Pros and Cons of Using the IAT:

One advantage of using the IAT is that it is less susceptible to social desirability biases, as it measures implicit attitudes that are often outside of an individual’s conscious awareness (Nosek et al., 2002). This is important because people may not always be willing or able to report their true attitudes, especially if they are concerned about how others may perceive them. By measuring implicit attitudes, the IAT can provide a more accurate picture of an individual’s attitudes and beliefs.

Additionally, the IAT can be administered remotely and quickly, making it a relatively low- cost and efficient tool for assessing attitudes. This is particularly useful in large-scale research studies, where researchers may need to assess the attitudes of many participants in a short period of time. The IAT can be administered online, which also allows researchers to reach a more diverse pool of participants than they might be able to through in-person testing (Greenwald et al., 1998).
There are two additional advantages of using the IAT are its ability to identify unconscious biases and its potential for identifying the underlying mechanisms of biases in social-cultural contexts.
Firstly, the IAT is able to identify unconscious biases that individuals may not even be aware of, which can be particularly valuable in identifying and addressing systemic biases in social- cultural contexts. Unconscious biases can have a significant impact on social interactions, decision-making processes, and behaviors, which can perpetuate inequalities in society (Devine, 1989). By identifying these biases, the IAT can serve as a starting point for individuals and organizations to address and correct them (Kang et al., 2014).
Secondly, the IAT has the potential to identify the underlying mechanisms of biases in social- cultural contexts. For example, research has used the IAT to explore the impact of social norms on implicit attitudes towards stigmatized groups (Rudman & Phelan, 2010). This research has found that individuals may hold implicit biases even if they consciously endorse egalitarian beliefs, which suggests that social norms may play a significant role in shaping implicit attitudes. By identifying the underlying mechanisms of biases, the IAT can provide insight into the complex processes that contribute to social inequalities and inform interventions to address them.

However, the IAT has also been criticized for its limited ability to predict behaviour. This is because the test only measures automatic associations, which may not always translate into real-world behaviour (Greenwald et al., 2002). In other words, just because someone has an implicit bias on the IAT does not necessarily mean that they will behave in a biased way in real life.

Furthermore, the IAT has been shown to have low test-retest reliability, indicating that an individual’s scores on the test may vary over time (Oswald et al., 2013). This is an important consideration for researchers who may be using the IAT to track changes in attitudes over time or to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing bias. Low test-retest reliability suggests that the IAT may not be a reliable tool for measuring changes in attitudes over time.

Another potential disadvantage of the IAT is that it may not always be culturally appropriate or relevant for certain populations. For example, some studies have found that the IAT may not accurately capture implicit attitudes among individuals from non-Western cultures (Lu et. al., 2017). This may be because the test was developed and normed using Western samples, and the underlying assumptions and associations may not be universally applicable.
On the other hand, one potential benefit of the IAT is that it can provide feedback to individuals about their own biases, which can be a useful tool for personal growth and development (Blanton et al., 2015). This can be particularly valuable in contexts such as education and training, where individuals may be motivated to change their attitudes and behaviours.

In summary, the IAT has both advantages and limitations as a tool for assessing implicit attitudes. While it can provide a more accurate picture of an individual’s attitudes and beliefs, it may not always be culturally appropriate or relevant, and may not reliably predict behaviour or changes in attitudes over time. Researchers and practitioners should carefully consider the strengths and weaknesses of the IAT when deciding whether to use it in their research or practice.