Faulty assumptions: A comment on Blanton, Jaccard, Gonzales, and Christie (2006)

Abstract

Blanton, Jaccard, Gonzales, and Christie (BJGC, 2006) assert that the Implicit Association Test (IAT) imposes a model that portrays relative preferences as the additive difference between single attitudes. This assertion is misplaced because relative preferences do not necessarily reduce to component attitudes. BJGC also assume that the IAT conditions represent two indicators of the same construct. This assumption is incorrect, and is the cause of their poor-fitting models. The IAT, like other experimental paradigms, contrasts performance between interdependent conditions, and cannot be reduced to component parts. This is true whether calculating a simple difference between conditions, or using the IAT D score. D – an individual effect size that is monotonically related to Cohen's d – codifies the interdependency between IAT conditions. When their unjustified psychometric assumptions are replaced with plausible assumptions, the models fit their data very well, and basis for their poor-fitting models becomes clear.

The IAT Is Dead, Long Live the IAT: Context-Sensitive Measures of Implicit Attitudes Are Indispensable to Social and Political Psychology

“…It is important to keep in mind, however, that the IAT scoring algorithm takes into account accuracy as well as speed, and it also adjusts for participant-level variability in response latencies, thereby compensating for two major limitations of these kinds of differences scores. Nosek and Sriram (2007) addressed Blanton and colleague’s (2006) criticisms in great detail, arguing that they are derived from the faulty assumption that IAT responses to the same stimuli in different conditions (e.g., pleasant vs. unpleasant matching tasks) represent multiple items from the same “scale.”…”

What Is Implicit Self-Esteem, and Does it Vary Across Cultures?

“…Overall, then, there is considerable validity evidence for implicit attitude measures in general (but see critiques on the IAT by Blanton, Jaccard, Christie, & Gonzales, 2007; Blanton, Jaccard, Gonzales, & Christie, 2006; Blanton et al, 2009; Oswald, Mitchell, Blanton, Jaccard, & Tetlock, 2013; cf. Nosek & Sriram, 2007).…”

Addressing workplace gender inequality: Using the evidence to avoid common pitfalls

“…While there has been theoretical, methodological and psychometric debate about the utility of implicit tests such as the IAT (e.g. Blanton & Jaccard, 2006; Nosek & Sriram, 2007; see also Jost, 2019) what is of more interest here is the utility of unconscious bias training itself. While unconscious bias training is good at awareness raising, it is less effectual at achieving behaviour change or increased gender equality (e.g.…”