Bias Test

1. I maintained a steady rhythm rather than stopping and starting.

2. I often experience a strong “this goes together” feeling for one category–attribute combination during rapid sorting.

3. I did not slow down dramatically after making mistakes.

4. If I took an IAT-style test today, I expect my results would indicate at least a slight automatic preference in one direction rather than being near zero.

5. If the task included categories I’m very familiar with, my automatic pairing advantage would likely become more pronounced.

6. I would expect my performance to show a consistent “compatibility effect” (faster for one pairing) even if I’m motivated to be unbiased.

7. When categories and attributes are paired in a way that matches common stereotypes, I tend to respond faster.

8. I felt equally able to respond consistently in both easier and harder blocks.

9. The task environment (noise, interruptions, device issues) did not disrupt my performance much.

10. I tend to hesitate or “freeze” briefly when a stimulus appears that conflicts with the harder pairing rule.

11. I was consistent in how I handled items I found ambiguous or unfamiliar.

12. I would expect my IAT-style score to reflect more than just random variation (i.e., a consistent pattern across trials).

13. I did not rush so much that it caused frequent mistakes.

14. I usually feel one of the combined sorting blocks is more “natural” or easier for me than the other.

15. When the task switches to the opposite pairing, my speed drops markedly even after a few practice trials.

16. I make noticeably more errors in one pairing condition than the other in these fast categorization tasks.

17. My reaction times felt steady rather than highly variable from trial to trial.

18. I can usually predict which pairing block I would find easier before taking an IAT-style test.

19. I kept a consistent hand position and did not fumble with the keys or screen controls.

20. Switching left/right keys for categories creates a strong disruption in one direction more than the other.

21. When sorting quickly, I notice I hesitate more when a positive word appears with a group I’ve learned to associate negatively.

22. The time pressure reveals a clear imbalance in how automatically I associate the paired concepts.

23. My performance difference between the two pairing blocks feels large enough that I notice it while taking the test.

24. In speeded sorting tasks, I often respond noticeably faster when certain groups are paired with positive words than when those same groups are paired with negative words.

25. My slowdowns in the harder pairing block are large compared with my usual trial-to-trial variation.

26. My pace stayed stable even when the categories changed.

27. My attention stayed focused throughout the task.

28. In timed sorting tasks, I tend to be consistently faster in one pairing condition than in its reversed pairing condition.

29. I used the same response strategy throughout the task.

30. I would expect my IAT-style D-score to be clearly different from zero rather than close to zero.

31. When I repeat the task under similar conditions, the magnitude of my block difference tends to remain similar.

32. During the task, I feel confident and quick in one pairing block but uncertain and slower in the other.

33. In the reversed pairing block, I need extra self-talk or strategies to keep up my speed.

34. The IAT-style task tends to produce a clear separation in my performance between the two combined-category blocks.

35. I rarely needed extra time to figure out where an item belonged.

36. I believe my automatic associations would show up as a moderate difference in reaction time between pairing conditions.

37. My performance felt stable rather than unpredictable from block to block.

38. My responses suggest a strong automatic association between the paired concepts, as reflected by speed differences across blocks.

39. If I were to repeat an IAT-style task multiple times, I’d expect my direction (which block is easier) to stay the same most of the time.

40. My left/right key use felt consistent and did not frequently swap by mistake.

41. If two pairing blocks were equally easy for me, that would be unusual compared with my typical experience in speeded association tasks.

42. I made only a small number of mistakes overall.

43. I stayed engaged and did not zone out during repeated trials.

44. I rarely felt distracted while completing the sorting trials.

45. I tend to correct myself (after an error beep/feedback) more frequently in one pairing condition than the other.

46. My speed difference between the two pairing blocks would likely be large enough to be noticeable to me while taking the task.

47. Even when I try to respond evenly, one set of pairings feels substantially more automatic for me.

48. The harder pairing block feels mentally effortful compared with the easier block.

49. If I had to estimate it, the gap between my faster and slower block would be substantial.

50. I did not notice big swings between very fast and very slow responses.

51. I think my IAT-style result would fall in the slight-to-moderate range rather than the no-preference range.

52. The difference between my two block averages feels big enough that I would not attribute it only to “random noise.”

53. I did not frequently second-guess myself and change pace because of uncertainty.

54. Under time pressure, I find it hard to treat both pairings as equally “compatible” in my responses.

55. I avoided guessing and instead responded in a consistent, deliberate way.

56. My average reaction time difference between the two critical blocks would likely be considered “noticeable,” not trivial.

57. I did not repeatedly press the wrong key in clusters of errors.

58. When categories and attributes are paired in a counter-stereotypical way, I tend to slow down or correct errors more often.

59. Even with careful attention, my speed difference between pairing blocks remains pronounced.

60. I was able to keep a consistent pace across different sorting blocks.

61. I followed the instructions consistently for the entire task.

62. I notice a strong contrast between “easy” and “hard” pairings regardless of which direction the bias points.

63. Across multiple runs, the size of my speed difference between pairing blocks tends to be stable rather than random.

64. My responses felt controlled rather than random.

65. In IAT-like tasks, I typically experience one block as requiring more mental effort to avoid errors.

66. When the combined categories change, it takes me a long time to adapt compared with typical task-switching effects.

67. My reaction times in paired-categorization tasks would likely show a clear difference between the two pairing blocks.

68. In a rapid categorization task, my mistakes would likely cluster more in one pairing condition than the other.

69. I feel a strong pull to press one key rather than the other for certain category–attribute combinations during the test.

70. My reaction times usually show a noticeable gap between “congruent” pairings (that feel easier) and “incongruent” pairings (that feel harder).

71. When I did make an error, I recovered quickly and returned to my usual pace.

72. Even when I try to be fair-minded, my “gut-speed” responses tend to favor one pairing over the other in an IAT-like task.

73. My sense of which pairing is easier emerges quickly, within the first several trials of the critical blocks.

74. My response speed stayed fairly steady from the beginning to the end of the task.

75. When I’m forced to respond quickly, I rely on learned associations that make one pairing block easier.

76. When the task requires me to use an unusual pairing (e.g., a stigmatized group with “good”), I tend to slow down or make more mistakes.

77. If the test switched the pairings midway, I would likely show a measurable shift in speed (one block faster, the other slower).

78. I did not have long pauses or freezes during the task.