The Go/No-go Association Task (GNAT)

The GNAT (pronounced like the bug) is a flexible technique designed to measure implicit social cognition.  Conceptually similar to other implicit measures like the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, JPSP, 1998), the GNAT assesses automatic associations between concept (e.g., gender) and attribute (e.g., evaluation) categories.  The GNAT has two features that distinguish it from other measures of implicit social cognition.  First, the GNAT is designed to be use signal detection statistics in its calculation of automatic associations (d-prime), but can also be adapted to utilize response latency as its operational dependent variable.  Second, the GNAT is flexible in the establishing of contextual characteristics for the evaluative situation.  For example, the IAT requires an attitude toward one category (insects) be assessed relative to a second category (flowers). With the GNAT, experimenters can vary whether insects are evaluated in the context of a single category (flowers), a superordinate category (animals), a generic category (objects), or with no context at all. 

Project Implicit is a non-profit organization that provides access to its virtual laboratory infrastructure (especially implicit measures) for other researchers data collection purposes. If you are interested in learning more, see the description of services, and then contact services at

GNAT materials

Paper describing the technique and its primary features
[Abstract; Request paper]  Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The go/no-go association task.  Social Cognition, 19(6), 161-176.

Demonstration GNATs measuring automatic attitudes toward fruit and bugs
Requires Inquisit ( Note: This is a demonstration task only.  If you plan to use the GNAT for research, you should carefully review the parameters of the GNAT outlined in the above paper in the context of your research question.

Sample analysis programs and data for demonstration GNATs
Sample analysis program: SPSS datafileSample data. [Thanks to Gerd Bohner and Frank Siebler found an error in the original analysis file for calculating bias scores. See this file for a demonstration of the problem and the fix. The new SPSS file above corrects the problem.]

Data and scripts from 2001 paper

Appendix from Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Appendix: Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 181-198. Correction alternatives for empty cells in d' and bias analysis.


Papers that cite the original GNAT paper (Nosek & Banaji, 2001) to March 1, 2006

Devos, T; Banaji, MR. (2005). American = white?. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 88, 447-466.
Hofmann, W; Gawronski, B; Gschwendner, T; Le, H; Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, 31, 1369-1385.
Gregg, AP; Seibt, B; Banaji, MR. (2006). Easier done than undone: Asymmetry in the malleability of implicit preferences. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 90, 1-20.
Spence, A; Townsend, E. (2006). Implicit attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) foods: A comparison of context-free and context-dependent evaluations. APPETITE, 46, 67-74.
Robinson, MD; Meier, BP; Solberg, EC. (2005). What shields some can shackle others: The approach-related consequences of threat categorisations vary by agreeableness. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, 19, 575-594.
Gawronski, B; Bodenhausen, GV. (2005). Accessibility effects on implicit social cognition: The role of knowledge activation and retrieval experiences. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 89, 672-685.
Conner, T; Barrett, LF. (2005). Implicit self-attitudes predict spontaneous affect in daily life. EMOTION, 5, 476-488.
Bassett, JF; Dabbs, JM. (2005). A portable version of the go/no-go association task (GNAT). BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 37, 506-512.
Conrey, FR; Sherman, JW; Gawronski, B; Hugenberg, K; Groom, CJ. (2005). Separating multiple processes in implicit social cognition: The quad model of implicit task performance. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 89, 469-487.
Sherman, JW; Stroessner, SJ; Conrey, FR; Azam, OA. (2005). Prejudice and stereotype maintenance processes: Attention, attribution, and individuation. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 89, 607-622.
Sassenberg, K; Wieber, F. (2005). Don't ignore the other half: The impact of ingroup identification on implicit measures of prejudice. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 35, 621-632.
Robinson, MD; Meier, BP; Vargas, PT. (2005). Extraversion, threat categorizations, and negative affect: A reaction time approach to avoidance motivation. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, 73, 1397-1436.
Robinson, MD; Meier, BP; Zetocha, KJ; McCaul, KD. (2005). Smoking and the implicit association test: When the contrast category determines the theoretical conclusions. BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 27, 201-212.
Brendl, CM; Markman, AB; Messner, C. (2005). Indirectly measuring evaluations of several attitude objects in relation to a neutral reference point. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 41, 346-368.
Foroni, F; Mayr, U. (2005). The power of a story: New, automatic associations from a single reading of a short scenario. PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW, 12, 139-144.
Perugini, M. (2005). Predictive models of implicit and explicit attitudes. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 44, 29-45.
Arkes, HR; Tetlock, PE. (2004). Attributions of implicit prejudice, or "would Jesse Jackson 'fail' the implicit association test?". PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY, 15, 257-278.
Nosek, BA; Greenwald, AG; Banaji, MR. (2005). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, 31, 166-180.
Florack, A; Scarabis, M; Gosejohann, S. (2004). A typical clerk?: The influence of personal and extrapersonal associations on person perception. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SOZIALPSYCHOLOGIE, 35, 217-230.
Mitchell, AA. (2004). Implicit measures of consumer judgments and choice. ADVANCES IN CONSUMER RESEARCH, VOLUME XXXI, 31, 541-543.
Brunel, FF; Tietje, BC; Greenwald, AG. (2004). Is the implicit association test a valid and valuable measure of implicit consumer social cognition?. JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 14, 385-404.
Hausmann, LRA; Ryan, CS. (2004). Effects of external and internal motivation to control prejudice on implicit prejudice: The mediating role of efforts to control prejudiced responses. BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 26, 215-225.
Czopp, AM; Monteith, MJ; Zimmerman, RS; Lynam, DR. (2004). Implicit attitudes as potential protection from risky sex: Predicting condom use with the IAT. BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 26, 227-236.
Robinson, MD; Vargas, PT; Tamir, M; Solberg, EC. (2004). Using and being used by categories - The case of negative evaluations and daily well-being. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 15, 521-526.
Govan, CL; Williams, KD. (2004). Changing the affective valence of the stimulus items influences the IAT by re-defining the category labels. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 40, 357-365.
Devos, T; Banaji, MR. (2003). Implicit self and identity. SELF: FROM SOUL TO BRAIN, ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, 1001, 177-211.
Karpinski, A. (2004). Measuring self-esteem using the Implicit Association Test: The role of the other. PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, 30, 22-34.
Rudman, LA; Heppen, JB. (2003). Implicit romantic fantasies and women's interest in personal power: A glass slipper effect?. PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, 29, 1357-1370.
Palfai, TP; Ostafin, BD. (2003). Alcohol-related motivational tendencies in hazardous drinkers: assessing implicit response tendencies using the modified-IAT. BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY, 41, 1149-1162.
Mitchell, JP; Nosek, BA; Banaji, MR. (2003). Contextual variations in implicit evaluation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-GENERAL, 132, 455-469.
Kobayashi, C; Greenwald, AG. (2003). Implicit-explicit differences in self-enhancement for Americans and Japanese. JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, 34, 522-541.
Ashburn-Nardo, L; Knowles, ML; Monteith, MJ. (2003). Black Americans' implicit racial associations and their implications for intergroup judgment. SOCIAL COGNITION, 21, 61-87.
de Jong, PJ; van den Hout, MA; Rietbroek, H; Huijding, J. (2003). Dissociations between implicit and explicit attitudes toward phobic stimuli. COGNITION & EMOTION, 17, 521-545.
De Houwer, J. (2003). The extrinsic affective Simon task. EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 50, 77-85.
Voss, A; Rothermund, K; Wentura, D. (2003). Estimating the valence of single stimuli: A new variant of the affective Simon task. EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 50, 86-96.
Fazio, RH; Olson, MA. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. ANNUAL REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY, 54, 297-327.
Teachman, BA; Woody, SR. (2003). Automatic processing in spider phobia: Implicit fear associations over the course of treatment. JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL PSYCHOLOGY, 112, 100-109.
De Houwer, J. (2002). The Implicit Association Test as a tool for studying dysfunctional associations in psychopathology: strengths and limitations. JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR THERAPY AND EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHIATRY, 33, 115-133.
Gawronski, B. (2002). What does the Implicit Association Test measure? A test of the convergent and discriminant validity of prejudice-related IATs. EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 49, 171-180.
Nosek, BA; Banaji, MR; Greenwald, AG. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math not equal me. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 83, 44-59.
Blair, IV. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, 6, 242-261.
Blair, IV; Ma, JE; Lenton, AP. (2001). Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of implicit stereotypes through mental imagery. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 81(5), 828-841.


Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The go/no-go association task.  Social Cognition, 19(6), 625-666. [Request Paper ]

Theory is constrained by the quality and versatility of measurement tools. As such, the development of techniques for measurement is critical to the successful development of theory. This paper presents a technique – the Go/No-go Association Task (GNAT) – that joins a family of existing techniques for measuring implicit social cognition generally, with a focus on attitude (evaluation). To expand the measurement potential supplied by its closest cousin, the Implicit Association Test (IAT), the GNAT can be used to examine automatic social cognition toward a single target category. That is, the GNAT obtains a measure of implicit social cognition without requiring the direct involvement of complementary or contrasting objects. Also, by implementing a response deadline in the procedure, the GNAT trades off response latency for sensitivity as the dependent variable measure. This paper provides a description of the technique through a series of experiments (1-5) that reveal its primary features using simple attitude objects. In Experiment 6, the GNAT is used to investigate attitudes toward race (Black and White) and gender (Male and Female). To explore the theoretical leverage offered by this tool, Experiment 6 puts to test a recurring question concerning automatic in-group favoritism versus out-group derogation. Results demonstrate the dual presence of both out-group derogation (e.g., negativity toward Black Americans) and in-group favoritism (positivity toward White Americans), a finding that emerges because the GNAT offers the potential for independent measures of attitude toward the two groups. Through these experiments, the GNAT is shown to be an effective tool for assessing automatic preferences as well as resolving persistent questions that require independent measures of individual attitude objects while maintaining the advantages of response competition tasks.