A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures
Abstract
Theoretically, low correlations between implicit and explicit measures can be due to (a) motivational biases in explicit self reports, (b) lack of introspective access to implicitly assessed representations, (c) factors influencing the retrieval of information from memory, (d) method-related characteristics of the two measures, or (e) complete independence of the underlying constructs. The present study addressed these questions from a meta-analytic perspective, investigating the correlation between the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and explicit self-report measures. Based on a sample of 126 studies, the mean effect size was .24, with approximately half of the variability across correlations attributable to moderator variables. Correlations systematically increased as a function of (a) increasing spontaneity of self-reports and (b) increasing conceptual correspondence between measures. These results suggest that implicit and explicit measures are generally related but that higher order inferences and lack of conceptual correspondence can reduce the influence of automatic associations on explicit self-reports.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The average correlation between explicit self-report measures and the implicit association task is 0.24, which is substantially lower than the correlations found between explicit measures of nature connectedness.
“For instance, the average correlation between explicit self-report measures and the implicit association task is 0.24, which is substantially lower than the correlations found between explicit measures of nature connectedness (Hofmann et al., 2005; Tam, 2013a).”
From The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis (2014) · cites this paper as Hofmann et al., 2005
Hahn et al. (2014) found that participants showed high accuracy in predicting their IAT scores although self-reported evaluations on direct measures showed the same small correlations with IAT scores found in prior research.
“participants showed high accuracy in predicting their IAT scores although self-reported evaluations on direct measures showed the same small correlations with IAT scores found in prior research (for meta-analyses, see Cameron et al. 2012, Hofmann et al. 2005).”
From Unawareness of Attitudes, Their Environmental Causes, and Their Behavioral Effects (2025) · cites this paper as Hofmann et al. 2005
The Black-White IAT has good psychometric properties and is linked to basic neural and affective processes relevant to implicit race bias.
“The IAT is a dual-categorization task that has good psychometric properties (Cunningham, Preacher, & Banaji, 2001; Hofmann et al., 2005) and is linked to basic neural and affective processes relevant to implicit race bias (Cunningham, Raye, & Johnson, 2004; Phelps et al., 2000).”
From Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention (2012) · cites this paper as Hofmann et al., 2005
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 114 · Cited by 1,642
- Authors
- Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M.
- Affiliations
- Rheinland-Pfälzische Technische Universität Kaiserslautern-Landau (DE)
- Western University (CA)
- Human Resources Research Organization (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hofmann, Wilhelm
- Gawronski, Bertram
- Venue
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-10
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1369-1385
- ISSN
- 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7433
- OpenAlex
- W1992369201
- Cited by
- 1,642
- References
- 114
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 113 · 2019: 100 · 2018: 118 · 2017: 102 · 2016: 87 · 2015: 89 · 2014: 88 · 2013: 84 · 2012: 87
- FWCI
- 24.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PsyDok Dokumentenserver für die Psychologie (Leibniz-Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- Implicit Association Test, automatic associations, introspective access, motivational bias, memory retrieval
- MeSH terms
- Association, Humans, Motivation, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
