 2009). Though methodologically diverse, all these various procedures share a common design purpose: to provide an estimate of the strength of mental association between stimuli through pairing stimuli in space and/or time.…”

Implicit cognitive processes in psychopathology: An introduction

“…In addition, implicit measures can help to increase our understanding of the functional relationship between implicit processes and psychopathology. For instance, implicit cognition measures can be used to predict treatment outcomes (e.g., Cox, Hogan, Kristian, & Race, 2002;Teachman & Woody, 2003), or to investigate whether an existing treatment has a differential impact on implicit versus explicit cognitive processes (e.g., Teachman & Smith-Janik, 2005;Teachman & Woody, 2003;1 We note, however, that more controlled methods of assessing first associations have proven valuable in memory research and in applications to psychopathology (e.g., Stacy, 1997;Stacy et al, 2006). Wiers, Van de Luitgaarden, Van den Wildenberg, & Smulders, 2005).…”