Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
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.

Author information

  • 1Department 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]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for American Psychological Association
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk