@phAge
And it makes sense for something like whether pilots are prone to risky flying, since that isn't mainly driven by conscious decision making. The connection between this and conscious behaviours is frankly unknown. Without the context of a specific task, saying 'you implicitly favour x race/sex/gender' is pretty meaningless, and leads people to conclude that it tells them whether they're 'really' prejudiced in some way, which is a reduction that's silly.
As to whether it's a test of how familiar you are with something, salience is generally considered at least a large factor. The IAT may eventually tell us something, but without a better model for behaviour it's impossible to accurately conclude much from it.
And it makes sense for something like whether pilots are prone to risky flying, since that isn't mainly driven by conscious decision making. The connection between this and conscious behaviours is frankly unknown. Without the context of a specific task, saying 'you implicitly favour x race/sex/gender' is pretty meaningless, and leads people to conclude that it tells them whether they're 'really' prejudiced in some way, which is a reduction that's silly.
As to whether it's a test of how familiar you are with something, salience is generally considered at least a large factor. The IAT may eventually tell us something, but without a better model for behaviour it's impossible to accurately conclude much from it.
