Validity of IAT

Name

Instructor

Name of School

City

Date
 Validity of IAT

Attitudes toward item pairs (such as flowers and spiders) can be quantified by response

times in a categorization task. It was the premise for the development of the IAT in 1998. An

Implicit Association Test, often known as an IAT, is a type of psychological examination that

analyzes biases that are either unconscious or unintentional. All forms of discrimination,

prejudice, and stereotyping can be traced back to the biases studied and assessed. The exam can,

for instance, determine whether an individual has an unconscious bias against people of color,

persons of a certain race, or transgender individuals. Every individual possesses an unconscious

or unintentional prejudice toward a particular category of people. This discrimination was not

done on purpose. The validity of the IAT, as well as its significance, are topics that are covered in

this article. Because its results do not correlate with those of a definitive test, the test does not

provide consistent results, and the test is susceptible to the context, the validity of the IAT is

generally low. The IAT's applicability and usefulness are often affected by these three reasons.

Nevertheless, despite its widespread use, the claim's veracity, particularly its

dependability, is open to debate. In this article, the reliability and validity of the IAT are

discussed in detail. Because of these three factors, the utility of the IAT and its application is

limited. Since the results of the IAT do not correspond with those of the explicit measures, its

validity is low. The IAT determines how prejudiced a person is against specific groups, such as

those identifying as white, black, or transgender. However, the precise measurements show how

others perceive one's bias against the abovementioned groups (De Houser et al., 2009). In many

instances, there is little to no correlation between the two tests' findings.

Even though there is some correlation between unconscious bias and actions, this link is

typically relatively weak and highly variable. Some types of implicit prejudice, such as political
leanings, have a stronger correlation with subsequent conduct than others, such as implicit biases

about alcohol and drug use. On the other hand, even seemingly insignificant changes might have

major consequences. Small to moderate-size connections can be found in IAT. Based on these

connections, there is no proof of discriminant validity, and the convergent validity is only

moderate. Strong negative connotations with Black people in society undoubtedly contribute to

widespread implicit biases for the majority. However, even if our perspectives and values are

rooted in our cultures, they are ultimately the product of our thought processes. All sorts of subtle

psychological biases can impact our actions if we are not careful. The sum of many people's

decisions can greatly impact society, and the same is true for the cumulative impacts of one

individual's actions.

For instance, a person's preference for white people over Asian people may show up

positively on the Implicit Association Test but adversely on the explicit measure. It might happen

because the Implicit Association Test relies on associations rather than explicit statements. It

should come as no surprise that these two texts produce contrasting results. If the results of the

two tests were the same, it would add credibility to the assertions that the IAT is reliable. Because

there is no link between the results of implicit and explicit assessments, it can be concluded that

the validity of the IAT is quite poor.

The fact that the same test can be given multiple times with different results provides

additional evidence that the IAT has a low level of validity. For instance, an Implicit Association

Test may uncover a person's negative views about the sexual orientation of others (Maine et al.,

2018). These beliefs can be gleaned from a person's responses to questions about other people's

sexual orientation. A second test may demonstrate a positive response toward the same group of

people if the same test is taken later, even though the initial test showed a negative response. I am
familiar with three types of Implicit Association Tests according to my personal experience. It

would appear from the results of the first two surveys that I have a less favorable impression of

black Americans than I do of white Americans. On the other hand, the concluding examination

revealed an incongruous conclusion: I love black Americans more than white Americans.

Because of the significance of the surrounding environment, the Implicit Association is

more nuanced and helpful. When tests are manipulated in terms of their context or the

circumstances surrounding their administration, there is a significant risk to their dependability.

The outcomes of the exam are affected differently based on the surroundings. For example, if a

man takes the test after being aggravated by a woman, the results will inevitably show that he

possesses biases toward women due to his prior experience. It is because the test measures

implicit biases, not explicit ones (Flood, 2019). When a person is placed in a setting where black

people are subjected to oppression, it may cause that person to develop more compassion for the

people who are being oppressed. If he were to take the test in this setting, he would have a better

chance of getting a response that shows one has a positive perspective of African-Americans if he

did so. If he did so, he would have a better chance of getting a response that shows he has a

positive perspective of African-Americans. The impacts of context and situation have a

detrimental impact on the IAT's reliability and accuracy.

 References

De Houwer, J., Teige-Mocigemba, S., Spruyt, A., & Moors, A. (2009). Implicit measures: A

normative analysis and review. Psychological bulletin, 135(3), 347.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0014211

Flood, F., Kelley, E., Donald, B. B., Redfield, S., Benach, A., Beletsky, L., ... & Work, S. L.

(2019). By Laura Lothman Lambert, with a Perspective from the Bench by The

Honorable Arthur L. Burnett Sr. Criminal Justice, 34(2).

Maina, I. W., Belton, T. D., Ginzberg, S., Singh, A., & Johnson, T. J. (2018). A decade of

studying implicit racial/ethnic bias in healthcare providers using the implicit association

test. Social Science & Medicine, 199, 219-229.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953617303039