The Implicit Association Test in Introductory Psychology Textbooks: Blind Spot for Controversy

IF 1.9 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT Pub Date : 2021-11-13 DOI:10.1177/14757257211055200
J. Bartels, P. Schoenrade
{"title":"The Implicit Association Test in Introductory Psychology Textbooks: Blind Spot for Controversy","authors":"J. Bartels, P. Schoenrade","doi":"10.1177/14757257211055200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Implicit Association Test (IAT) has been widely discussed as a potential measure of “implicit bias.” Yet the IAT is controversial; research suggests that it is far from clear precisely what the instrument measures, and it does not appear to be a strong predictor of behavior. The presentation of this topic in Introductory Psychology texts is important as, for many students, it is their first introduction to scientific treatment of such issues. In the present study, we examined twenty current Introductory Psychology texts in terms of their coverage of the controversy and presentation of the strengths and weaknesses of the measure. Of the 17 texts that discussed the IAT, a minority presented any of the concerns including the lack of measurement clarity (29%), an automatic preference for White people among African Americans (12%), lack of predictive validity (12%), and lack of caution about the meaning of a score (0%); most provided students with a link to the Project Implicit website (65%). Overall, 82% of the texts were rated as biased or partially biased on their coverage of the IAT. The implications for the perceptions and self-perceptions of students, particularly when a link to Project Implicit is included, are discussed.","PeriodicalId":45061,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT","volume":"21 1","pages":"113 - 125"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14757257211055200","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

The Implicit Association Test (IAT) has been widely discussed as a potential measure of “implicit bias.” Yet the IAT is controversial; research suggests that it is far from clear precisely what the instrument measures, and it does not appear to be a strong predictor of behavior. The presentation of this topic in Introductory Psychology texts is important as, for many students, it is their first introduction to scientific treatment of such issues. In the present study, we examined twenty current Introductory Psychology texts in terms of their coverage of the controversy and presentation of the strengths and weaknesses of the measure. Of the 17 texts that discussed the IAT, a minority presented any of the concerns including the lack of measurement clarity (29%), an automatic preference for White people among African Americans (12%), lack of predictive validity (12%), and lack of caution about the meaning of a score (0%); most provided students with a link to the Project Implicit website (65%). Overall, 82% of the texts were rated as biased or partially biased on their coverage of the IAT. The implications for the perceptions and self-perceptions of students, particularly when a link to Project Implicit is included, are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心理学入门教材中的内隐联想测试:争议的盲点
内隐联想测试(IAT)作为一种潜在的“内隐偏见”测量方法被广泛讨论;研究表明,目前还远不清楚该仪器测量的确切内容,而且它似乎不是行为的有力预测指标。在心理学导论中介绍这个主题很重要,因为对许多学生来说,这是他们第一次介绍如何科学处理这些问题。在本研究中,我们检查了20篇当前的《心理学导论》文本,以了解它们对争议的报道以及该措施的优势和劣势。在讨论IAT的17篇文章中,少数人提出了任何担忧,包括缺乏测量清晰度(29%)、非裔美国人自动偏好白人(12%)、缺乏预测有效性(12%)以及对分数的含义缺乏谨慎(0%);大多数人向学生提供了隐式项目网站的链接(65%)。总体而言,82%的文本在IAT的覆盖范围上被评为有偏见或部分偏见。讨论了对学生感知和自我认知的影响,特别是当包含与隐式项目的链接时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT
Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
Applied Scenarios: Embedding Psychological Literacy in Assessment Corrigendum to: “Retrieval practice: Beneficial for all students or moderated by individual differences?” Editorial PLAT 22(3) 2023 Abstracts of recent articles published in Teaching of Psychology Abstracts of recent articles published in Teaching of Psychology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1