Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-Analysis of Predictive Validity.
View/ Open
Greenwald_2009_JPSP.pdf (633.8Kb)
Access Status
Full text of the requested work is not available in DASH at this time ("restricted access"). For more information on restricted deposits, see our FAQ.Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015575Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Greenwald, Anthony G., T. Andrew Poehlman, Eric Luis Uhlmann, and Mahzarin R. Banaji. 2009. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-Analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97, no. 1: 17–41. 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.Citable link to this page
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34325451
Collections
- FAS Scholarly Articles [18292]
Contact administrator regarding this item (to report mistakes or request changes)