Predicting Behavior With Implicit Measures: Disillusioning Findings, Reasonable Explanations, and Sophisticated Solutions
Open Access
- 8 November 2019
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Frontiers Media SA in Frontiers in Psychology
- Vol. 10, 2483
- https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02483
Abstract
Two decades ago, the introduction of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) sparked enthusiastic reactions. With implicit measures like the IAT, researchers hoped to finally be able to bridge the gap between self-reported attitudes on one hand and behavior on the other. Twenty years of research and several meta-analyses later, however, we have to conclude that neither the IAT nor its derivatives have fulfilled these expectations. Their predictive value for behavioral criteria is weak and their incremental validity over and above self-report measures is negligible. In our review, we present an overview of explanations for these unsatisfactory findings and delineate promising ways forward. Over the years, several reasons for the IAT’s weak predictive validity have been proposed. They point to four potentially problematic features: First, the IAT is by no means a pure measure of individual differences in associations but suffers from extraneous influences like recoding. Hence, the predictive validity of IAT-scores should not be confused with the predictive validity of associations. Second, with the IAT, we usually aim to measure evaluation (“liking”) instead of motivation (“wanting”). Yet, behavior might be determined much more often by the latter than the former. Third, the IAT focuses on measuring associations instead of propositional beliefs and thus taps into a construct that might be too unspecific to account for behavior. Finally, studies on predictive validity are often characterized by a mismatch between predictor and criterion (e.g., while behavior is highly context-specific, the IAT usually takes into account neither the situation nor the domain). Recent research, however, also revealed advances addressing each of these problems, namely (1) procedural and analytical advances to control for recoding in the IAT, (2) measurement procedures to assess implicit wanting, (3) measurement procedures to assess implicit beliefs, and (4) approaches to increase the fit between implicit measures and behavioral criteria (e.g., by incorporating contextual information). Implicit measures like the IAT hold an enormous potential. In order to allow them to fulfill this potential, however, we have to refine our understanding of these measures, and we should incorporate recent conceptual and methodological advancements. This review provides specific recommendations on how to do so.Keywords
This publication has 141 references indexed in Scilit:
- Hating the cute kitten or loving the aggressive pit-bull: EC effects depend on CS–US relationsCognition and Emotion, 2012
- Evaluative conditioning depends on higher order encoding processesCognition and Emotion, 2011
- Implicit Cognition and Addiction: A Tool for Explaining Paradoxical BehaviorAnnual Review of Clinical Psychology, 2010
- Prejudiced or Just Smart?Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 2010
- Lusting While LoathingPsychological Science, 2009
- Wanting and Liking: Observations from the Neuroscience and Psychology LaboratoryInquiry, 2009
- A Neural Computational Model of Incentive SaliencePLoS Computational Biology, 2009
- Minimizing the influence of recoding in the Implicit Association Test: The Recoding-Free Implicit Association Test (IAT-RF)The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2009
- Attitudes as Object–Evaluation Associations of Varying StrengthSocial Cognition, 2007
- The theory of planned behaviorOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1991