Alternate measures of a construct would ideally be correlated with each other (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). However, data based on implicit tests rarely meet this criterion (for a discussion, see Cunningham, Preacher, & Banaji, 2001). For example, different measures of attention to threat do not tend to correlate (Kindt & Brosschot, 1998; Mogg et al., 2000). Similarly, latency-based measures of implicit prejudice do not tend to correlate very highly, at least without considering measurement error (Cunningham et al., 2001; De Houwer, 2003).
In this context, it is worth mentioning that implicit measures may be relatively heterogeneous. For example, De Houwer (2003) presents convincing arguments that the extent to which two implicit attitude measures will be correlated depends on the extent to which the measures are tapping similar processes. Based on prior work related to a taxonomy of reaction time processes, De Houwer suggested that measures based on Fazio's work (e.g., Fazio, 1995) tap stimulus compatibility mechanisms. By contrast, measures based on Greenwald's work (e.g., Greenwald et al., 1998) tap response compatibility mechanisms. Therefore, it comes as little surprise to De Houwer that priming- and IAT-based measures of implicit prejudice do not correlate very highly. De Houwer's analysis offers a necessary corrective to the assumption that scores based on implicit methods are tapping the same thing; additionally, however, De Houwer's work raises additional questions about what is being tapped by different implicit measures (see also Fazio & Olson, 2003).
Was this article helpful?