Order Effects on IAT Correlations

It was expected by Hypothesis 6 that the second IAT tended to be less valid than the first IAT. Given the transfer effect from the anxiousness on the angriness IAT this should be especially true for the angriness IAT. Table 17 depicts the overall correlations and the correlations by IAT order for both IATs. Concerning the anxiousness IAT, all correlations with direct anxiousness measures declined in the second test, except for the trait form of the State Trait Anxiety Inventory. When the anxiousness IAT was the first test, it showed significant or marginally significant correlations with several direct anxiousness measures, whereas these correlations were not even marginally significant when it was the second test. This correlation decrease was marginally significant for the subscale Worries of the Speaking Anxiety Questionnaire, z = 1.39, p < .10 (one-tailed), and not even marginally significant for the correlations of the anxiousness IAT with other direct anxiousness measures, all z < 1.12, n.s. (one-tailed). Contrary to Hypothesis 6, the correlation with the

observer anxiety judgment tended to be higher, and was significant only when the anxiousness IAT was the second test. However, this correlation difference was small and nonsignificant, z = -.58, n.s. (one-tailed). In regards to the anxiousness IAT, a pattern of reduced validity for the second test was confirmed for the correlations with direct anxiousness measures but not for the correlation with the observer judgment.

Table 17

Overall and Correlations by IAT Order for the Anxiousness and the Angriness IAT (Study 2)

Anxiousness IAT Angriness IAT Overall 1^st test 2^nd test Overall 1^st test 2^nd test

Angriness IAT .32** .49*** .17 - - -

Bipolar anxiousness self-rating .25* .28* .23 -.04 -.18 .15 Bipolar angriness self-rating -.03 -.06 .03 .11 .16 .06 Speaking Anxiety Emotionality -.01 .02 -.08 -.03 -.24⁺ .20 Speaking Anxiety Worries .17⁺ .27⁺ -.01 .05 -.16 .27⁺ Manifest Anxiety Scale .21* .31* .09 .00 -.15 .22 State Trait Anxiety Inventory^a .17⁺ .17 .20 .02 -.06 .12 State Trait Anger Expression Inventory^a -.01 -.01 .01 .03 -.16 .25⁺ Social Desirability .02 -.07 .16 -.08 .02 -.20 Observer anxiety judgment .26** .22 .33* -.07 -.05 -.09 Observer anger judgment -.09^b -.04^c -.17^d -.11^b -.23^d .00^c Note. N = 100 for overall correlations, n = 50 for correlations by different IAT order.

IAT = Implicit Association Test. ^a trait form. ^b n = 77. ^c n = 41. ^d n = 36.

+p < .10 *p < .05 ***p < .001.

In regards to the correlations of the angriness IAT, the pattern was less clear. This might be due to the fact that the angriness IAT showed only small convergent validity with direct angriness measures already in the first test. As expected by Hypothesis 6, the correlation with the bipolar angriness self-rating decreased when the angriness IAT was the second test. However, this correlation difference was small and nonsignificant, z = .49, n.s.

(one-tailed). Moreover, the opposite was true for the trait form of State Trait Anger

Expression Inventory. When the angriness IAT was the second test, its correlation with the trait form of the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory was marginally significant and higher than in the first test, z = -2.02, p < .05 (two-tailed). The correlation with the observer anger judgment was even nonsignificantly negative when the angriness IAT was the first test and zero when it was the second test, but did not differ significantly between both groups, z = -1.14, n.s. (one-tailed). Thus, a pattern of reduced convergent validity for the second test was not found for the angriness IAT, and validity was small in both cases.

With regard to discriminant validity, the anxiousness IAT did not correlate with direct angriness measures in any case. In contrast, the angriness IAT correlated with the anxiousness IAT and tended to correlate with direct anxiousness measures, when it was the second test. Thus, there was a marginally positive correlation with the subscale Worries of the Speaking Anxiety Scale (see Table 17). On the other hand, these correlations tended to be negative, when the angriness was the first test. Specifically, there was a marginally negative correlation with the subscale Emotionality of the Speaking Anxiety Scale.

Possibly, for some participants, the category self-controlled, that was the opposite of angry within the angriness IAT, was more related with high rather than low anxiousness.

Therefore, the small negative correlation between the angriness IAT and direct anxiousness measures might have appeared. In contrast, when the angriness was the second test, it tended to positively correlate with direct anxiousness measures due to the assumed transfer effect from the anxiousness IAT onto the angriness IAT. The correlation differences (two-tailed tests) between both groups were significant for the two subscales of the Speaking Anxiety Scale (in both cases z > 2.12, p < .05), marginally significant for the Manifest Anxiety Scale (z = 1.82, p < .10), and nonsignificant for the bipolar anxiousness self-rating and the trait form of the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (in both cases z < 1.61, n.s).

Consequently, the increase in correlation with direct anxiousness measures provides further evidence for a transfer effect from the anxiousness IAT on the angriness IAT.

The positive correlations of direct anxiousness measures with the angriness IAT in the second test might also lead to the positive correlation between the angriness IAT and the trait form of the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory. Table 13 shows that the trait form of the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory was positively correlated with direct anxiousness measures. Thus, the positive correlation between the angriness IAT and the trait form of the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory might be mediated by the correlation of both measures with direct anxiousness measures. However, when the

correlation between both measures was controlled for their correlation with direct anxiousness measures the partial correlation was only a little smaller than the zero-order correlation, r = .20, n.s. versus r = .25, p < .10. Thus, the angriness IAT seemed to show at least some convergent validity with the trait form of the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory.

Altogether, the anxiousness IAT showed a pattern of reduced validity for the second test with respect to direct measures but not for the observer anxiety judgment. The angriness IAT showed small convergent validity in general, and was affected by a transfer effect from the anxiousness IAT. This led to positive correlations between both IATs, and a trend to positive correlations between the angriness IAT and direct anxiousness measures.

5.4.8 Prediction of the State and the Behavioral Measures by Direct and