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

• 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
• ISSN: 0022-3514; 1939-1315
• DOI: 10.1037/a0032734

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.