(137 words; 941 characters) 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, 200x, 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 over 250 publications since 1998, there is now much evidence for consequential validity of the IAT. The IAT has attracted more scholarly criticism than have other measures designed for similar purposes. We speculate as to why the IAT is an attractive target. Greenwald et al.: Comment on Blanton & Jaccard Draft of July 30, 2005-3-Consequential Validity of the IAT: Comment on the Article by Blanton and Jaccar
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.