Self-report methodologies - such as surveys and interviews - elicit responses that are vulnerable to a number of standard biases. These biases include social desirability, self-deception and a lack of self-insight. However, indirect measures, such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT), offer a potential means of bypassing such biases. Here, we evaluate the scope for using the IAT in market research, drawing on recent empirical findings. We conclude that the IAT meets several desirable criteria: it yields consistent results, possesses predictive power, offers unique advantages, is relevant to commercial issues and poses no insuperable challenges to adoption.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnastasiA. (1996) Psychological Testing (7th edn). New York: Macmillan.
2.
ArcuriL., CastelliL., GaldiS., ZogmaisterC., & AmadoriA. (2008) Predicting the vote: implicit attitudes as predictors of the future behavior of the decided and undecided voters.Political Psychology, 29, pp. 369–387.
3.
ArielyD., & LoewensteinG. (2006) The heat of the moment: the effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, pp. 87–98.
4.
BaumeisterR.F., SparksE.A., StillmanT.F., & VohsK.D. (2008) Free will in consumer behavior: self-control, ego depletion, and choice.Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, pp. 4–13.
5.
BlantonH., & JaccardJ. (2006) Arbitrary metrics in psychology.American Psychologist, 61, pp. 27–41.
6.
BlantonH., JaccardJ., GonzalesP., & ChristieC. (2006) Decoding the Implicit Association Test: implications for criterion prediction.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, pp. 192–212.
7.
BluemkeM., & FrieseM. (2008) Reliability and validity of the Single-Target IAT (ST-IAT): assessing automatic affect towards multiple attitude objects.European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 977–997.
8.
BradburnN.M., SudmanS., & WansinkB. (2004) Asking Questions: The Definitive Guide to Questionnaire Design - for Market Research, Political Polls, and Social and Health Questionnaires (rev. edn). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
9.
BruneiF.F., TietjeB.C., & GreenwaldA.G. (2004) Is the Implicit Association Test a valid and valuable measure of implicit consumer social cognition?Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, pp. 385–404.
10.
CaiH., SriramN., GreenwaldA.G., & McFarlandS.G. (2004) The Implicit Association Test's D measure can minimize a cognitive skill confound: comment on McFarland and Crouch (2002).Social Cognition, 22, pp. 673–684.
11.
ConnerM., PeruginiM., O'GormanR., AyresK., & PrestwichA. (2007) Relations between implicit and explicit measures of attitudes and measures of behavior: evidence of moderation by individual difference variables.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, pp. 1727–1740.
12.
ConverseRE. (1970) Attitudes and nonattitudes: continuation of a dialogue. In: TufteE.R. (ed.) The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems.Reading: Addison-Wesley.
13.
CvencekD., GreenwaldA.G., BrownA.S., GrayN.S., & SnowdenR.J. (2010) Faking of the Implicit Association Test is statistically detectable and partly correctable.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, pp. 302–314.
14.
De HouwerJ., & De BruyckerE. (2007) The Implicit Association Test outperforms the Extrinsic Affective Simon Task as an implicit measure of inter-individual differences in attitudes.British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, pp. 401–421.
15.
DimofteC.V. (2010) Implicit measures of consumer cognition: a review.Psychology and Marketing, 27, pp. 921–937.
16.
EastwickP.W., EaglyA.H., FinkelE.J., & JohnsonS.E. (2011) Implicit and explicit preferences for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner: a double dissociation in predictive validity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, pp. 993–1011.
17.
FazioR.H. (2007) Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength.Social Cognition, 25, pp. 603–637.
18.
FazioR.H., ChenJ., McDonelE.C., & ShermanS.J. (1982) Attitude accessibility, attitude-behavior consistency and the strength of the object-evaluation association.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, pp. 339–357.
19.
FiedlerK., & BluemkeM. (2005) Faking the IAT: aided and unaided response control on the implicit association tests.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, pp. 307–316.
20.
FiedlerK., MessnerC., & BluemkeM. (2006) Unresolved problems with the ‘I’, the ‘A’, and the ‘T’: a logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT).European Review of Social Psychology, 17, pp. 74–147.
21.
FrieseM., WankeM., & PlessnerH. (2006) Implicit consumer preferences and their influence on product choice.Psychology and Marketing, 23, pp. 727–740.
22.
GaldiS., ArcuriL., & GawronskiB. (2008) Automatic mental associations predict future choices of undecided decision-makers.Science, 321, pp. 1100–1102.
23.
GattolV., SääksjärviM.C., & CarbonC.C. (2011) Extending the Implicit Association Test (IAT): assessing consumer attitudes based on multi-dimensional implicit associations.Plos ONE, 6, el5849.
24.
GreenwaldA.G. (1980) The totalitarian ego: fabrication and revision of personal history.American Psychologist, 35, pp. 603–618.
25.
GreenwaldA.G., & BanajiM.R. (1995) Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes.Psychological Review, 102, pp. 4–27.
26.
GreenwaldA.G., NosekB.A., & BanajiM.R. (2003) Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, pp. 197–216.
27.
GreenwaldA.G., NosekB.A., & SriramN. (2006) Consequential validity of the Implicit Association Test: comment on the article by Blanton and Jaccard.American Psychologist, 61, pp. 56–61.
28.
GreenwaldAG., NosekB.A., BanajiM.R., & KlauerK.C. (2005) Validity of the salience asymmetry interpretation of the IAT: Comment on Rothermund and Wentura (2004).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, pp. 420–425.
29.
GreenwaldA.G., PoehlmanT.A., UhlmannE., & BanajiM.R. (2009) Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, pp. 17–41.
30.
GreggA.P. (2008) The Implicit Association Test: oracle of the unconscious or deceiver of the unwitting?The Psychologist, 21, pp. 762–767.
31.
GreggA.P., & LeporeL. (2012) ‘It don't matter if you're black or white’? Putting the race IAT into context. Unpublished manuscript, University of Southampton.
32.
HanH.A., CzellarS., OlsonM.A., & FazioR.H. (2010) Malleability of attitudes or malleability of the IAT?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, pp. 286–298.
33.
HofmannW., RauchW., & GawronskiB. (2007) And deplete us not into temptation: automatic attitudes, dietary restraint, and self-regulatory resources as determinants of eating behavior.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, pp. 497–504.
34.
HofmannW., GawronskiB., GschwendnerT., LeH., & SchmittM. (2005) A meta-analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self-report measures.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, pp. 1369–1385.
35.
KahnemanD. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow.New York: Farrar, Strauss, Giroux.
36.
KarpinskiA., & SteinmanR.B. (2006) The Single Category Implicit Association Test as a measure of implicit social cognition.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, pp. 16–32.
37.
KellyD., & RupertE. (2009) Professional emotions and persuasion: tapping non-rational drivers in health-care market research.Journal of Medical Marketing: Device, Diagnostic and Pharmaceutical Marketing, 9, pp. 3–9.
38.
KimD. (2003) Voluntary controllability of the Implicit Association Test (IAT).Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, pp. 83–96.
39.
KlymowskyJ., & GreggA.P. (2012) The Flexible Implicit Association Test. White paper. London: Seven Stones.
40.
Lensvelt-MuldersG.J.L.M., HoxJ., van der HeijdenP.G.M., & MaasC.J.M. (2005) Metaanalysis of randomized response research.Sociological Methods and Research, 33, pp. 319–348.
41.
MaisonD., GreenwaldA.G., & BruinR.H. (2004) Predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test in studies of brands, consumer attitudes, and behavior.Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, pp. 405–415.
McFarlandS.G., & CrouchZ. (2002) A cognitive skill confound on the Implicit Association Test.Social Cognition, 20, pp. 483–510.
44.
NancarrowC., BraceI., & WrightL.T. (2001) ‘Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies’: dealing with socially desirable responses in market research.Marketing Review, 2, pp. 55–60.
45.
NosekB.A. (2007) Implicit-explicit relations.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, pp. 65–69.
46.
NosekB.A., & BanajiM.R. (2001) The go/no-go association task.Social Cognition, 19, pp. 625–666.
47.
NosekB.A., BanajiM.R., & GreenwaldA.G. (2002) Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration website.Group Dynamics, 6, pp. 101–115.
48.
NosekB.A., GreenwaldA.G., & BanajiM.R. (2007) The Implicit Association Test at age 7: a methodological and conceptual review. In: BarghJ.A. (ed.) Automatic Processes in Social Thinking and Behavior.New York: Psychology Press, pp. 265–292.
49.
PerkinsA., ForehandM., GreenwaldA.G., & MaisonD. (2008) The influence of implicit social cognition on consumer behavior: measuring the non-conscious. In: HaugtvedtC., HerrP., & KardesF. (eds) Handbook of Consumer Psychology.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 461–475.
50.
PriluckR., & TillB.D. (2010) Comparing a customer-based brand equity scale with the Implicit Association Test in examining consumer responses to brands.Journal of Product Brand Management, 17, pp. 413–428.
51.
RichetinJ., PeruginiM., PrestwichA., & O'GormanR. (2007) The IAT as a predictor of spontaneous food choice: the case of fruits versus snacks.International Journal of Psychology, 42, pp. 166–173.
52.
RodM., & SaundersS. (2009) The informative and persuasive components of pharmaceutical promotion: an argument for why the two can coexist.International Journal of Advertising, 28, pp. 313–349.
53.
RothermundK., & WenturaD. (2004) Underlying processes in the Implicit Association Test (IAT): dissociating salience from associations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, pp. 139–165.
54.
SchumanH., & PresserS. (1996) Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context.New York: Academic Press.
55.
SearleJ. (1992) The Rediscovery of the Mind.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56.
SedikidesC., & GreggA.P. (2008) Self-enhancement: food for thought.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, pp. 102–116.
57.
SriramN., & GreenwaldA.G. (2009) The Brief Implicit Association Test.Experimental Psychology, 56, pp. 283–294.
58.
SteenkampJ.E.M., de JongM.G., & BaumgartnerH. (2010) Socially desirable response tendencies in survey research.Journal of Marketing Research, 47, pp. 199–214.
59.
SteffensM.C. (2004) Is the Implicit Association Test immune to faking?Experimental Psychology, 51, pp. 165–179.
60.
SteinmanR.B., & KarpinskiA. (2008) The single category Implicit Association Test (SC-IAT) as a measure of implicit consumer attitudes.European Journal of Social Sciences, 7, pp. 32–42.
61.
TourangeauR., & TingY. (2007) Sensitive questions in surveys.Psychological Bulletin, 133, pp. 859–883.
62.
VohsK.D., & FaberR.J. (2007) Spent resources: self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying.Journal of Consumer Research, 33, pp. 537–547.
63.
WilsonT.D. (2002) Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
