Implicit prejudice measures are not clearly more valid than survey measures

Evidence

The “list experiment” technique is provocative, but it has not been validated and disconcertingly, its estimates of bias range widely over studies. The idea of “implicit” prejudice has attracted much research, but it is not selfevidently a more valid index of “true” prejudice than are survey measures: it too is influenced by race of interviewer (e.g., Lowery and Sinclair 2001); its relationship to survey measures yield mixed results (e.g., Fazio et al. 1995; Wittenbrink, Judd, and Park 1997); and it may simply be a different form of racial antagonism rather than a better measure of it, and possibly less relevant to deliberate and thoughtful behaviors such as arriving at political judgments (Dovidio et al. 1997; Fazio et al. 1995). — Christopher Tarman and David O. Sears, The Conceptualization and Measurement…, 223

Categorization

• XREF: Speaks directly to the measurement critique in the reader’s research on symbolic racism constructs overlapping with outcome variables. — connects to: Implicit measures reveal prejudice that explicit self-report instruments cannot capture — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 759; Prejudice targets show self-hate only on implicit, not explicit, measures — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 960; Implicit measures are required to study nonconscious gender stereotypes — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 778 (+3 more)
• QUESTION: This is the key validity question: whether implicit/list-experiment measures outperform straightforward survey items, central to whether ‘threat perception’ can be measured distinctly from the attitudes it predicts.
• SHARE: Worth sending to anyone working on whether IAT and list experiments genuinely out-validate self-report attitude items.

Related

• Implicit measures reveal prejudice that explicit self-report instruments cannot capture (similarity 0.85)
• Implicit measures are required to study nonconscious gender stereotypes (similarity 0.82)
• IAT response latency reveals implicit prejudice even absent self-reported bias (similarity 0.82)
• Implicit attitude measures reveal prejudice explicit self-reports miss (similarity 0.82)
• Implicit measures reveal attitudes people cannot or will not report (similarity 0.81)
• Explicit and implicit attitudes operate on different levels and need different measures. (similarity 0.80)
• Prejudice targets show self-hate only on implicit, not explicit, measures (similarity 0.80)
• Measuring stereotypes indirectly reveals prejudice explicit surveys miss (similarity 0.78)
• Implicit and explicit prejudice are distinct and can diverge within the same person (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Implicit measures reveal prejudice that explicit self-report instruments cannot capture #contradicts (0.90) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 759
• Implicit measures reveal attitudes people cannot or will not report #contradicts (0.90) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 759
• Prejudice targets show self-hate only on implicit, not explicit, measures #contradicts (0.72) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 960
• Implicit measures are required to study nonconscious gender stereotypes #contradicts (0.72) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 778