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.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Temporal stability in measurements matters only for stable constructs

Nature Reviews Psychology volume 4, page 361 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

The transition from reliance on introspection to the adoption of more objective measurement tools marked a pivotal moment in the evolution of modern psychology, helping to transform it into a rigorous scientific discipline. This shift underscored the importance of observable and quantifiable data in psychological research1. Corneille and Gawronski (Corneille, O. & Gawronski, B. Self-reports are better measurement instruments than implicit measures. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 3, 835–846; 2024)2 challenge the common view that self-reports and implicit measures such as response times are both valuable and relevant3,4,5 and argue that self-reports are superior measurement tools to implicit measures. Although the importance of self-reports to psychological research remains undeniable, the central claim of the paper misrepresents their strengths and limitations as well as those of implicit measures. Consequently, the associated recommendations the authors make might be misguided.

Self-reports are often designed to capture stable, trait-like aspects of constructs (for example, personality or attitudes). In this context, high temporal stability is considered desirable because it suggests that the measure consistently captures the same construct across time and instantiations. However, many psychological constructs are inherently dynamic and subject to periodic or even moment-to-moment fluctuations6,7. High temporal stability is not desirable in such contexts — it reflects a failure to capture genuine fluctuations and suggests poor epistemic validity. Despite their limitations, implicit measures might provide snapshots of these transient states, making them better suited for capturing constructs that vary over time. By contrast, self-reports might fail to detect such fluctuations accurately, and this failure might be exacerbated by limitations such as retrospective bias (the tendency to distort or misremember past events, experiences or feelings, often influenced by current knowledge, beliefs or emotions).

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

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

References

  1. Boring, E. G. A History of Experimental Psychology 2nd ed. (Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1950).

  2. Corneille, O. & Gawronski, B. Self-reports are better measurement instruments than implicit measures. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 3, 835–846 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Enkavi, A. Z. et al. Large-scale analysis of test-retest reliabilities of self-regulation measures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 5472–5477 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Friedman, N. P. & Banich, M. T. Questionnaires and task-based measures assess different aspects of self-regulation: both are needed. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 24396–24397 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Dang, J., King, K. M. & Inzlicht, M. Why are self-report and behavioral measures weakly correlated? Trends Cogn. Sci. 24, 267–269 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Fleeson, W. Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: traits as density distribution of states. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 80, 1011–1027 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hamaker, E. L., Ceulemans, E., Grasman, R. P. P. P. & Tuerlinckx, F. Modeling affect dynamics: state of the art and future challenges. Emot. Rev. 7, 316–322 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Moreau, D. & Wiebels, K. Psychological constructs as local optima. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1, 188–189 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eisenberg, I. W. et al. Uncovering the structure of self-regulation through data-driven ontology discovery. Nat. Commun. 10, 2319 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology & Centre for Brain Research, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    David Moreau

Authors
  1. David Moreau
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Moreau.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moreau, D. Temporal stability in measurements matters only for stable constructs. Nat Rev Psychol 4, 361 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-025-00435-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-025-00435-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