Millisecond Forums

Hi: I asked the following question of Brian Nosek and he said he is not involved in Inquisit posts and referred me to this site. Can you help, please?
In addition to answering the question below, if you can repost the Inquisit 3 version of the Age IAT, I would appreciate it.
I think I've successfully back-translated the posted Inquisit 4 version but I'd like to double-check.
I'm trying to use the age IAT on Inquisit 3.
In looking at the
generic IAT for Inquisit 4 (as well as the age IAT on the Implicit website) and 
the generic IAT for Inquisit 3, I notice there are 2 overlapping nonidentical
exemplar sets. On the other hand the old and young faces seem to be the same sets
used in previous age IATs and the age BIAT.
I'm assuming I should use the
ones for Inquisit 4/the same as the current website age IAT). Is this correct?
Is there a reference or a quick word as to why the difference?

IAT Inquisit4 generic and Implicit website 2015 age-good
exemplars: joy, love, peace, wonderful, pleasure, glorious, laughter,
happy
                      bad
exemplars:  agony, terrible, horrible, nasty, evil, awful, failure,
hurt
IAT Inquisit3 generic good exemplars:  marvelous, superb,
pleasure, beautiful, joyful, glorious, lovely,
wonderful
          bad exemplars: tragic,
horrible, agony, painful, terrible, awful, humiliate, nasty

> In addition to answering the question below, if you can repost the Inquisit 3 version of the Age IAT

As far as I am aware there never was a dedicated Inquisit 3 version of the Age IAT posted.

As for the attribute exemplars: Different sets have been used throughout the literature. I would recommend choosing the set used in the study (or studies) you're trying to replicate or compare against. As long as the attribute exemplars' valence category (good vs bad) is clear, though, it shouldn't make much of a difference (if any at all; cf. Lane et al. 2007, p. 87):

Because the IAT relies on responses that are made without extensive
deliberation, stimuli that are categorized easily and quickly will
add the least error variance to the task. Pilot testing can ensure that
participants can readily identify each item as denoting the appropriate
category. Ambiguity about an item’s appropriate categorization
may slow reaction times, as may use of negations of words or
phrases such as “unintelligent” that require additional time to be
successfully negated and categorized correctly. Particularly when the
IAT is used as an individual difference measure, these steps can help
reduce task-related variability and maximize the variance the investigator
cares about: that due to individual differences in the cognition.
Exemplars should be categorized solely on the basis of their membership
in the appropriate category. That is, items should not be confounded
with any of the other categories (Steffens&Plewe, 2001). An
inadvertent confound—for example, all of the good words start with
the letter C or are of more than seven letters, whereas all of the bad
words start with the letter H or are of fewer than four letters—could
provide subjects with a cue for sorting that is irrelevant to the task.