Search

This meta-analysis evaluated theoretical predictions from balanced identity theory (BIT) and evaluated the validity of zero points of Implicit Association Test (IAT) and self-report measures used to test these predictions. Twenty-one researchers contributed individual subject data from 36 experiments (total N = 12,773) that used both explicit and implicit measures of the social-cognitive constructs. The meta-analysis confirmed predictions of BIT's balance-congruity principle and simultaneously validated interpretation of the IAT's zero point as indicating absence of preference between two attitude objects. Statistical power afforded by the sample size enabled the first confirmations of balance-congruity predictions with self-report measures. Beyond these empirical results, the meta-analysis introduced a within-study statistical test of the balance-congruity principle, finding that it had greater efficiency than the previous best method. The meta-analysis's full data set has been publicly archived to enable further studies of interrelations among attitudes, stereotypes, and identities.

We propose to change the default P-value threshold for statistical significance for claims of new discoveries from 0.05 to 0.005.

Dramatic forms of discrimination, such as lynching, property destruction, and hate crimes, are widely understood to be consequences of prejudicial hostility. This article focuses on what has heretofore been only an infrequent countertheme in scientific work on discrimination-that favoritism toward ingroups can be responsible for much discrimination. We extend this counterthesis to the strong conclusion that ingroup favoritism is plausibly more significant as a basis for discrimination in contemporary American society than is outgroup-directed hostility. This conclusion has implications for theory, research methods, and practical remedies.

The Preschool Implicit Association Test (PSIAT) is an adaptation of an established social cognition measure (IAT) for use with preschool children. Two studies with 4-year-olds found that the PSIAT was effective in evaluating (a) attitudes toward commonly liked objects ("flowers"="good") and (b) gender attitudes ("girl"="good" or "boy"="good"). The gender attitude PSIAT was positively correlated with corresponding explicit attitude measures and also children's actual sex. The new implicit and explicit measures of gender attitudes demonstrated discriminant validity; each predicted variance in children's gendered play activities beyond that predicted by the other. Discussion describes potential uses of the PSIAT to investigate development of societally significant attitudes and stereotypes at younger ages than are achievable with currently available methods. (Contains 1 table and 3 figures.)

A total of 247 American children between 6 and 10 years of age (126 girls and 121 boys) completed Implicit Association Tests and explicit self-report measures assessing the association of (a) "me" with "male" (gender identity), (b) "male" with "math" (math-gender stereotype), and (c) "me" with "math" (math self-concept). Two findings emerged. First, as early as second grade, the children demonstrated the American cultural stereotype that math is for boys on both implicit and explicit measures. Second, elementary school boys identified with math more strongly than did girls on both implicit and self-report measures. The findings suggest that the math-gender stereotype is acquired early and influences emerging math self-concepts prior to ages at which there are actual differences in math achievement.

In their review of validity of the Implicit Association Test and affective priming, J. De Houwer, S. Teige-Mocigemba, A. Spruyt, and A. Moors identified validity with establishment of "basic theoretical understanding" of the measures. It is agreed that theoretical understanding has an important role in making measures more valid and useful. Nevertheless, the authors conclude that scientific advancement will more often be well served by prioritizing pragmatic goals of establishing the predictive validity of the measures and their adequate sensitivity to individual differences. (Contains 1 footnote.)

Numeric values of psychological measures often have an arbitrary character before research has grounded their meanings, thereby providing what S. J. Messick (1995) called consequential validity (part of which H. Blanton and J. Jaccard now identify as metric meaningfulness). Some measures are predisposed by their design to acquire meanings easily, an example being the sensitivity measure of signal detection theory. Others are less well prepared, illustrated by most self-report measures of self-esteem. Counter to Blanton and Jaccard's characterization, the Implicit Association Test (IAT) has properties that predispose it to acquire consequential validity rapidly. With the IAT as the subject of over 250 publications since 1998, there is now much evidence for its consequential validity. The IAT has attracted more scholarly criticism than have other measures designed for similar purposes. The authors speculate as to why the IAT is an attractive target.

Blanton and Jaccard questioned the 4-test regression method used by Greenwald et al. to test a pure multiplicative theory. The present authors address Blanton and Jaccard's concerns with a combination of simulations and meta-analysis. Simulations show that (a) Blanton and Jaccard's preferred simultaneous regression method has a severe power loss in testing multiplicative theories when predictor variables' means deviate from rational zero values, and (b) Greenwald et al.'s 4-test method has a more limited weakness when predictor means deviate from rational zero in the positive direction. Meta-analyses showed that aggregate analyses of Greenwald et al.'s 5 experiments confirmed a multiplicative theory regardless of which analysis method was used. However, only the 4-test method could confirm a pure multiplicative theory.

The Implicit Association Test (IAT) requires responding to category contrasts such as young versus old, male versus female, and pleasant versus unpleasant. In introducing the IAT, A. G. Greenwald, D. E. McGhee, and J. L. K. Schwartz (1998) proposed that IAT measures reflect mental structures involving the nominal features of the IAT's categories (e.g., age, gender, or valence features). In contrast, K. Rothermund and D. Wentura proposed that IAT performance is dominated by salience asymmetries of the IAT's pairs of contrasted categories. To assess relative contributions of nominal feature contrasts versus salience asymmetries, the authors (a) briefly summarize the extensive evidence now available to support construct validity of the IAT as a measure based on nominal category features and (b) present 2 new experiments that yielded results problematic for the salience asymmetry interpretation.

About 200 undergraduate classes were evaluated in three consecutive terms with surveys that assessed grades and course workloads. Major features of the covariance structure model developed were that courses giving higher grades were better liked and that courses giving higher grades had lighter workloads, showing effects of instructors' grading leniency on course ratings. (SLD)

Identifies four additional data patterns that discriminate among five theories of students' expected grades/teacher ratings correlation. The presence of all four of these markers in student ratings data is consistent with the theory that the correlation is due to an unwanted influence of instructors' grading leniency. (MMU)

Introduces the "Current Issues" section on validity concerns associated with student ratings. Articles address issues of conceptual structure, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and consequential validity regarding interpretation and use of ratings data. (MMU)