Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-Analysis of Predictive Validity

Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-Analysis of Predictive Validity This review of 122 research reports (184 independent samples, 14,900 subjects) found average r = .274 for prediction of behavioral, judgment, and physiological measures by Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures. Parallel explicit (i.e., self-report) measures, available in 156 of these samples (13,068 subjects), also predicted effectively (average r = .361), but with much greater variability of effect size. Predictive validity of self-report was impaired for socially sensitive topics, for which impression management may distort self-report responses. For 32 samples with criterion measures involving Black–White interracial behavior, predictive validity of IAT measures significantly exceeded that of self-report measures. Both IAT and self-report measures displayed incremental validity, with each measure predicting criterion variance beyond that predicted by the other. The more highly IAT and self-report measures were intercorrelated, the greater was the predictive validity of each. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Personality and Social Psychology American Psychological Association

Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-Analysis of Predictive Validity

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/understanding-and-using-the-implicit-association-test-iii-meta-vwSUFw0XIa

References (224)

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 American Psychological Association
ISSN
0022-3514
eISSN
1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/a0015575
pmid
19586237
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This review of 122 research reports (184 independent samples, 14,900 subjects) found average r = .274 for prediction of behavioral, judgment, and physiological measures by Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures. Parallel explicit (i.e., self-report) measures, available in 156 of these samples (13,068 subjects), also predicted effectively (average r = .361), but with much greater variability of effect size. Predictive validity of self-report was impaired for socially sensitive topics, for which impression management may distort self-report responses. For 32 samples with criterion measures involving Black–White interracial behavior, predictive validity of IAT measures significantly exceeded that of self-report measures. Both IAT and self-report measures displayed incremental validity, with each measure predicting criterion variance beyond that predicted by the other. The more highly IAT and self-report measures were intercorrelated, the greater was the predictive validity of each.

Journal

Journal of Personality and Social PsychologyAmerican Psychological Association

Published: Jul 1, 2009

There are no references for this article.