Why so little faith? A reply to Blanton and Jaccard's (2006) skeptical view of testing pure multiplicative theories

Anthony G. Greenwald, Laurie A. Rudman, Brian A. Nosek, Vivian Zayas

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

26 Scopus citations

Abstract

Blanton and Jaccard (see record 2006-01885-008) questioned the 4-test regression method used by Greenwald et al. (see record 2002-00351-001) to test a pure multiplicative theory. The present authors address Blanton and Jaccard's concerns with a combination of simulations and meta-analysis. Simulations show that (a) Blanton and Jaccard's preferred simultaneous regression method has a severe power loss in testing multiplicative theories when predictor variables' means deviate from rational zero values, and (b) Greenwald et al.'s 4-test method has a more limited weakness when predictor means deviate from rational zero in the positive direction. Meta-analyses showed that aggregate analyses of Greenwald et al.'s 5 experiments confirmed a multiplicative theory regardless of which analysis method was used. However, only the 4-test method could confirm a pure multiplicative theory.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)170-180
Number of pages11
JournalPsychological Review
Volume113
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2006

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Psychology(all)

Keywords

  • Implicit Association Test (IAT)
  • Meta-analysis
  • Validity

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Why so little faith? A reply to Blanton and Jaccard's (2006) skeptical view of testing pure multiplicative theories'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this