Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Self-reports are better measurement instruments than implicit measures

Nature Reviews Psychology volume 3, pages 835–846 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Self-report measures directly ask respondents to report their mental content, such as thoughts and feelings. By contrast, implicit measures aim to assess thoughts and feelings using performance indicators (for example, response times, error rates and response frequencies) under conditions that favour automatic processing. Implicit measures are now widely used in psychological science and beyond, because they are assumed to be superior to self-reports in various ways. In this Perspective, we argue that, despite the enthusiasm for implicit measures, self-reports are most often the better measurement option. First, the use of implicit measures is often based on mistaken assumptions about the disadvantages of self-reports. Second, self-reports have advantageous characteristics that are currently unmatched in implicit measures. We call for a more sophisticated use of self-reports and for caution when using implicit measures in basic and applied research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Structural-fit approaches for drawing inferences about automaticity.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lalwani, A. K., Shavitt, S. & Johnson, T. What is the relation between cultural orientation and socially desirable responding? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 165–178 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Paulhus, D. L. Two-component models of socially desirable responding. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46, 598–609 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilson, T. D. Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious (Belknap, 2004).

  4. Greenwald, A. G. & Banaji, M. R. Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol. Rev. 102, 4–27 (1995).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol. Rev. 84, 231–259 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D. & Sechrest, L. Unobtrusive Measures (Sage, 2000).

  7. Campbell, D. T. The indirect assessment of social attitudes. Psychol. Bull. 47, 15–38 (1950).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gawronski, B., De Houwer, J. & Sherman, J. W. Twenty-five years of research using implicit measures. Soc. Cogn. 38, s1–s25 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gawronski, B., Galdi, S. & Arcuri, L. What can political psychology learn from implicit measures? Empirical evidence and new directions. Polit. Psychol. 36, 1–17 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ryan, T. J. & Krupnikov, Y. Split feelings: understanding implicit and explicit political persuasion. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 115, 1424–1441 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Clayton, K., Horrillo, J. & Sniderman, P. M. The BIAT and the AMP as measures of racial prejudice in political science: a methodological assessment. Polit. Sci. Res. Meth. 11, 363–373 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dimofte, C. V. Implicit measures of consumer cognition: a review. Psychol. Mark. 27, 921–937 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Slabbinck, H. & Spruyt, A. in Review of Marketing Research (eds Baumgartner, H. & Weijters, B.) 171–210 (Emerald, 2022).

  14. Brunel, F. F., Tietje, B. C. & Greenwald, A. G. Is the implicit association test a valid and valuable measure of implicit consumer social cognition? J. Consum. Psychol. 14, 385–404 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Glock, S. & Kovacs, C. Educational psychology: using insights from implicit attitude measures. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 25, 503–522 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., Van Den Bergh, L. & Bijlstra, G. Implicit measures of teachers’ attitudes and stereotypes, and their effects on teacher practice and student outcomes: a review. Learn. Instr. 78, 101437 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pit-ten Cate, I. M. & Glock, S. Teachers’ implicit attitudes toward students from different social groups: a meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. 10, 2832 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Stanley, D. A., Sokol-Hessner, P., Banaji, M. R. & Phelps, E. A. Implicit race attitudes predict trustworthiness judgments and economic trust decisions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 7710–7715 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Alesina, A., Carlana, M., La Ferrara, E. & Pinotti, P. Revealing stereotypes: evidence from immigrants in schools. Am. Econ. Rev. 114, 1916–1948 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Carlana, M. Implicit stereotypes: evidence from teachers’ gender bias. Q. J. Econ. 134, 1163–1224 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E. & Schwartz, J. L. K. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 1464–1480 (1998).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Payne, B. K., Cheng, C. M., Govorun, O. & Stewart, B. D. An inkblot for attitudes: affect misattribution as implicit measurement. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89, 277–293 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C. & Williams, C. J. Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: a bona fide pipeline? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69, 1013–1027 (1995).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ye, Y. & Gawronski, B. Validating the semantic misattribution procedure as an implicit measure of gender stereotyping. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 48, 348–364 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Greenwald, A. G. & Farnham, S. D. Using the implicit association test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79, 1022–1038 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Slabbinck, H., De Houwer, J. & Van Kenhove, P. A pictorial attitude IAT as a measure of implicit motives. Eur. J. Pers. 25, 76–86 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Marvel, J. D. & Resh, W. D. An unconscious drive to help others? Using the implicit association test to measure prosocial motivation. Int. Public. Manag. J. 22, 29–70 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Seewald, A., Teige-Mocigemba, S. & Rief, W. Outcome expectations in psychotherapy: validation of the therapy single category implicit association test (Therapy SC-IAT). Cogn. Ther. Res. 47, 894–908 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dentale, F., Vecchione, M., Gebauer, J. E. & Barbaranelli, C. Measuring automatic value orientations: the achievement–benevolence implicit association test. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 57, 210–229 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Randall, J. R., Rowe, B. H., Dong, K. A., Nock, M. K. & Colman, I. Assessment of self-harm risk using implicit thoughts. Psychol. Assess. 25, 714–721 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tucker, R. P., Wingate, L. R., Burkley, M. & Wells, T. T. Implicit association with suicide as measured by the suicide affect misattribution procedure (S‐AMP) predicts suicide ideation. Suicide Life-Threat. Behav. 48, 720–731 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cummins, J. & De Houwer, J. Are relational implicit measures sensitive to relational information? Coll. Psychol. 8, 38621 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cummins, J. & De Houwer, J. The shape of belief: developing a mousetracking-based relational implicit measure. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 12, 1517–1526 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hansford, T. G., Intawan, C. & Nicholson, S. P. Snap judgment: implicit perceptions of a (political) court. Polit. Behav. 40, 127–147 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schreger, C. & Kimble, M. Assessing civilian perceptions of combat veterans: an IAT study. Psychol. Trauma. Theory Res. Pract. Policy 9, 12–18 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sun, Y., Li, Y., Cai, B. & Li, Q. Comparing the explicit and implicit attitudes of energy stakeholders and the public towards carbon capture and storage. J. Clean. Prod. 254, 120051 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Coleman, J. A., Ingram, K. M., Bays, A., Joy-Gaba, J. A. & Boone, E. L. Disability and assistance dog implicit association test: a novel IAT. Rehabil. Psychol. 60, 17–26 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Houben, K., Nosek, B. A. & Wiers, R. W. Seeing the forest through the trees: a comparison of different IAT variants measuring implicit alcohol associations. Drug. Alcohol. Depend. 106, 204–211 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Corneille, O. & Hütter, M. Implicit? what do you mean? A comprehensive review of the delusive implicitness construct in attitude research. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 24, 212–232 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gawronski, B. & De Houwer, J. in Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology (eds Reis, H. T. & C. M. Judd, C. M.) 283–310 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  41. Kurdi, B., Sanchez, A., Dasgupta, N. & Banaji, M. R. (When) do counterattitudinal exemplars shift implicit racial evaluations? Replications and extensions of Dasgupta and Greenwald (2001). J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 126, 543–565 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Dasgupta, N. & Greenwald, A. G. On the malleability of automatic attitudes: combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81, 800–814 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Schwarz, N. & Bohner, G. in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intraindividual Processes (eds Tesser, A. & Schwarz, N.) 436–457 (Wiley, 2001).

  44. Schwarz, N. & Strack, F. Context effects in attitude surveys: applying cognitive theory to social research. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2, 31–50 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J. & Rasinski, K. The Psychology of Survey Response (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).

  46. Strack, F., Martin, L. L. & Schwarz, N. Priming and communication: social determinants of information use in judgments of life satisfaction. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 18, 429–442 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Blair, I. V. The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 6, 242–261 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Forscher, P. S. et al. A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 117, 522–559 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Gawronski, B. & Sritharan, R. in Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications (eds Gawronski, B. & Payne, B. K.) 216–240 (Guilford Press, 2010).

  50. Gawronski, B., Brownstein, M. & Madva, A. How should we think about implicit measures and their empirical “anomalies”? WIREs Cogn. Sci. 13, e1590 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lelkes, Y., Krosnick, J. A., Marx, D. M., Judd, C. M. & Park, B. Complete anonymity compromises the accuracy of self-reports. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48, 1291–1299 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Berry, B. A. Experimenter characteristics, social desirability, and the implicit association test. Psi Chi J. Psychol. Res. 20, 247–257 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lowery, B. S., Hardin, C. D. & Sinclair, S. Social influence effects on automatic racial prejudice. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81, 842–855 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Boysen, G. A., Vogel, D. L. & Madon, S. A public versus private administration of the implicit association test. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 36, 845–856 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Nosek, B. A. Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluation. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 134, 565–584 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Schmidt, K., Buchanan, E. M. & Hall, B. F. Registered report: moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit measures of evaluation and identification. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 100, 104280 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Cameron, C. D., Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L. & Payne, B. K. Sequential priming measures of implicit social cognition: a meta-analysis of associations with behavior and explicit attitudes. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 16, 330–350 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H. & Schmitt, M. A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31, 1369–1385 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Turner, R. N. & Crisp, R. J. Imagining intergroup contact reduces implicit prejudice. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 49, 129–142 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Zaltman, G. How Customers Think: Essential Insights into the Mind of the Market (Harvard Business School Press, 2007).

  61. Crano, W. D. & Prislin, R. Attitudes and Attitude Change (Psychology Press, 2011).

  62. Corneille, O. & Lush, P. Sixty years after Orne’s American Psychologist article: a conceptual framework for subjective experiences elicited by demand characteristics. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 27, 83–101 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Röhner, J., Thoss, P. & Schütz, A. Lying on the dissection table: anatomizing faked responses. Behav. Res. Methods 54, 2878–2904 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Steffens, M. C. Is the implicit association test immune to faking? Exp. Psychol. 51, 165–179 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Teige-Mocigemba, S., Penzl, B., Becker, M., Henn, L. & Klauer, K. C. Controlling the “uncontrollable”: faking effects on the affect misattribution procedure. Cogn. Emot. 30, 1470–1484 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Teige-Mocigemba, S. & Klauer, K. C. On the controllability of evaluative-priming effects: some limits that are none. Cogn. Emot. 27, 632–657 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Fiedler, K. & Bluemke, M. Faking the IAT: aided and unaided response control on the implicit association tests. Basic. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27, 307–316 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Van Dessel, P. & De Houwer, J. Hypnotic suggestions can induce rapid change in implicit attitudes. Psychol. Sci. 30, 1362–1370 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Blair, I. V., Ma, J. E. & Lenton, A. P. Imagining stereotypes away: the moderation of implicit stereotypes through mental imagery. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81, 828–841 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Dhammapeera, P., Hu, X. & Bergström, Z. M. Imagining a false alibi impairs concealed memory detection with the autobiographical Implicit Association Test. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 26, 266–282 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Dienes, Z. & Lush, P. The role of phenomenological control in experience. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 32, 145–151 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Banaji, M. R. & Greenwald, A. G. Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People (Delacorte, 2013).

  73. Kurdi, B. & Mandelbaum, E. The case against implicit bias fatalism. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 2, 656–657 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Morehouse, K. N. & Banaji, M. R. The science of implicit race bias: evidence from the implicit association test. Daedalus 153, 21–50 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. De Houwer, J., Teige-Mocigemba, S., Spruyt, A. & Moors, A. Implicit measures: a normative analysis and review. Psychol. Bull. 135, 347–368 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Gawronski, B., Hofmann, W. & Wilbur, C. J. Are “implicit” attitudes unconscious? Consc. Cogn. 15, 485–499 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Gawronski, B. & Corneille, O. Unawareness of attitudes, their environmental causes, and their behavioral effects. Annu. Rev. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-051324-031037 (2024).

  78. Hahn, A., Judd, C. M., Hirsh, H. K. & Blair, I. V. Awareness of implicit attitudes. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143, 1369–1392 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Morris, A. & Kurdi, B. Awareness of implicit attitudes: large-scale investigations of mechanism and scope. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 152, 3311–3343 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Rahmani Azad, Z., Goedderz, A. & Hahn, A. Self-awareness and stereotypes: accurate prediction of implicit gender stereotyping. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 49, 1695–1708 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Hahn, A. & Gawronski, B. Facing one’s implicit biases: from awareness to acknowledgment. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 116, 769–794 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Hahn, A. & Gawronski, B. Do implicit evaluations reflect unconscious attitudes? Behav. Brain Sci. 37, 28–29 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Krickel, B. Are the states underlying implicit biases unconscious?—a neo-Freudian answer. Phil. Psychol. 31, 1007–1026 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Banaji, M. R. in How is the Internet Changing the Way You Think? (ed. Brockman, J.) 392–395 (Harper Collins, 2011).

  85. Wolsiefer, K., Westfall, J. & Judd, C. M. Modeling stimulus variation in three common implicit attitude tasks. Behav. Res. Meth. 49, 1193–1209 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Gawronski, B., Ledgerwood, A. & Eastwick, P. W. Implicit bias ≠ bias on implicit measures. Psychol. Inq. 33, 139–155 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Greenwald, A. G. et al. Implicit-bias remedies: treating discriminatory bias as a public-health problem. Psychol. Sci. Public. Interest. 23, 7–40 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Greenwald, A. G. & Lai, C. K. Implicit social cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 71, 419–445 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Bartels, J. M. & Schoenrade, P. The implicit association test in introductory psychology textbooks: blind spot for controversy. Psychol. Learn. Teach. 21, 113–125 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Mitchell, G. & Tetlock, P. E. in The Cambridge Handbook of Implicit Bias and Racism (eds Krosnick, J. A., Stark, T. H., & Scott, A. L.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2024).

  91. Balas, R. & Gawronski, B. On the intentional control of conditioned evaluative responses. Learn. Motiv. 43, 89–98 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Ranganath, K. A., Smith, C. T. & Nosek, B. A. Distinguishing automatic and controlled components of attitudes from direct and indirect measurement methods. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44, 386–396 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Stahl, C., Bena, J., Aust, F., Mierop, A. & Corneille, O. A conditional judgment procedure for probing evaluative conditioning effects in the absence of feelings of remembering. Behav. Res. Meth. 56, 1140–1163 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Hütter, M. & Klauer, K. C. Applying processing trees in social psychology. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 27, 116–159 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Payne, B. K. & Bishara, A. J. An integrative review of process dissociation and related models in social cognition. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 20, 272–314 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Béna, J., Lacassagne, D. & Corneille, O. Do uncontrolled processes contribute to evaluative learning? Insights from a new two-US process dissociation procedure and ambivalence measures. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218241248138 (2024).

  97. Hütter, M. & Sweldens, S. Dissociating controllable and uncontrollable effects of affective stimuli on attitudes and consumption. J. Consum. Res. 45, 320–349 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Corneille, O., Mierop, A., Stahl, C. & Hütter, M. Evidence suggestive of uncontrollable attitude acquisition replicates in an instructions-based evaluative conditioning paradigm: implications for associative attitude acquisition. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 85, 103841 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Hansen, J. & Wänke, M. Liking what’s familiar: the importance of unconscious familiarity in the mere-exposure effect. Soc. Cogn. 27, 161–182 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Hütter, M., Sweldens, S., Stahl, C., Unkelbach, C. & Klauer, K. C. Dissociating contingency awareness and conditioned attitudes: evidence of contingency-unaware evaluative conditioning. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 141, 539–557 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Jacoby, L. L. A process dissociation framework: separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. J. Mem. Lang. 30, 513–541 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Mierop, A., Hütter, M., Stahl, C. & Corneille, O. Does attitude acquisition in evaluative conditioning without explicit CS–US memory reflect implicit misattribution of affect? Cogn. Emot. 33, 173–184 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Unkelbach, C. & Stahl, C. A multinomial modeling approach to dissociate different components of the truth effect. Consc. Cogn. 18, 22–38 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Strack, F. & Deutsch, R. Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8, 220–247 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. De Houwer, J., Van Dessel, P. & Moran, T. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 61, 127–183 (Elsevier, 2020).

  106. Kurdi, B., Morehouse, K. N. & Dunham, Y. How do explicit and implicit evaluations shift? A preregistered meta-analysis of the effects of co-occurrence and relational information. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 124, 1174–1202 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Heycke, T. & Gawronski, B. Co-occurrence and relational information in evaluative learning: a multinomial modeling approach. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 104–124 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Kukken, N., Hütter, M. & Holland, R. W. Are there two independent evaluative conditioning effects in relational paradigms? Dissociating the effects of CS–US pairings and their meaning. Cogn. Emot. 34, 170–187 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Béna, J., Mauclet, A. & Corneille, O. Does co-occurrence information influence evaluations beyond relational meaning? An investigation using self-reported and mouse-tracking measures of attitudinal ambivalence. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 152, 968–992 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Hu, X., Gawronski, B. & Balas, R. Propositional versus dual-process accounts of evaluative conditioning: I. The effects of co-occurrence and relational information on implicit and explicit evaluations. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43, 17–32 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Rydell, R. J. & McConnell, A. R. Understanding implicit and explicit attitude change: a systems of reasoning analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91, 995–1008 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S. & Schooler, T. Y. A model of dual attitudes. Psychol. Rev. 107, 101–126 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Rudman, L. A. Sources of implicit attitudes. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 13, 79–82 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., Strain, L. M., Claypool, H. M. & Hugenberg, K. Implicit and explicit attitudes respond differently to increasing amounts of counterattitudinal information. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 37, 867–878 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Cone, J., Mann, T. C. & Ferguson, M. J. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 56, 131–199 (Elsevier, 2017).

  116. Kurdi, B., Mann, T. C. & Ferguson, M. J. Persuading the implicit mind: changing negative implicit evaluations with an 8-minute podcast. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 13, 688–697 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Van Dessel, P., Ye, Y. & De Houwer, J. Changing deep-rooted implicit evaluation in the blink of an eye: negative verbal information shifts automatic liking of Gandhi. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 10, 266–273 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Lai, C. K. et al. Reducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across time. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, 1001–1016 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Charlesworth, T. E. S. & Banaji, M. R. Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: II. Long-term change and stability, regardless of group membership. Am. Psychol. 76, 851–869 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Charlesworth, T. E. S. & Banaji, M. R. Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: IV. Change and stability from 2007 to 2020. Psychol. Sci. 33, 1347–1371 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Charlesworth, T. E. S. & Banaji, M. R. Patterns of implicit and explicit stereotypes: III. Long-term change in gender stereotypes. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 13, 14–26 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Payne, B. K., Vuletich, H. A. & Lundberg, K. B. The bias of crowds: how implicit bias bridges personal and systemic prejudice. Psychol. Inq. 28, 233–248 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Payne, B. K. & Hannay, J. W. Implicit bias reflects systemic racism. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25, 927–936 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Ekstrom, P. D., Le Forestier, J. M. & Lai, C. K. Racial demographics explain the link between racial disparities in traffic stops and county-level racial attitudes. Psychol. Sci. 33, 497–509 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Hehman, E., Flake, J. K. & Calanchini, J. Disproportionate use of lethal force in policing is associated with regional racial biases of residents. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 9, 393–401 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Leitner, J. B., Hehman, E., Ayduk, O. & Mendoza-Denton, R. Racial bias is associated with ingroup death rate for Blacks and whites: insights from project implicit. Soc. Sci. Med. 170, 220–227 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Galvan, M. J. & Payne, B. K. Implicit bias as a cognitive manifestation of systemic racism. Daedalus 153, 106–122 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Calanchini, J. et al. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 66, 281–337 (Elsevier, 2022).

  129. Orchard, J. & Price, J. County-level racial prejudice and the Black–white gap in infant health outcomes. Soc. Sci. Med. 181, 191–198 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Stelter, M., Essien, I., Sander, C. & Degner, J. Racial bias in police traffic stops: white residents’ county-level prejudice and stereotypes are related to disproportionate stopping of Black drivers. Psychol. Sci. 33, 483–496 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S. & Hunter, B. A. Sexism and racism: old-fashioned and modern prejudices. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 68, 199–214 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Henry, P. J. & Sears, D. O. The Symbolic Racism 2000 Scale. Polit. Psychol. 23, 253–283 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. McConahay, J. B. in Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism (eds Dovidio, J. F. & Gaertner, S. L.) 91–125 (Academic, 1986).

  134. Gawronski, B., Morrison, M., Phills, C. E. & Galdi, S. Temporal stability of implicit and explicit measures: a longitudinal analysis. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43, 300–312 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Koppehele-Gossel, J., Hoffmann, L., Banse, R. & Gawronski, B. Evaluative priming as an implicit measure of evaluation: an examination of outlier-treatments for evaluative priming scores. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 87, 103905 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. LeBel, E. P. & Paunonen, S. V. Sexy but often unreliable: the impact of unreliability on the replicability of experimental findings with implicit measures. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37, 570–583 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L. & Banaji, M. R. Understanding and using the implicit association test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97, 17–41 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Kurdi, B. et al. Relationship between the implicit association test and intergroup behavior: a meta-analysis. Am. Psychol. 74, 569–586 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J. & Tetlock, P. E. Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: a meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 105, 171–192 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M. & Muellerleile, P. A. Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 127, 142–161 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. Lin, N. & Roberts, K. R. Using the theory of planned behavior to predict food safety behavioral intention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 90, 102612 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. McDermott, M. S. et al. The theory of planned behaviour and dietary patterns: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev. Med. 81, 150–156 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, M., Taylor, N. J. & Lawton, R. J. Prospective prediction of health-related behaviours with the Theory of Planned Behaviour: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. Rev. 5, 97–144 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Albarracín, D., Fayaz-Farkhad, B. & Granados Samayoa, J. A. Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 3, 377–392 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Glasman, L. R. & Albarracín, D. Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: a meta-analysis of the attitude–behavior relation. Psychol. Bull. 132, 778–822 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  147. Friese, M., Hofmann, W. & Schmitt, M. When and why do implicit measures predict behaviour? Empirical evidence for the moderating role of opportunity, motivation, and process reliance. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 19, 285–338 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Fazio, R. H. Attitudes as object–evaluation associations of varying strength. Soc. Cogn. 25, 603–637 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. Perugini, M., Richetin, J. & Zogmaister, C. in Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications (eds Gawronski, B. & Payne, B. K.) 255–277 (Guilford, 2010).

  150. Gawronski, B. Six lessons for a cogent science of implicit bias and its criticism. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 14, 574–595 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Carpenter, T. P., Goedderz, A. & Lai, C. K. Individual differences in implicit bias can be measured reliably by administering the same implicit association test multiple times. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 49, 1363–1378 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Kaiser, C. & Oswald, A. J. The scientific value of numerical measures of human feelings. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2210412119 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  153. Vargas, P. T., Von Hippel, W. & Petty, R. E. Using partially structured attitude measures to enhance the attitude-behavior relationship. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30, 197–211 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Bodenhausen, G. V. & Petsko, C. D. in The Cambridge Handbook of Implicit Bias and Racism (eds Krosnick, J. A., Stark, T. H. & Scott, A. L.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2024).

  155. Payne, B. K., Burkley, M. A. & Stokes, M. B. Why do implicit and explicit attitude tests diverge? The role of structural fit. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 16–31 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Béna, J., Melnikoff, D. E., Mierop, A. & Corneille, O. Revisiting dissociation hypotheses with a structural fit approach: the case of the prepared reflex framework. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 100, 104297 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Zerhouni, O., Bègue, L., Comiran, F. & Wiers, R. W. Controlled and implicit processes in evaluative conditioning on implicit and explicit attitudes toward alcohol and intentions to drink. Addict. Behav. 76, 335–342 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G. V. Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: an integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychol. Bull. 132, 692–731 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Calanchini, J. How multinomial processing trees have advanced, and can continue to advance, research using implicit measures. Soc. Cogn. 38, s165–s186 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. De Houwer, J. & Boddez, Y. Bias in implicit measures as instances of biased behavior under suboptimal conditions in the laboratory. Psychol. Inq. 33, 173–176 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G. V. in Theory and Explanation in Social Psychology (eds Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G. V.) 3–23 (Guilford, 2015).

  162. Goedderz, A. & Hahn, A. Awareness and calibration: the role of descriptive norms and social desirability in accurate IAT score predictions of food items vs. social groups. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241254447 (2024).

  163. Ratliff, K. A. & Smith, C. T. Implicit bias as automatic behavior. Psychol. Inq. 33, 213–218 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  164. Kurdi, B. et al. Testing the automaticity features of the affect misattribution procedure: the roles of awareness and intentionality. Behav. Res. Meth. 56, 3161–3194 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Schimmack, U. Invalid claims about the validity of implicit association tests by prisoners of the implicit social-cognition paradigm. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 16, 435–442 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  166. Schimmack, U. The implicit association test: a method in search of a construct. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 16, 396–414 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  167. Buchner, A., Erdfelder, E. & Vaterrodt-Plünnecke, B. Toward unbiased measurement of conscious and unconscious memory processes within the process dissociation framework. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 124, 137–160 (1995).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Schmidt, O., Erdfelder, E. & Heck, D. W. How to develop, test, and extend multinomial processing tree models: a tutorial. Psychol. Meth. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000561 (2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank J. Béna, M. Navon and J. Röhner for helpful comments on a previous version of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychological Sciences Research Institute, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Olivier Corneille

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Bertram Gawronski

Authors
  1. Olivier Corneille
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bertram Gawronski
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier Corneille.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Psychology thanks Dolores Albarracín, Yoav Bar-Anan, Jon Krosnick and the other, anonymous, reviewer for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Corneille, O., Gawronski, B. Self-reports are better measurement instruments than implicit measures. Nat Rev Psychol 3, 835–846 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00376-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00376-z

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing