Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Let Their Fingers Do The Talking?: Using The Implicit Association Test in Market Research
Let Their Fingers Do The Talking?: Using The Implicit Association Test in Market Research
Let Their Fingers Do The Talking?: Using The Implicit Association Test in Market Research
55 Issue 4
Aiden P. Gregg
University of Southampton
James Klymowsky, Dominic Owens and Alex Perryman
Seven Stones
Introduction
The most common way to tap the thoughts and feelings of participants
in market research is to ask them questions (Bradburn et al. 2004). The
ubiquity of self-report ‘techniques’ – including surveys and interview –
confirms the general consensus: that what people say about themselves is
revealing.
Yet not always: self-reports can sometimes yield biased or false data. For
one thing, the manner in which researchers ask a question has long been
known to shape the nature of the answer respondents provide (Schuman &
Presser 1996). In addition, three major biases can compromise the validity
of self-reports. First, respondents may give socially desirable answers to
sensitive questions (Steenkamp et al. 2010; Tourangeau & Ting 2007). For
24
International Journal of Market Research Vol. 55 Issue 4
25
Let their fingers do the talking?
and Worse were presented than they did for Coke and Worse and Pepsi
and Better then this would suggest they implicitly regarded Coke more
favourably overall than Pepsi (i.e. ‘more’ better and ‘less’ worse).
This brings us to the question of what it means when explicit attitudes
(e.g. as measured by self-report) and implicit attitudes (e.g. as measured by
the IAT) converge or diverge. In the case of convergence, a researcher has
a ‘two thumbs up’ situation. Two sources of data reinforce each other. The
background and foreground of the mind are probably aligned. The biases
of social desirability, self-deception and lack of self-insight are likely to be
absent. Hence, a researcher can have relatively greater trust in the validity
of their attitude assessment. In the case of divergence, the two sources of
data are contradicting one another, suggesting that the self-report may be
compromised by one or another response bias. Hence, the validity of the
explicit attitude assessment becomes suspect, and further investigation may
be warranted.
Consistent results
First, IAT results show good levels of reliability (internal consistency).
Scores from parallel halves of the same IAT correspond well (average
α = 0.79; Hofmann et al. 2005). Second, IAT results also show satisfactory
levels of reproducibility. Scores obtained on different occasions correspond
moderately well (average r = 0.56; Nosek et al. 2007). True, analogous
values for direct measures are often even higher (Anastasi 1996). However,
as an indirect measure relying on RTs, which are intrinsically variable,
the IAT performs more than adequately, and outperforms other indirect
measures (De Houwer & De Bruycker 2007).
Algorithmic robustness
One might suspect that, because IAT effects involve RT, individual
differences in the swiftness or sluggishness of respondents might diminish
26
International Journal of Market Research Vol. 55 Issue 4
Predictive power
If the IAT can predict outcomes of consequence at above chance level, then
its validity would be fundamentally vindicated (Greenwald et al. 2006).
An interim meta-analysis of 122 relevant IAT studies shows that this is so
on the whole (Greenwald et al. 2009). Moreover, in 32 of these studies
27
Let their fingers do the talking?
Unique advantages
Even though the IAT is robust against social desirability – and hence can be
more valid than self-report – its unique advantages are perhaps still to be
traced to its capacity to tap in to the background of the mind, and thereby
furnish unique information that would not otherwise be available. Below,
we provide several examples where this capacity has been empirically
demonstrated.
28
International Journal of Market Research Vol. 55 Issue 4
Moreover, this finding was not restricted to voting: it also applied to Italian
respondents undecided about the opening of a US military base in Vicenza
(Galdi et al. 2008). Hence, there is reason to believe that the IAT might
also, in cases where consumers are explicitly undecided about which of
two rival products to purchase, predict what decision they will ultimately
make, by detecting underlying propensities that those consumers cannot
mentally access.
29
Let their fingers do the talking?
30
International Journal of Market Research Vol. 55 Issue 4
identify more strongly with their brand. Thus, the IAT may serve as a good
promising index of brand loyalty.
These researchers also found that white and black respondents
showed different implicit and explicit reactions to advertisements for
sports footwear. On the one hand, blacks but not whites reported an
explicit preference for advertisements with black spokespersons. On the
other hand, whites but not blacks showed an implicit preference for
advertisements with white spokespersons. One interpretation of this result
is that white respondents were reluctant to report a racial preference
that they possessed at a background level, whereas black respondents
reported a racial preference they did not really have at a background level.
Had an indirect measure such as an IAT not been employed, such subtle
possibilities – which can critically inform market segmentation on the
basis of demographics – would have been less apparent.
31
Let their fingers do the talking?
Large effects
Finally, the IAT delivers a lot of ‘bang for one’s buck’. Reliable effects
emerge after only a handful of trials, which means that, unlike with some
other indirect measures, the performance of individual respondents can be
meaningfully differentiated (De Houwer & De Bruycker 2007). Moreover,
the IAT is ‘well tolerated’: respondents typically find it easy to complete
and do so eagerly. For example, hundreds of thousands have completed
IATs online, out of sheer curiosity (Nosek et al. 2002; for user-friendly
demonstrations, see also http://www.implicitresearch.co.uk/test/).
Challenges to adoption
Clearly, the IAT possesses some unique advantages, and shows promise
in market research specifically. However, like any research instrument, it
comes with a number of challenges of its own, which must be overcome if
it is to be widely adopted.
The IAT’s first challenge is logistical. Indirect measures like the IAT,
because they collect RT information over many trials, take more time
to run. They also require some technical apparatus to run on. Hence,
market researchers must economise as regards which implicit attitudes
they choose to study. This said, many procedures that add diagnostic value
(e.g. eye-tracking) would be used sparingly, and this is hardly an argument
against using them. Moreover, research studies show the feasibility of
running several IATs back-to-back (Gattol et al. 2011).
A second challenge is structural. The IAT, in its original form, lends itself
most naturally to research where the relative merits of two key targets (or
a small number of key targets, if several IATs are used) are being assessed.
32
International Journal of Market Research Vol. 55 Issue 4
33
Let their fingers do the talking?
1
The first author served as an external consultant for some of this research.
34
International Journal of Market Research Vol. 55 Issue 4
Conclusion
Self-report methodologies, though useful, are vulnerable to several 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
have evaluated 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, shows applied promise in market research, and poses
no challenges to adoption that cannot be overcome.
References
Anastasi, A. (1996) Psychological Testing (7th edn). New York: Macmillan.
Arcuri, L., Castelli, L., Galdi, S., Zogmaister, C. & Amadori, A. (2008) Predicting the vote:
implicit attitudes as predictors of the future behavior of the decided and undecided voters.
Political Psychology, 29, pp. 369–387.
Ariely, D. & Loewenstein, G. (2006) The heat of the moment: the effect of sexual arousal on
sexual decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, pp. 87–98.
Baumeister, R.F., Sparks, E.A., Stillman, T.F. & Vohs, K.D. (2008) Free will in consumer behavior:
self-control, ego depletion, and choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, pp. 4–13.
35
Let their fingers do the talking?
Blanton, H. & Jaccard, J. (2006) Arbitrary metrics in psychology. American Psychologist, 61,
pp. 27–41.
Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., Gonzales, P. & Christie, C. (2006) Decoding the Implicit Association
Test: implications for criterion prediction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4,
pp. 192–212.
Bluemke, M. & Friese, M. (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.
Bradburn, N.M., Sudman, S. & Wansink, B. (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.
Brunel, F.F., Tietje, B.C. & Greenwald, A.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.
Cai, H., Sriram, N., Greenwald, A.G. & McFarland, S.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.
Conner, M., Perugini, M., O’Gorman, R., Ayres, K. & Prestwich, A. (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.
Converse, P.E. (1970) Attitudes and nonattitudes: continuation of a dialogue. In: E.R. Tufte
(ed.) The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Cvencek, D., Greenwald, A.G., Brown, A.S., Gray, N.S. & Snowden, R.J. (2010) Faking of the
Implicit Association Test is statistically detectable and partly correctable. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 32, pp. 302–314.
De Houwer, J. & De Bruycker, E. (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.
Dimofte, C.V. (2010) Implicit measures of consumer cognition: a review. Psychology and
Marketing, 27, pp. 921–937.
Eastwick, P.W., Eagly, A.H., Finkel, E.J. & Johnson, S.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.
Fazio, R.H. (2007) Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social
Cognition, 25, pp. 603–637.
Fazio, R.H., Chen, J., McDonel, E.C. & Sherman, S.J. (1982) Attitude accessibility, attitude-
behavior consistency and the strength of the object-evaluation association. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 18, pp. 339–357.
Fiedler, K. & Bluemke, M. (2005) Faking the IAT: aided and unaided response control on the
implicit association tests. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, pp. 307–316.
Fiedler, K., Messner, C. & Bluemke, M. (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.
Friese, M., Wanke, M. & Plessner, H. (2006) Implicit consumer preferences and their influence
on product choice. Psychology and Marketing, 23, pp. 727–740.
Galdi, S., Arcuri, L. & Gawronski, B. (2008) Automatic mental associations predict future
choices of undecided decision-makers. Science, 321, pp. 1100–1102.
36
International Journal of Market Research Vol. 55 Issue 4
Gattol, V., Sääksjärvi, M.C. & Carbon, C.C. (2011) Extending the Implicit Association Test
(IAT): assessing consumer attitudes based on multi-dimensional implicit associations. Plos
ONE, 6, e15849.
Greenwald, A.G. (1980) The totalitarian ego: fabrication and revision of personal history.
American Psychologist, 35, pp. 603–618.
Greenwald, A.G. & Banaji, M.R. (1995) Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and
stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, pp. 4–27.
Greenwald, A.G., Nosek, B.A. & Banaji, M.R. (2003) Understanding and using the Implicit
Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85, pp. 197–216.
Greenwald, A.G., Nosek, B.A. & Sriram, N. (2006) Consequential validity of the Implicit
Association Test: comment on the article by Blanton and Jaccard. American Psychologist,
61, pp. 56–61.
Greenwald, A.G., Nosek, B.A., Banaji, M.R. & Klauer, K.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.
Greenwald, A.G., Poehlman, T.A., Uhlmann, E. & Banaji, M.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.
Gregg, A.P. (2008) The Implicit Association Test: oracle of the unconscious or deceiver of the
unwitting? The Psychologist, 21, pp. 762–767.
Gregg, A.P. & Lepore, L. (2012) ‘It don’t matter if you’re black or white’? Putting the race
IAT into context. Unpublished manuscript, University of Southampton.
Han, H.A., Czellar, S., Olson, M.A. & Fazio, R.H. (2010) Malleability of attitudes or
malleability of the IAT? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, pp. 286–298.
Hofmann, W., Rauch, W. & Gawronski, B. (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.
Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H. & Schmitt, M. (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.
Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss, Giroux.
Karpinski, A. & Steinman, R.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.
Kelly, D. & Rupert, E. (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.
Kim, D. (2003) Voluntary controllability of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Social
Psychology Quarterly, 66, pp. 83–96.
Klymowsky, J. & Gregg, A.P. (2012) The Flexible Implicit Association Test. White paper.
London: Seven Stones.
Lensvelt-Mulders, G.J.L.M., Hox, J., van der Heijden, P.G.M. & Maas, C.J.M. (2005) Meta-
analysis of randomized response research. Sociological Methods and Research, 33, pp. 319–348.
Maison, D., Greenwald, A.G. & Bruin, R.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.
Mariampolski, H. (2001) Qualitative Market Research: A Comprehensive Guide. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
McFarland, S.G. & Crouch, Z. (2002) A cognitive skill confound on the Implicit Association
Test. Social Cognition, 20, pp. 483–510.
37
Let their fingers do the talking?
Nancarrow, C., Brace, I. & Wright, L.T. (2001) ‘Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies’: dealing
with socially desirable responses in market research. Marketing Review, 2, pp. 55–60.
Nosek, B.A. (2007) Implicit–explicit relations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16,
pp. 65–69.
Nosek, B.A. & Banaji, M.R. (2001) The go/no-go association task. Social Cognition, 19,
pp. 625–666.
Nosek, B.A., Banaji, M.R. & Greenwald, A.G. (2002) Harvesting implicit group attitudes and
beliefs from a demonstration website. Group Dynamics, 6, pp. 101–115.
Nosek, B.A., Greenwald, A.G. & Banaji, M.R. (2007) The Implicit Association Test at age 7:
a methodological and conceptual review. In: J.A. Bargh (ed.) Automatic Processes in Social
Thinking and Behavior. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 265–292.
Perkins, A., Forehand, M., Greenwald, A.G. & Maison, D. (2008) The influence of implicit
social cognition on consumer behavior: measuring the non-conscious. In: C. Haugtvedt,
P. Herr & F. Kardes (eds) Handbook of Consumer Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, pp. 461–475.
Priluck, R. & Till, B.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.
Richetin, J., Perugini, M., Prestwich, A. & O’Gorman, R. (2007) The IAT as a predictor
of spontaneous food choice: the case of fruits versus snacks. International Journal of
Psychology, 42, pp. 166–173.
Rod, M. & Saunders, S. (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.
Rothermund, K. & Wentura, D. (2004) Underlying processes in the Implicit Association Test
(IAT): dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
133, pp. 139–165.
Schuman, H. & Presser, S. (1996) Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on
Question Form, Wording, and Context. New York: Academic Press.
Searle, J. (1992) The Rediscovery of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sedikides, C. & Gregg, A.P. (2008) Self-enhancement: food for thought. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 3, pp. 102–116.
Sriram, N. & Greenwald, A.G. (2009) The Brief Implicit Association Test. Experimental
Psychology, 56, pp. 283–294.
Steenkamp, J.E.M., de Jong, M.G. & Baumgartner, H. (2010) Socially desirable response
tendencies in survey research. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, pp. 199–214.
Steffens, M.C. (2004) Is the Implicit Association Test immune to faking? Experimental
Psychology, 51, pp. 165–179.
Steinman, R.B. & Karpinski, A. (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.
Tourangeau, R. & Ting, Y. (2007) Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133,
pp. 859–883.
Vohs, K.D. & Faber, R.J. (2007) Spent resources: self-regulatory resource availability affects
impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, pp. 537–547.
Wilson, T.D. (2002) Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wittenbrink, B. & Schwarz N. (eds) (2007) Implicit Measures of Attitudes. New York: Guilford
Press.
38
International Journal of Market Research Vol. 55 Issue 4
39