The IAT is a testing tool claimed to assess the degree to which participants are prejudiced in their judgments on different topics. The core mechanism of the test is based on the assumption that people tend to adjust their responses and reactions in accordance with the expectations of society. The test introduced two sets of data that need to be categorized either as good/bad or as belonging to a certain category associated with prejudice (e.g., white/black or Christianity / Judaism). The main premise is that a subconsciously biased person would be more hesitant in using the same category for denoting the concept to be “good” and belonging to a prejudiced domain, leading to different decision times compared to the control group.
To complete the assignment, I chose the Religions IAT test. My IAT results indicated a moderate automatic preference for Christianity over Judaism. Admittedly, I did find the results relatively accurate and consistent with my self-assessment. In fact, I acknowledged the possibility of bias in this direction at the beginning of the test by describing myself as liking Christianity more than both Islam and Judaism. Nevertheless, according to the description of the results, the initial set of responses was not accounted for in the analysis.
Thus, it would be reasonable to assert that I believe the results of my IAT to be accurate. However, this is true only to a certain extent. As I mentioned above, I find the results of the test consistent with my self-assessment. However, I do not attribute this consistency to the validity of the tool. There are two reasons for this. First, I found the testing process to be poorly indicative of any implicit biases simply due to the great difficulty of the testing process. The rules explicitly specify the need for the responses to be quick, which introduces the factor of muscle memory. Second, the test uses a scale that essentially has a neutral score as the best possible outcome, making it extremely difficult for non-prejudiced people to demonstrate a non-negative result.
The described situation raises an issue of consistency between explicit and implicit attitudes. In my case, these categories match relatively accurately, which is a result of the acknowledgment of my personal preferences and responsible and objective self-reflection. I acknowledge my biases as a part of my personality and make conscious efforts to account for them in real life, as would be expected from a responsible individual. Nevertheless, I can imagine a scenario where I would get the same results in the area where I am less biased. In other words, the indicated consistency is not due to the test’s accuracy.
As such, it is necessary to understand whether implicit attitudes have a significant impact on determining behavior. I find this impact to be of moderate significance compared to explicit attitudes under the conditions that these biases are appropriately acknowledged. In other words, once a person knows their biases, it becomes possible for them to modify their decisions accordingly. Being a part of society involves constantly adapting to the conditions of different expectations, requirements, and norms exhibited by its members. This is a constant and ubiquitous process and is expected to factor in the majority of everyday scenarios. People tend to adjust their behavior to achieve the desired social outcomes. This holds true even for those not interested in concealing their implicit biases. Thus, I find it to be a more significant factor compared to the existence of explicit biases.
At this point, it is important to mention that the results of my self-assessment are likely to be inaccurate. The self-perception of an individual depends on a multitude of factors, only a fraction of which are apparent to them at any given time. Thus, the degree to which I am prejudiced towards a certain religion may not be obvious to me. To be on the safe side, I consider myself to be insufficiently aware of my true thoughts and feelings. However, I also find my self-awareness to be sufficient for making objective judgments in most situations and try to retain this level of perception. It would be safe to describe the access to my thought and feelings as limited inaccuracy.
Nevertheless, I would like to identify one strength of an IAT, specifically its potential for initiating self-evaluation. While I consider its approach questionable, I think that it can be used as a valid starting point for critical thinking and responsible decision-making. Even though I find it to be somewhat misleading in terms of its underlying mechanisms, I also think that most people have an insufficient understanding of how human perception works, and the test can serve as an introduction to the domain. However, the questionable methodological choices, as well as the reliance on recognizable social categories, undermine the overall validity of the obtained outcomes and constitute its most obvious weakness. Simply put, the obtained results may mislead a well-meaning individual by providing an inaccurate assessment. Thus, while it is possible to use the IAT in combination with other tools, it is not recommended to rely solely on its results as a definitive metric that determines an individual’s behavior in everyday life.