Implicit measures reveal attitudes people cannot or will not report

Evidence

Recent advances in social-structural theories of prejudice address how seemingly benevolent forms of prejudice undermine women’s socioeconomic progress. These approaches are supported by new methodologies, including response latency techniques, such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) that assess reactions that may be unconscious and automatic, and thus are not susceptible to impression management strategies. Because this task measures the time it takes people to make decisions about pairs of stimuli (e.g., men and agentic traits) rather than directly asking people their opinions, the IAT (along with similar methods) has the advantage of overcoming people’s inability (or unwillingness) to report their attitudes and beliefs (see also Fiske, ch. 3 this volume; Batson & Stocks, ch. 25 this volume). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 759

Categorization

• DEFINE: Compact explanation of what the IAT measures and why it matters for prejudice research.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 759
• XREF: connects to: Machines can capture emotional reactions the subject cannot consciously report — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 882; Implicit prejudice measures are not clearly more valid than survey measures — Christopher Tarman and David O. Sears, The Conceptualization and Measurement…, 223; Explicit and implicit attitudes operate on different levels and need different measures. — Wade C. Rowatt and Lewis M. Franklin, Christian Orthodoxy, Religious…, 14 (+1 more)