Abstract
Recently, Sriram and Greenwald (2009) introduced a new IAT-like measure, the Brief Implicit Association Test (BIAT). Because the BIAT is a new development, empirical evidence for its validity is yet scarce. This comment focuses on two possible approaches to validation research on the BIAT: (1) a pragmatic correlational approach and (2) an experimental approach aiming at causal understanding of the BIAT task. We argue that both approaches provide valuable and mutually complementing evidence, but only experimental research can conclusively show that the to-be-measured constructs causally influence BIAT scores. Because such a causal analysis is at the core of the validity problem, research on the BIAT should reduce the asymmetry in favor of correlational validation that emerged in traditional IAT research.
References
2001). Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of implicit stereotypes through mental imagery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 828–841.
(2009). Strong claims and weak evidence: Reassessing the predictive validity of the IAT. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 567–582.
(in press ). Base rate effects on the IAT. Consciousness and Cognition.2006). Do features of stimuli influence IAT effects? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 163–176.
(2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071.
(2007). Modeling experimentally induced strategy shifts. Psychological Science, 18, 40–45.
(1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
(2001). On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 800–814.
(2009). Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 347–368.
(2009). When the method makes a difference: Antagonistic effects on “automatic evaluations” as a function of task characteristics of the measure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 101–114.
(2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297–327.
(2005). Faking the IAT: Aided and unaided response control on the Implicit Association Test. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 307–316.
(2006). Unresolved problems with the “I”, the “A”, and the “T”: A logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 74–147.
(2008). When and why do implicit measures predict behaviour? Empirical evidence for the moderating role of opportunity, motivation, and process reliance. European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 285–338.
(1974). The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.
(2006). Are “implicit” attitudes unconscious? Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 485–499.
(1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.
(1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
(2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17–41.
(2004). Reversing or eliminating IAT effects by changing the affective valence of the stimulus items. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 357–365.
(2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369–1385.
(2005). What moderates implicit-explicit consistency? European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 335–390.
(2005). Task-set inertia, attitude accessibility, and compatibility-order effects: New evidence for a task-set switching account of the Implicit Association Test effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 208–217.
(2001). Social influence effects on automatic racial prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 842–855.
(2001). Implicit association measurement with the IAT. Evidence for effects of executive control processes. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48, 107–122.
(2005). Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 565–584.
(2009). (Part of) the case for a pragmatic approach to validity: Comment on De Houwer, Teige-Mocigemba, Spruyt, and Moors (2009). Psychological Bulletin, 135, 373–376.
(2006). The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. In , Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes (pp. 265–292). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
(2007). A multitrait-multimethod validation of the Implicit Association Test. Implicit and explicit attitudes are related but distinct constructs. Experimental Psychology, 54, 14–29.
(2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 36–88.
(1911). Clever Hans. New York: Holt.
(2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416–442.
(2001). Figure-ground asymmetries in the Implicit Association Test. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48, 94–106.
(2004). Underlying processes in the Implicit Association Test (IAT): Dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 139–165.
(2009). The Brief Implicit Association Test. Experimental Psychology, 56, 283–294.
(2004). Is the Implicit Association Test immune to faking? Experimental Psychology, 51, 165–179.
(2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107, 101–126.
(1993). A signal detection analysis of memory for nonoccurrence in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 19, 400–411.
(