Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
    J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009 Jul;97(1):17-41. doi: 10.1037/a0015575.

    Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity.

    Source

    Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. agg@u.washington.edu

    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.

    (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

    PMID:
    19586237
    [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

      Supplemental Content

      Icon for American Psychological Association

      Save items

      Recent activity

      Your browsing activity is empty.

      Activity recording is turned off.

      Turn recording back on

      See more...
      Write to the Help Desk