6 ms·

The IAT is pseudoscience. The Implicit Association Test at Age 21: No Evidence for Construct Validity [0] > The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is 21 years ol

The IAT is pseudoscience. The Implicit Association Test at Age 21: No Evidence for Construct Validity [0] > The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is 21 years old. Greenwald et al. (1998) proposed that the IAT measures individual differences in implicit social cognition. This claim requires evidence of construct validity. I review the evidence and show that there is insufficient evidence for this claim. Most important, I show that few studies were able to test discriminant validity of the IAT as a measure of implicit personality characteristics and that a single-construct model fits multi-method data as well or better than a dual-construct models. Thus, the IAT appears to be a measure of the same personality characteristics that are measured with explicit measures. I also show that the validity of the IAT varies across personality characteristics. It has low validity as a measure of self-esteem, moderate validity as a measure of racial bias, and high validity as a measure of political orientation. The existing evidence also suggests that the IAT measures stable characteristics rather than states and has low predictive validity of single behaviors. Based on these findings, it is important that users of the IAT clearly distinguish between implicit measures and implicit constructs. The IAT is an implicit measure, but there is no evidence that it measures implicit constructs. The Creators of the Implicit Association Test Should Get Their Story Straight [1] > The problem, as I showed in a lengthy rundown of the many, many problems with the test published this past January, is that there’s very little evidence to support that claim that the IAT meaningfully predicts anything. In fact, the test is riddled with statistical problems — problems severe enough that it’s fair to ask whether it is effectively “misdiagnosing” the millions of people who have taken it, the vast majority of whom are likely unaware of its very serious shortcomings. There’s now solid research published in a top journal strongly suggesting the test cannot even meaningfully predict individual behavior. And if the test can’t predict individual behavior, it’s unclear exactly what it does do or why it should be the center of so many conversations and programs geared at fighting racism. Psychology’s Favorite Tool for Measuring Racism Isn’t Up to the Job [2] [0] https://replicationindex.com/2019/02/15/iat21 https://replicationindex.com/2019/02/15/iat21 [1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/12/iat-behavior-problem.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/12/iat-behavior-problem... [2] https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-...

wpietri 6y ago
What kind of person haunts 4-day-old articles to post long, off-topic comments like this? And that cites Jesse Singal of all people as some sort of authority? What I said is that it was helpful to me personally. Which it was, in that it helped me recognize my own implicit anti-black bias. Unless you'd like to prove that the whole concept of unexamined biases is 100% unreal, please move along and let people have a discussion untainted with irrelevant interruptions.
- alentist 6y ago
  Based on your personal attacks and abrasive tone, it looks like you take the IAT’s falsity personally. Why? > What kind of person haunts 4-day-old articles What a strange attempt at an insult. Do you not read articles that are more than 3 days old? Your own comment was 2 days old on a 5-day-old article, which makes this attempt at an insult even more comical. > off-topic > irrelevant interruption Do you need to read your own comment again to refresh your memory? Do you know what Project Implicit is? It’s exactly what I’m addressing, so what mental gymnastics are you doing to claim my comment is “off-topic” and “irrelevant”? > And that cites Jesse Singal of all people as some sort of authority? One of the authors of the article, who’s referencing the relevant studies? What’s the issue? Rather than making more cryptic ad hominem attacks, why not say something substantive? > was helpful to me personally It’s ironic that you’re willing to support horoscope-level pseudoscience (and personally attack anyone who points out it’s pseudoscience) because it supports your preconceived biases.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    I take white fragility attempting to shut down discussion of anti-Black racism personally. I have no investment in the IAT's broader findings, and no particular interest in them. What I said was, "the Project Implicit tests from Harvard helped me see some of my own implicit biases, which were notably different than my conscious beliefs", which is a) true, and b) unrelated to your sea lioning. And what it did was not to support my biases, but expose them to me. Since you're either willfully or accidentally not a careful reader, I'll leave the rest of your misunderstandings and confusions aside.

wpietri 6y ago

What kind of person haunts 4-day-old articles to post long, off-topic comments like this? And that cites Jesse Singal of all people as some sort of authority? What I said is that it was helpful to me personally. Which it was, in that it helped me recognize my own implicit anti-black bias. Unless you'd like to prove that the whole concept of unexamined biases is 100% unreal, please move along and let people have a discussion untainted with irrelevant interruptions.

alentist 6y ago
Based on your personal attacks and abrasive tone, it looks like you take the IAT’s falsity personally. Why? > What kind of person haunts 4-day-old articles What a strange attempt at an insult. Do you not read articles that are more than 3 days old? Your own comment was 2 days old on a 5-day-old article, which makes this attempt at an insult even more comical. > off-topic > irrelevant interruption Do you need to read your own comment again to refresh your memory? Do you know what Project Implicit is? It’s exactly what I’m addressing, so what mental gymnastics are you doing to claim my comment is “off-topic” and “irrelevant”? > And that cites Jesse Singal of all people as some sort of authority? One of the authors of the article, who’s referencing the relevant studies? What’s the issue? Rather than making more cryptic ad hominem attacks, why not say something substantive? > was helpful to me personally It’s ironic that you’re willing to support horoscope-level pseudoscience (and personally attack anyone who points out it’s pseudoscience) because it supports your preconceived biases.
- wpietri 6y ago
  I take white fragility attempting to shut down discussion of anti-Black racism personally. I have no investment in the IAT's broader findings, and no particular interest in them. What I said was, "the Project Implicit tests from Harvard helped me see some of my own implicit biases, which were notably different than my conscious beliefs", which is a) true, and b) unrelated to your sea lioning. And what it did was not to support my biases, but expose them to me. Since you're either willfully or accidentally not a careful reader, I'll leave the rest of your misunderstandings and confusions aside.