Female participants

RT depended on Gender Compatibility and Race Compatibility, but both compatibility effects were modulated by Task. For the gender task, the task-relevant gender IAT effect was 76 ms, and the task-irrelevant race IAT effect was 7 ms. For the race task, the task-relevant race IAT effect was 55 ms, and the task-irrelevant gender IAT effect was 21 ms. Thus, the IAT effects were larger when the corresponding dimension was task-relevant than when it was task-irrelevant in general. The two types of compatibility also interacted. Although these two factors did not interact with Task, interesting patterns did emerge when the interaction between the two types of compatibility is assessed separately for the two tasks (see Figure 1). For the gender task, the interaction reflected the outcome that there was 40 ms of the task-irrelevant race IAT effect (p p= .013) when the genders were mapped incompatibly with the inducer category. Similarly, for the race task, there was 51 ms of the task-irrelevant gender IAT effect (p p = .463) when the races were mapped incompatibly with the inducer category. In short, the task-irrelevant IAT effect was significant for the blocks with compatible mappings but was reversed or eliminated for the blocks with incompatible mappings (for which participants had to overcome the implicit bias toward the task-relevant categories).

PE showed that responses were generally more accurate for the gender task (M = 4.62%) than for the race task (M = 7.44%). Responses were also more accurate when gender was compatible with the inducer category (M = 5.29%) than when it was incompatible (M = 6.76%), but there was a nonsignificant trend that this gender IAT effect depended on the task; there was no effect (M = 0%) for the gender task and 2.5% for the race task. No other effect reached significance.

Male participants

Consistent with a number of previous studies (e.g., Aidman & Carroll, 2003; Mitchell et al., 2003; Nosek & Banaji, 2001), Gender Compatibility produced only a marginal effect, whereas Race Compatibility produced a significant effect. However, both compatibility effects depended on Task (although the interaction was only marginal for Gender Compatibility). The gender IAT effect was 39 ms (p = .047) for the gender task and it was 2 ms (p = .697) for the race task; the race IAT effect was 101 ms (p p = .054) for the gender task. No other effects were significant. As was the case for female participants, the task-irrelevant IAT effect was examined separately for the compatible and incompatible mapping blocks. For the gender task, the task-irrelevant race effect was 28 ms (p= .006) in the compatible mapping block and 0 ms (p = .991) in the incompatible mapping block. For the race task, the task-irrelevant gender effect was 7 ms (p = .352) in the compatible mapping block and 3 ms (p = .721) in the incompatible block. Thus, the race IAT effect still occurred even when the race was an irrelevant attribute, and the effect depended on whether the task-relevant gender attribute was mapped compatibly or incompatibly to the inducer category. The gender IAT effect did not occur reliably for male participants regardless of their relevance to the task.

1)What is the approximate response time (in milliseconds) of the Race Incompatible/Gender Compatible condition in Figure 1 (A) graph?

2) Which condition has the longest response time in Figure 1 (B) graph?

3) look at the Race IAT data and state which race condition (Race Compatible or Incompatible) was more congruent for:

1. Female participants

b.Male Participants

4)Based on your answer for Question3, do male and female participants show the same pattern of response times? Explain in your own words what this pattern of results means. (Hint: reflect on the relationship between response times and congruent pairings) (1)

yenue) 2 (Falu Cumpallomly) 2 ( Ulei Cumpally) allaly S13 UI Vallalile (AVOVA). All lalIUIS WIWILI Suojel Vallabies. TIL that several previous studies found the gender IAT effect for female participants but not for male participants (e.g., Meissner & Rothermund, 2013; Mitchell et al., 2003), so we analyzed the data separately for female and male participants. RT and PE are summarized in Figure 1 and in Table 2, respectively. The results of ANOVAs are summarized in Table 3. Gender IAT Race IAT Race Comp S Race Incomp Gender Comp Gender Incomp Response Time (ms) Response Time (ms) Gender Comp Gender Incomp Race Comp Race Incomp C Race Comp Race Incomp Gender Comp Gender Incomp Response Time (ms) Response Time (ms) Gender Comp Gender Incomp Race Comp Race Incomp Figure 1. Mean response times for female (A and B) and male (C and D) participants in the Gender and Race Implicit Association Test (IAT) tasks, error bars are SEMs. yenue) 2 (Falu Cumpallomly) 2 ( Ulei Cumpally) allaly S13 UI Vallalile (AVOVA). All lalIUIS WIWILI Suojel Vallabies. TIL that several previous studies found the gender IAT effect for female participants but not for male participants (e.g., Meissner & Rothermund, 2013; Mitchell et al., 2003), so we analyzed the data separately for female and male participants. RT and PE are summarized in Figure 1 and in Table 2, respectively. The results of ANOVAs are summarized in Table 3. Gender IAT Race IAT Race Comp S Race Incomp Gender Comp Gender Incomp Response Time (ms) Response Time (ms) Gender Comp Gender Incomp Race Comp Race Incomp C Race Comp Race Incomp Gender Comp Gender Incomp Response Time (ms) Response Time (ms) Gender Comp Gender Incomp Race Comp Race Incomp Figure 1. Mean response times for female (A and B) and male (C and D) participants in the Gender and Race Implicit Association Test (IAT) tasks, error bars are SEMs