Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity.
Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann and Banaji meta-analysed 122 research reports, 184 independent samples and 14,900 participants. Implicit association test measures predicted behavioural, judgement and physiological outcomes with an average correlation of .274, against .361 for parallel self-report measures in 156 samples; self-report figures varied more and were weaker on socially sensitive topics. In 32 samples with interracial criterion measures the test did better than self-report (.236 against .118). Each measure added predictive value beyond the other, and the test correlated .214 with self-report across 155 samples.
Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann and Banaji meta-analysed 122 research reports, 184 independent samples and 14,900 participants. Implicit association test measures predicted behavioural, judgement and physiological outcomes with an average correlation of .274, against .361 for parallel self-report measures in 156 samples; self-report figures varied more and were weaker on socially sensitive topics. In 32 samples with interracial criterion measures the test did better than self-report (.236 against .118). Each measure added predictive value beyond the other, and the test correlated .214 with self-report across 155 samples.
Written from the abstract and Table 3, author-hosted PDF, 2026-11-01.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 17-41. doi:10.1037/a0015575 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015575