TY - JOUR
T1 - Relationship between the implicit association test and intergroup behavior
T2 - A meta-analysis
AU - Kurdi, Benedek
AU - Seitchik, Allison E.
AU - Axt, Jordan R.
AU - Carroll, Timothy J.
AU - Karapetyan, Arpi
AU - Kaushik, Neela
AU - Tomezsko, Diana
AU - Greenwald, Anthony G.
AU - Banaji, Mahzarin R.
N1 - Funding Information:
Benedek Kurdi and Allison E. Seitchik contributed equally to this work. Jordan R. Axt, Timothy J. Carroll, Arpi Karapetyan, Neela Kaushik, and Diana Tomezsko are listed alphabetically. This article is based entirely on open data and fully reproducible analyses. The raw data file and analysis scripts as well as all online materials are available for download from the Open Science Framework (OSF) at https://osf.io/47xw8/. Online applications for calculating statistical power and internal consistency are available at http://www.benedekkurdi.com/#iat. We thank the authors of the studies included in this meta-analysis. Without their significant efforts to share additional effect sizes and data files with us, the estimates reported here would have been considerably less accurate. A full list of these authors as well as the papers for which no data could be obtained can be found in Supplement 1 in the online materials. We also thank Neeha Dhawan, Alex Garinther, and Sarah Vasconcelos for study coding, as well as Abi Cherry, Ellie Cherry, Christina Dias, Catherine Kim, Ruolin Lu, Sarah Ryan, and Jared Valdron for assistance with study coding. The project was supported by a grant from the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University to Mahzarin R. Banaji.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 American Psychological Association.
PY - 2019/7
Y1 - 2019/7
N2 - Using data from 217 research reports (N = 36,071, compared to 3,471 and 5,433 in previous meta-analyses), this meta-analysis investigated the conceptual and methodological conditions under which Implicit Association Tests (IATs) measuring attitudes, stereotypes, and identity correlate with criterion measures of intergroup behavior. We found significant implicit- criterion correlations (ICCs) and explicit- criterion correlations (ECCs), with unique contributions of implicit (β = .14) and explicit measures (β = .11) revealed by structural equation modeling. ICCs were found to be highly heterogeneous, making moderator analyses necessary. Basic study features or conceptual variables did not account for any heterogeneity: Unlike explicit measures, implicit measures predicted for all target groups and types of behavior, and implicit, but not explicit, measures were equally associated with behaviors varying in controllability and conscious awareness. However, ICCs differed greatly by methodological features: Studies with a declared focus on ICCs, standard IATs rather than variants, high-polarity attributes, behaviors measured in a relative (two categories present) rather than absolute manner (single category present), and high implicit- criterion correspondence (k = 13) produced a mean ICC of r = .37. Studies scoring low on these variables (k = 6) produced an ICC of r = .02. Examination of methodological properties-a novelty of this meta-analysis-revealed that most studies were vastly underpowered and analytic strategies regularly ignored measurement error. Recommendations, along with online applications for calculating statistical power and internal consistency are provided to improve future studies on the implicit- criterion relationship.
AB - Using data from 217 research reports (N = 36,071, compared to 3,471 and 5,433 in previous meta-analyses), this meta-analysis investigated the conceptual and methodological conditions under which Implicit Association Tests (IATs) measuring attitudes, stereotypes, and identity correlate with criterion measures of intergroup behavior. We found significant implicit- criterion correlations (ICCs) and explicit- criterion correlations (ECCs), with unique contributions of implicit (β = .14) and explicit measures (β = .11) revealed by structural equation modeling. ICCs were found to be highly heterogeneous, making moderator analyses necessary. Basic study features or conceptual variables did not account for any heterogeneity: Unlike explicit measures, implicit measures predicted for all target groups and types of behavior, and implicit, but not explicit, measures were equally associated with behaviors varying in controllability and conscious awareness. However, ICCs differed greatly by methodological features: Studies with a declared focus on ICCs, standard IATs rather than variants, high-polarity attributes, behaviors measured in a relative (two categories present) rather than absolute manner (single category present), and high implicit- criterion correspondence (k = 13) produced a mean ICC of r = .37. Studies scoring low on these variables (k = 6) produced an ICC of r = .02. Examination of methodological properties-a novelty of this meta-analysis-revealed that most studies were vastly underpowered and analytic strategies regularly ignored measurement error. Recommendations, along with online applications for calculating statistical power and internal consistency are provided to improve future studies on the implicit- criterion relationship.
KW - Implicit Association Test
KW - Implicit social cognition
KW - Intergroup relations
KW - Metaanalysis
KW - Predictive validity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058363807&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85058363807&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1037/amp0000364
DO - 10.1037/amp0000364
M3 - Article
C2 - 30550298
AN - SCOPUS:85058363807
SN - 0003-066X
VL - 74
SP - 569
EP - 586
JO - American Psychologist
JF - American Psychologist
IS - 5
ER -