ArticleBehavior research methods2025
The individual-level precision of implicit measures.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are we capturing individual differences? Evaluating the test-retest reliability of experimental tasks used to measure social cognitive abilities.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Goal adjustment processes as coping responses to a blocked goal: the sample case of ostracism.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implicit measures are used extensively in psychological science. One fundamental goal of these measures is to provide information diagnostic of an individual's attitudes or beliefs. After 25 years of research, this goal has not been achieved. We argue that this is because psychologists have not yet even quantified the individual-level precision of implicit measures, much less calibrated them to it. In this paper, we examine the individual-level precision of six different implicit measures across three different attitude domains (race, politics, and self-esteem) using a very large open dataset. Despite some variation, we find that there is substantial room for improvement for the precision of implicit measures as measures of individual attitudes. We recommend that researchers who wish to make theoretical inferences about individuals directly quantify individual-level precision to calibrate their tasks appropriately, both in the context of implicit measures and with tasks in psychological science more broadly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.