Weak criticisms and selective evidence: Reply to Blanton et al. (2009).

Abstract

We respond to a critique by H. Blanton et al. (2009), challenging our previous work demonstrating that an Implicit Association Test designed to assess implicit prejudice reliably predicts intergroup discrimination (A. R. McConnell & J. M. Leibold, 2001). We outline 3 flawed aspects of the critique. First, we note that claims that an outlier should be eliminated from the original data set are unfounded, and even with the elimination of this outlier, the conclusions of our original work are still strongly supported by the data. Second, we explain that concerns about interjudge reliability are specious and that considerable data support the validity of the judges' observations reported in our original study. Third, we note that claims of a disconnect between Implicit Association Test scores (argued to show negative bias against Blacks) and behavioral measures (argued to show pro-Black bias) are inappropriate because they neglect the relativistic nature of the key measures. Implications for the relation between implicit attitudes and behavior, for the law, and for future work on implicit attitudes are discussed.Keywords: implicit attitudes, prejudice, discrimination, Implicit Association Test PrefaceWe are pleased to offer our thoughts on the Blanton et al. (2009) article. In July 2006, we were contacted by an author on that article (G. Mitchell, personal communication, July 25, 2006), who asked us for copies of the data sets for our publication, McConnell and Leibold (2001). Despite the fact that the request came 5 years after publication and 8 years after data collection, we were happy to comply. At that time, we inquired about the nature of the interest in our data (e.g., what hypotheses were being tested), but no specifics were offered. In February 2007, we received a summary of their analyses, and we informed them that it is our practice to not offer comments on work outside of the normal editorial review process. We were not provided with a copy of their manuscript until June 2008, when we were asked to write a commentary on it after it had been peer reviewed. Thus, this reply is our first opportunity to speak to a number of reservations we have about their work. Herein, we focus on three concerns that were especially striking to us, and we elaborate on the broader implications of this exchange. Selective Focus on a Single Dependent MeasureOne of the points made by Blanton et al. (2009) is that it is tenuous to make strong claims about relations between implicit attitudes and behavior based on a small amount of data. We agree that it would be preferable to see more studies demonstrate the implications of implicit attitudes for behavioral relations and, indeed, this was a primary motive behind our conducting the McConnell and Leibold (2001) study in the first place. One of the primary arguments marshaled by Blanton et al. against our work is that, in their view, our critical Implicit Association Test (IAT)-behavior demonstration hinges on 1 outlier participant, who revealed strong racial prejudice on the IAT (5...

Blind spots in the search for happiness: Implicit attitudes and nonverbal leakage predict affective forecasting errors

“…That is, we found that forecasting errors were predicted by nonconscious evaluations both when we assessed this construct with the IAT in a lab setting (Study 1) and with participants' nonverbal behaviors outside of the lab (Study 2). Although converging evidence is always valuable, it is particularly worthwhile here to assuage concerns that may exist with the use of any particular measure of nonconscious evaluations, which continue to be controversial (Gawronski et al, 2008;McConnell & Leibold, 2009;Olson & Fazio, 2004;Nosek & Hansen, 2008).…”

“…Analyses were conducted on the log-transformed values, but the data are reported in ms. intrusive attitudes measures. For instance, in Study 1 we chose to assess implicit attitudes with the personalized IAT, however any particular choice of attitude measure (explicit or implicit) can be contentious and subject to debate (e.g., Gawronski, Peters, & LeBel, 2008;Karpinski & Hilton, 2001;McConnell & Leibold, 2009;Olson & Fazio, 2004;Nosek & Hansen, 2008). Moreover, explicit attitude measures in general are subject to self-presentational concerns, which can cloud their interpretation (Fazio & Olson, 2003).…”

Having Explicit-Implicit Evaluation Discrepancies Triggers Race-Based Motivated Reasoning

“…Our focus here was on relative bias because no attitudes measure can be viewed in absolute terms (e.g., Bohner & Schwarz, 2001;McConnell & Leibold, 2009;Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2006). This reality, coupled with measures such as the IAT being inherently relativistic, leads us to view the current findings in terms of relative bias.…”

Consumption and climate change: Why we say one thing but do another in the face of our greatest threat

“…This is by no means universally accepted in the psychological literature; indeed it is currently the subject of much quite heated debate (see Blanton et al, 2006Blanton et al, , 2007Blanton et al, , 2009 for a critique of this position and Greenwald, Nosek and Sriram, 2006, McConnell and Leibold, 2009, and Ziegert and Hanges, 2009 for some rebuttals). However, it would seem that in some domains, this notion of implicit attitudes, deriving from various associative connections and operating unconsciously alongside our more reflective attitudes (and indeed conflicting with them on occasion), might have some credibility (Beattie, 2013: Kahneman, 2011.…”