What colour is it: is the IAT just a black & white Stroop test?
I would like you to do a little test.
Please name these colours as quickly as you can (say them out loud):
And now read out the colour of these words:
So far, so good! And now read out the colour these words:
These are more difficult. You probably found the task a little confusing, and the confusion would lead to a delay in responding.
This is a well-known phenomenon in psychology[1] (there is even a t-shirt available), taking its name, ‘Stroop Effect’, from the study published by John Stroop in 1935.[2]
When the name of a colour (e.g., “blue,” “green,” or “red”) is printed in a colour not denoted by the name (e.g., the word “red” printed in blue ink instead of red ink), naming the colour of the word takes longer and is more prone to errors than when the colour of the ink matches the name of the colour.
When the colour of the ink and the word are incongruent (as in test 3 above), then semantic interference takes place and response times are slow. Semantic facilitation occurs when the colours of ink and word match; this leads to a quicker response time.
Another way of understanding this effect is to consider the way that our minds ‘work’.
Our brain has two systems or processes or two ways of thinking. Daniel Kahneman[3] has characterised these as System 1 (fast) and System 2 (slow).
System 1 corresponds to our subconscious; we use it when no thinking is called for; it is automatic for routine decisions and evaluations; it is linked with our emotional responses and corresponds to ‘intuition’, (also dare I suggest it, System 1 has certain characteristics similar to the Freudian ID).
On the other hand, System 2, the slower system, is us thinking before deciding or doing. This system is rational and represents us when being ‘thoughtful’. It helps us make decisions based on probable future consequences. It allows us to consider the costs and benefits of alternative action.
Why are these systems so different? For an understanding of this we can treat the mind as consisting of ‘clumps’ of knowledge; these are technically known as ‘schema’, and are highly connected associations of thoughts, ideas, colours, emotions, sounds, images and shapes.
For instance the word ‘dog’ will have its own clump or schema of associations.
There will be an image of a dog maybe; the idea of a 4-legged animal; a wagging tail; the script that we need to activate to pronounce the word ‘dog’; the sound of barking; images of going for walks in the woods; dog collars; dog food, sights; sounds; smells etc. etc. The list is endless!
One concept or idea links or associates with a host of others, that will include emotions and ‘how to’ scripts of action that instruct us, for instance, how to make a dog sit or return with a stick. We may also recall a particular black and white pet that is or was a particular favourite, “Spot” the dog:
All this knowledge is immediate and automatic, triggered by the word ‘dog’. It is there without us having to think too much about it. The speed of the recall of the associations reflects the strength of the associations. For instance, 4-legs and a tail and barking will probably be identified more quickly in the schema than dog-collar, chocolate drops and flea- powder.
Schematically, it could be represented like this (below), with distances representing strength of relationship, closer equals stronger associations, more distant equals weaker relationships:
The closer to the word DOG, the quicker the characteristic is recalled, the stronger the association and the more likely the relationship is to remain at a pre-conscious level, as implicit, automatic or intuitive knowledge.
If I was now to ask you whether the following are associated with ‘DOG’:
Collar Tail Flea Cat Lead Sunshine Fierce Letter Light-switch
The time it takes to respond ‘yes’ or ‘no’ would vary on the strength of the relationship (distance) between the two words. Some of the words may not reside within your ‘DOG’ schema at all. A definite ‘yes’ or a definite ‘no’ would be similarly quick responses.
In terms of Kahneman’s ‘thinking fast and slow’;
Dog – Collar ….is a fast decision, System 1 (fast positive)
Dog – Light-switch ….is a fast decision; System 1 (fast negative)
Dog – Letter ….is a slow decision; System 2 (postman?)
Dog – Sunshine ….is a slow decision; System 2 (“walkies”?)
Remember, in System 2 we are thinking how there might or might not be an association; in System 1 we know if there is an association or not!
The Stroop Effect can also be explained in this manner:
RED
…is a fast decision, System 1 (the word and ink colour are strongly associated within the same schema. They are congruent and semantic facilitation occurs).
BLUE
…is a slow decision, System 2 (the word and ink colour are incongruent and semantic interference occurs because there are two conflicting System 1 decisions available, blue or green?).
Now I would like to ask you whether the following are associated with ‘BLACK’:
Grubby, nasty, sooty, stained, unclean, menacing, threatening, bad, mean, nefarious, wicked
The short answer is that they all are[4].
For most of the words, we should be giving fast, System 1-type responses if asked whether they were linked with “Black”.
Now return to the list and repeat the exercise judging whether the same words are associated with ‘BLACKMAN’ or ‘BLACK WOMAN’.
Grubby, nasty, sooty, stained, unclean, menacing, threatening, bad, mean, nefarious, wicked
Are we still giving fast, System1-type responses?
Probably not! Our response times slow down and are now more like System 2 decisions. The decision about association would probably switch and now be in the negative. Why has adding ‘Man’ or ‘Woman’ to black changed the words associated with ‘black’?
What if your responses remain positive and are equally as fast as with the word ‘BLACK’? In other words, you are still giving System1 –type responses. What does this mean?
Does the speed of either set of responses justify labelling you a ‘racist’?
Are you 1 or 2?
[1] MacLeod CM (March 1991). “Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review”. Psychological Bulletin 109 (2): 163–203. (See: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/109/2/163/).
[2] Stroop, J. R., (1935). “Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions”; Journal of Experimental Psychology 18 (6): 643–662. (See: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Stroop/).
[3] Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow, Allen Lane 2011
[4] http://thesaurus.com/browse/black?s=t