%0 Journal Article %T Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-Analysis of Predictive Validity %+ Kellogg School of Management %+ Department of Psychology %+ Cox School of Management %+ Department of Psychology %A Uhlmann, Eric Luis %A Greenwald, Anthony %A Poehlmann, Andrew %A Banaji, Mahzarin %< avec comité de lecture %@ 0022-3514 %J Journal of Personality and Social Psychology %I American Psychological Association %V Vol.97, n°1 %P pp.17-41 %8 2009-07 %D 2009 %R 10.1037/a0015575 %K Implicit Association Test %K implicit measures %K validity %K implicit attitudes %K attitude–behavior relations %Z Humanities and Social Sciences/Business administration/domain_shs.gestion.man-reJournal articles %X This review of 122 research reports (184 independent samples, 14,900 subjects) found average r = .274 for prediction of behavioral, judgment, and physiological measures by Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures. Parallel explicit (i.e., self-report) measures, available in 156 of these samples (13,068 subjects), also predicted effectively (average r = .361), but with much greater variability of effect size. Predictive validity of self-report was impaired for socially sensitive topics, for which impression management may distort self-report responses. For 32 samples with criterion measures involving Black–White interracial behavior, predictive validity of IAT measures significantly exceeded that of self-report measures. Both IAT and self-report measures displayed incremental validity, with each measure predicting criterion variance beyond that predicted by the other. The more highly IAT and self-report measures were intercorrelated, the greater was the predictive validity of each. %G English %L hal-00516146 %U https://hec.hal.science/hal-00516146 %~ SHS %~ HEC