Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Greenwald, A. G., Andrew, T., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1):17–41, 2009. doi abstract bibtex 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.
@article{greenwald_understanding_2009,
title = {Understanding and using the {Implicit} {Association} {Test}: {III}. {Meta}-analysis of predictive validity},
volume = {97},
copyright = {(c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved},
issn = {1939-1315(ELECTRONIC);0022-3514(PRINT)},
shorttitle = {Understanding and using the {Implicit} {Association} {Test}},
doi = {10.1037/a0015575},
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.},
number = {1},
journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
author = {Greenwald, Anthony G. and Andrew, T. and Uhlmann, Eric Luis and Banaji, Mahzarin R.},
year = {2009},
keywords = {*Attitude Measurement, *Attitude Measures, *Judgment, *Test Validity, Attitudes, Behavior},
pages = {17--41},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"NafuJFYj8NuJ9Yrgf","bibbaseid":"greenwald-andrew-uhlmann-banaji-understandingandusingtheimplicitassociationtestiiimetaanalysisofpredictivevalidity-2009","author_short":["Greenwald, A. G.","Andrew, T.","Uhlmann, E. L.","Banaji, M. R."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity","volume":"97","copyright":"(c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved","issn":"1939-1315(ELECTRONIC);0022-3514(PRINT)","shorttitle":"Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test","doi":"10.1037/a0015575","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.","number":"1","journal":"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Greenwald"],"firstnames":["Anthony","G."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Andrew"],"firstnames":["T."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Uhlmann"],"firstnames":["Eric","Luis"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Banaji"],"firstnames":["Mahzarin","R."],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2009","keywords":"*Attitude Measurement, *Attitude Measures, *Judgment, *Test Validity, Attitudes, Behavior","pages":"17–41","bibtex":"@article{greenwald_understanding_2009,\n\ttitle = {Understanding and using the {Implicit} {Association} {Test}: {III}. {Meta}-analysis of predictive validity},\n\tvolume = {97},\n\tcopyright = {(c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved},\n\tissn = {1939-1315(ELECTRONIC);0022-3514(PRINT)},\n\tshorttitle = {Understanding and using the {Implicit} {Association} {Test}},\n\tdoi = {10.1037/a0015575},\n\tabstract = {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.},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},\n\tauthor = {Greenwald, Anthony G. and Andrew, T. and Uhlmann, Eric Luis and Banaji, Mahzarin R.},\n\tyear = {2009},\n\tkeywords = {*Attitude Measurement, *Attitude Measures, *Judgment, *Test Validity, Attitudes, Behavior},\n\tpages = {17--41},\n}\n\n\n\n","author_short":["Greenwald, A. G.","Andrew, T.","Uhlmann, E. L.","Banaji, M. R."],"key":"greenwald_understanding_2009","id":"greenwald_understanding_2009","bibbaseid":"greenwald-andrew-uhlmann-banaji-understandingandusingtheimplicitassociationtestiiimetaanalysisofpredictivevalidity-2009","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["*Attitude Measurement","*Attitude Measures","*Judgment","*Test Validity","Attitudes","Behavior"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"html":""},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero/pab2163","dataSources":["fB4GuzdCZcPR6LeBn"],"keywords":["*attitude measurement","*attitude measures","*judgment","*test validity","attitudes","behavior"],"search_terms":["understanding","using","implicit","association","test","iii","meta","analysis","predictive","validity","greenwald","andrew","uhlmann","banaji"],"title":"Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity","year":2009}