Method for Appropriating the Brief Implicit Association Test to Elicit Biases in Users
Tilman Dingler, Benjamin Tag, David A. Eccles, Niels van Berkel, Vassilis Kostakos
Abstract
Implicit tendencies and cognitive biases play an important role in how information is perceived and processed, a fact that can be both utilised and exploited by computing systems. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) has been widely used to assess people's associations of target concepts with qualitative attributes, such as the likelihood of being hired or convicted depending on race, gender, or age. The condensed version-the Brief IAT-aims to implicit biases by measuring the reaction time to concept classifcations. To use this measure in HCI research, however, we need a way to construct and validate target concepts, which tend to quickly evolve and depend on geographical and cultural interpretations. In this paper, we introduce and evaluate a new method to appropriate the BIAT using crowdsourcing to measure people's leanings on polarising topics. We present a web-based tool to test participants' bias on custom themes, where self-assessments often fail. We validated our approach with 14 domain experts and assessed the ft of crowdsourced test construction. Our method allows researchers of diferent domains to create and validate bias tests that can be geographically tailored and updated over time. We discuss how our method can be applied to surface implicit user biases and run studies where cognitive biases may impede reliable results.
• Human-centered computing → Human computer interaction (HCI); HCI design and evaluation methods; Empirical studies in HCI .
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext b92eea9c-9688-4b0a-8155-475a4e5d59b3Cited by top-tier papers5
- "If I Had All the Time in the World": Ophthalmologists' Perceptions of Anchoring Bias Mitigation in Clinical AI SupportAnne Kathrine Petersen Bach, Trine Munch Nørgaard, Jens Christian Brok, Niels van BerkelCHI 2023 · 46 citations
- Bias-Aware Systems: Exploring Indicators for the Occurrences of Cognitive Biases when Facing Different OpinionsNattapat Boonprakong, Xiuge Chen, Catherine M. Davey, Benjamin Tag et al.CHI 2023 · 27 citations
- How Do HCI Researchers Study Cognitive Biases? A Scoping ReviewNattapat Boonprakong, Benjamin Tag, Jorge Gonçalves, Tilman DinglerCHI 2025 · 19 citations
- Fair Machine Guidance to Enhance Fair Decision Making in Biased PeopleMingzhe Yang, Hiromi Arai, Naomi Yamashita, Yukino BabaCHI 2024 · 11 citations
- Assessing Susceptibility Factors of Confirmation Bias in News Feed ReadingNattapat Boonprakong, Saumya Pareek, Benjamin Tag, Jorge Gonçalves et al.CHI 2025 · 10 citations
Builds on1
Related papers
- Cascading Biases: Investigating the Effect of Heuristic Annotation Strategies on Data and ModelsChaitanya Malaviya, Sudeep Bhatia, Mark YatskarEMNLP 2022 · 3 citations
- Studying the Effects of Cognitive Biases in Evaluation of Conversational AgentsSashank Santhanam, Alireza Karduni, Samira ShaikhCHI 2020 · 18 citations
- The Influences of Task Design on Crowdsourced Judgement: A Case Study of Recidivism Risk EvaluationXiaoni Duan, Chien-Ju Ho, Ming YinWWW 2022 · 16 citations
- Who's in the Crowd Matters: Cognitive Factors and Beliefs Predict Misinformation Assessment AccuracyRobert A. Kaufman, Michael Robert Haupt, Steven P. DowCSCW 2022 · 27 citations
- Can The Crowd Identify Misinformation Objectively?: The Effects of Judgment Scale and Assessor's BackgroundKevin Roitero, Michael Soprano, Shaoyang Fan, Damiano Spina et al.SIGIR 2020 · 2 citations
