The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a psychological measuring tool that aims at establishing unintended racial prejudices. The measure was inspired by Anthony Greenwald, Debbie McGhee, and Jordan Schwartz. It is predicated on the idea that individuals harbor implicit racial biases. Essentially, there are unconscious thoughts in the human mind that can only be inferred through a conscious process. IAT has been used as the standard measure of in social psychology. However, the test has been the subject of significant controversy in recent times. The proponents of the test indicate that it facilitates the manifestation of hidden racial bias.
Alternatively, detractors of the test results derived from IAT contend that it does not reflect the truth about racial prejudices. Examination of the validity and credibility of IAT – as a psychosocial measuring component – is important since it has the power to determine the subject’s future racial viewpoints. Additionally, the initiative will facilitate the identification of an appropriate measuring tool that can be used to define racial biases. This paper argues that the Implicit Association Test (IAT) is inaccurate and false. It inspires results that are not a true reflection of racial bias in the community
Summary
The first position in the analysis suggests that the IAT is an effective tool in the identification of racial biases among individuals. The advocates of the measuring tool predicate their stance on several arguments. Firstly, advocates of the test indicate that IAT is adaptable to human needs. They also indicate that it is the only available tool that is globally acknowledged and used in the assessment of human prejudices (Singal). Additionally, the allusion to the test’s validity provides the next argument offered by proponents in reinforcing the effectiveness of the tool in measuring human biases. Thirdly, implicit bias is pervasive. Essentially, the test aims to identify the specific racial biases to enable the determination of appropriate counter-measures.
This paper contends that IAT fails to truly establish the components of bias, since it is predicated on the assumption that every individual is subject to implicit bias. Regardless of an individual’s bipartisan views and attitudes, the test will infer elements of prejudice. Subsequently, it cannot be applied as the measure that identifies subjective racial biases. IAT tests are also subject to human error. Therefore, any slight mistake in the computation process, will yield results that fail to reflect the participants levels of racial prejudice. Lastly, response to stimuli is often inspired by the participant’s familiarity. The absence of prior interactions with the components under examination, may inspire negative IAT results. Such results cannot be used to define racial bias. Overall, this paper will examine both the supporting and negating arguments, with regards to IAT. Nonetheless, it challenges the validity and accuracy of the test in inferring racial prejudices.
The Ineffectiveness of IAT
Limited Scope
IAT is limited in scope. It exhibits a limited range on the criterion measures. The use of a restricted criterion in measuring an element that affects every individual, limits the outcomes of an analysis (Tinkler 992). Each individual has a specific background that is different from other participant backgrounds. Subsequently, it is unlikely that all participants will respond correctly to the questions that are being asked in the IAT process. An inquiry into attitude ought to be limitless. An efficient psychosocial test ought to take into consideration the different institutions that may influence an individual’s attitude or behavior towards a given element. To counter the argument, advocates of IAT suggest that the use of regression of analysis streamlines the results of the tests. Essentially, an inclusion of more variables renders corrupts the process. In regression analysis, participant responses are weighed against standardized responses. Deviation from the expected responses provides the metric that defines one’s racial prejudice (Singal). Regression analysis facilitates the determination of specified outcomes. With regards to IAT, it is a measurement method that is susceptible to manipulation by the overseeing party. The questions offered in the analysis are streamlined towards achieving a predetermined end. Therefore, the process cannot be considered to be free and devoid of influence. Generally, collective measures in the test cannot be used to accurately predict an individual’s behavioral patterns. To facilitate the determination of the presence of racial prejudice, the questions used in IAT ought to be formatted according to the historical, social and racial background of the participant who is involved in the study.
Subject to Human Error
IAT is subject to human error. The test results are dependent on the human factor. Essentially, information fed into the computer, for regression analysis, can be correct or incorrect. Such information does not always reflect the participant’s viewpoint. Alternatively, the participant may make errors in the submission of their responses. Often times, such errors are included in the analysis process to determine rates of prejudice. An efficient psychosocial measuring tool should be error-free. Since it is intended to manifest the truth about social prejudices, it should be streamlined to facilitate maximum relevance. Reactions to computer tests should not be the only components that are used to explain racial prejudice. Proponents of the test conclude that the risk of error is minimal. Their arguments are predicated on the idea that unconscious responses provide the best medium of insight into one’s prejudiced tendencies. However, split second reactions are subjective. They are often reinforced overtime. For instance, while an individual’s response to danger may be to flee, others may choose to face the danger. Responses to external stimuli are often cemented by the social circle. Essentially, people respond to external circumstances depending on their upbringing. Interpretation to phenomena is subjective (Kaufman). Therefore, individuals who were raised in a similar setting are likely to project similar prejudice based on the IAT. In such a scenario, the generalization error results in shared outcomes. It renders the individual attitude, behavior or perspective irrelevant. Since the goal of the IAT is to infer individual racial bias, the process will be significantly jeopardized under the circumstances. Overall, IAT as a means of testing racial prejudice is faulty. The process fails to address the many errors that affect the results. It does not consider the implications of external and internal factors on the opinions that are projected by participants in an inquiry.
Inconsistency
The IAT test is inconsistent. The results are influenced by participant responses and immediate reactions to stimuli. Therefore, a change in reaction results in a change in the outcomes of the test. Alternatively, results differ through the sessions. The outcomes of the initial test may not be the same as the results derived in the second test. Such inconsistency is detrimental to the measurement process. It reflects the test’s inability to address constant racial prejudiced. Inconsistency hinders efficient establishment of racial bias. People do not always share their intrinsic emotions. Therefore, there is the possibility that one may affect attitudes or opinions to hide their true emotions or bias. For instance, since racial prejudice is considered the to be an immoral act in the society, an individual may choose to affect an attitude or perspective that is contrary to who they are in normal life.
To negate the claims to inconsistency of results, proponents of the IAT argument suggest that inconsistency is a reflection of the test’s ability to adapt to different goals and individual perspectives (Karpinski and Steinman 19). Therefore, the system is able to assess a wide variety of perspective and attitude links. According to the proponents, the adaptable use of IAT facilitates the negation of stereotypes in the community. Based on the analogy, each individual is allowed the opportunity to mirror their understanding about the concept of prejudice based on their understanding. However, such an argument is faulty since inconsistency renders the entire process inadmissible. An efficient test should be able to determine consistent results. If prejudice is reflected in the first test, then the same results ought to be manifested in the second, third and fourth results respectively. The inconsistency of participant in IAT mirrors the measure’s inability to confidently define the elements of racial bias among participants in a given study. If IAT had been an efficient psychosocial tool, then it would facilitate the sustenance of results from one test to the next.
Anxiety and Mental Restlessness
Anxiety may have a significant effect on the outcomes of IAT. The test does not accommodate the possibility that a perspective could be inspired by general anxiety. It is based on the belief than an anxious response provides a reflection of racial prejudice. The assumption is subject to several faults. Firstly, anxiety as a response can be used by different individuals to convey different meanings (Tinkler 990). For instance, one may become anxious over both good news and bad news. Therefore, using anxiety as a tool of assessment may lead to deceiving results in IAT. Most of the participants in the procedure are often not allowed time to reflect on the question, in computer tests. Spontaneous reactions cannot be applied to successfully define conscious activities. The computers used in the test are limited to the examination of observable responses. Anxiety can be an emotion that depicts the willingness of the respondent to participate in the intervention. Restlessness is also not a reflection of racial prejudice. Essentially, when individuals fidget, the action may have been inspired by several other factors. It is wrong to assume that restlessness was caused by an element of implicit racial bias. The environment can cause restlessness. Other factors such as comfortability may have an influence on the responses that the participant gives in the interview sessions.
To counter the argument, the proponents of anxiety as a tool of response in IAT may suggest that an individual’s anxiety is only manifested when they are encountered with an uncomfortable truth. This analogy fails to recognize the cultural factor in the manifestation of human emotion. Therefore, individuals tend to react differently to circumstances depending on their social settings and backgrounds.
Accessibility
The ease with which the tests can be accessed by individuals on the internet, impedes the quality of results. Any individual is allowed the opportunity to respond to a specified number of questions before being declared to be prejudiced. Such accessibility, without succinct guidance, has the potential to hinder the determination of truth regarding racial bias. The proponents of IAT as a measuring tool suggests that the hosting rights, overseen by the prestigious Harvard institution, speaks to the quality of the process. However, this assumption is misguided. According to Singal, studies from different scholarly journals “suggest that the IAT falls far short of the quality-control standards normally expected of psychological instruments” (par. 4). The process cannot be used to successfully define human behavior in the future or present. Therefore, accessibility to the instrument cannot be used as metric to examine the responses given by clients to different stimuli.
Conclusion
Recent times have seen an increase in the use of Implicit Association Test (IAT) to infer racial bias. However, the psychosocial tool ins subject to several limitations. Firstly, is limited in scope. The questions offered to participants in the intervention are rigid and do not allow deviation. Alternatively, the process is fraught with inconsistency. Results derived from one session tend to differ from those that are manifested in different sessions. The instrument is also subject to human error. When one submits incorrect information by mistake, the system assumes their unconscious offered their honest opinion, and thus, computes it. The system is also subject to the generalization error as it assumes that individuals harbor racial prejudice. IAT should be scrapped and denounced because it lacks the validity that forms a part of psychological instruments. The system fails to accurately determine racial prejudices.
Works Cited
Karpinski, Andrew, and Ross Steinman. “The Single Category Implicit Association Test as a Measure of Implicit Social Cognition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, no. 91, 2006, pp.16-32.
Kaufman, Scott Barry. “Does the Implicit Association Test (IAT) Really Measure Racial Prejudice? Probably Not.” Psychology Today, Jan 2011, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201101/does-the-implicit-association-test-iat-really-measure-racial-prejudice. Accessed Feb. 2nd, 2018.
Singal, Jesse. “Psychology’s Favorite Tool for Measuring Racism Isn’t Up to the Job.” The Cut, 2017, https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html. Accessed Feb. 2nd, 2018.
Tinkler, Justine. “Controversies in Implicit Race Bias Research.” Sociology Compass, no. 6, 2012, pp. 987-997.
