Strong Claims and Weak Evidence: Reassessing the Predictive Validity of the IAT

Authors

Hart Blanton, University of Connecticut - StamfordFollow
James Jaccard, New York UniversityFollow
Jonathan Klick, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law SchoolFollow
Barbara Mellers, University of PennsylvaniaFollow
Gregory Mitchell, University of Virginia - Main CampusFollow
Philip Tetlock, University of PennsylvaniaFollow

ORCID

Jonathan Klick 0000-0003-1505-360X

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2009

Abstract

The authors reanalyzed data from 2 influential studies — A. R. McConnell and J. M. Leibold (2001) and J. C. Ziegert and P. J. Hanges (2005) — that explore links between implicit bias and discriminatory behavior and that have been invoked to support strong claims about the predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test. In both of these studies, the inclusion of race Implicit Association Test scores in regression models reduced prediction errors by only tiny amounts, and Implicit Association Test scores did not permit prediction of individual-level behaviors. Furthermore, the results were not robust when the impact of rater reliability, statistical specifications, and/or outliers were taken into account, and reanalysis of A. R. McConnell & J. M. Leibold (2001) revealed a pattern of behavior consistent with a pro-Black behavioral bias, rather than the anti-Black bias suggested in the original study.

Keywords

Implicit Association Test, predictive validity, discrimination, implicit bias

Publication Title

Journal of Applied Psychology

Publication Citation

94 J. Applied Psychol. 567 (2009)

Repository Citation

Blanton, Hart; Jaccard, James; Klick, Jonathan; Mellers, Barbara; Mitchell, Gregory; and Tetlock, Philip, "Strong Claims and Weak Evidence: Reassessing the Predictive Validity of the IAT" (2009). All Faculty Scholarship. 1532.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1532