Predicting Ethnic and Racial Discrimination: A Meta-Analysis of IAT Criterion Studies

This article reports a meta-analysis of studies examining the predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and explicit measures of bias for a wide range of criterion measures of discrimination. The meta-analysis estimates the heterogeneity of effects within and across 2 domains of int...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of personality and social psychology 2013-08, Vol.105 (2), p.171-192
Main Authors: Oswald, Frederick L., Mitchell, Gregory, Blanton, Hart, Jaccard, James, Tetlock, Philip E.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Associative Processes
Attitudes
Bias
Brain
Brain - physiology
Brain activity
Discrimination
Ethnic Groups - psychology
Forecasts
Human
Humans
Implicit Learning
Measurement
Meta-analysis
Minority & ethnic groups
Modernity
Prediction
Predictive Validity
Predictive Value of Tests
Prejudice
Quantitative psychology
Race and Ethnic Discrimination
Racial discrimination
Racism
Racism - psychology
Social Discrimination - psychology
Stereotypes
Systematic review
Test Validity
Validity
Word Association Tests - standards
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This article reports a meta-analysis of studies examining the predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and explicit measures of bias for a wide range of criterion measures of discrimination. The meta-analysis estimates the heterogeneity of effects within and across 2 domains of intergroup bias (interracial and interethnic), 6 criterion categories (interpersonal behavior, person perception, policy preference, microbehavior, response time, and brain activity), 2 versions of the IAT (stereotype and attitude IATs), 3 strategies for measuring explicit bias (feeling thermometers, multi-item explicit measures such as the Modern Racism Scale, and ad hoc measures of intergroup attitudes and stereotypes), and 4 criterion-scoring methods (computed majority-minority difference scores, relative majority-minority ratings, minority-only ratings, and majority-only ratings). IATs were poor predictors of every criterion category other than brain activity, and the IATs performed no better than simple explicit measures. These results have important implications for the construct validity of IATs, for competing theories of prejudice and attitude-behavior relations, and for measuring and modeling prejudice and discrimination.
ISSN:0022-3514
1939-1315
DOI:10.1037/a0032734