<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">RUDN Journal of Sociology</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">RUDN Journal of Sociology</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Социология</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">2313-2272</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">2408-8897</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumamba</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">38512</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.22363/2313-2272-2024-24-1-241-258</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="edn">ZTTKWR</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>Sociological lectures</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>Социологический лекторий</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">Do indirect measures of attitudes improve our predictions of behavior? Evaluating and explaining the predictive validity of GATA</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Улучшают ли косвенные измерения социальной установки прогноз поведения: прогностическая валидность GATA</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Chernozub</surname><given-names>O. L.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Чернозуб</surname><given-names>Олег Леонидович</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>кандидат социологических наук, ведущий научный сотрудник Института социологии Федерального научноисследовательского социологического центра Российской академии наук</p></bio><email>9166908616@mail.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">Институт социологии ФНИСЦ РАН</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2024-03-15" publication-format="electronic"><day>15</day><month>03</month><year>2024</year></pub-date><volume>24</volume><issue>1</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en">VOL 24, NO1 (2024)</issue-title><issue-title xml:lang="ru">ТОМ 24, №1 (2024)</issue-title><fpage>241</fpage><lpage>258</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2024-03-31"><day>31</day><month>03</month><year>2024</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement xml:lang="en">Copyright ©; 2024, Chernozub O.L.</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="ru">Copyright ©; 2024, Чернозуб О.Л.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2024</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Chernozub O.L.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Чернозуб О.Л.</copyright-holder><ali:free_to_read xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/"/><license><ali:license_ref xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0</ali:license_ref></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://journals.rudn.ru/sociology/article/view/38512">https://journals.rudn.ru/sociology/article/view/38512</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p style="text-align: justify;">The generalization of the results accumulated to date has shown that the implicit measures of attitudes (some even suggest defining them with a less pretentious term “indirect”) show a disappointingly weak predictive potential in relation to real behavior. Thus, the predictive validity of the Graphical Association Test of Attitude (GATA), which also claims to be an indirect method, has been questioned. To check this assumption, we analyzed the results obtained with GATA in 64 predictions provided that the predicted outcome could be verified by real action. Such forecasts cover the domains of electoral, consumer and communicative behavior. In some cases, the prediction based on the data from a representative sample was checked referring to the actual behavior of the group represented by the sample, e.g., the electorate, or the consumers of a certain category of goods, etc. In other cases, the accuracy of the forecast was checked for each respondent. This allows to avoid the effect of “mutual compensation” of erroneous forecasts with opposite valence. The test method consisted of a comparison of the prediction accuracy of pairs of “control” and “experimental” prediction models: the only difference identified was that the latter used the data from indirect measurements of GATA as an additional factor of action. In the article, all models are presented in their simplest and most transparent versions. The results of the conducted meta-analysis do not fully correspond to the general trend: the use of the GATA data significantly and continuously improves the accuracy of predicting behavior. In addition, the incremental effect on the accuracy of individual forecasts (for each respondent) turned out to be higher than that of the sample-based group forecasts.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p style="text-align: justify;">Обобщение большого количества накопленных к настоящему моменту данных показало, что имплицитные измерения социальной установки (предлагается даже заменить их название на менее претенциозное - «косвенные») показывают разочаровывающе слабый прогностический потенциал по отношению к реальному поведению. На этом фоне прогностическая валидность «Графического ассоциативного теста отношения» (ГАТО), который также претендует на роль косвенного метода измерения, также оказалась под вопросом. Мы проанализировали 64 прогноза поведения, которые использовали данные ГАТО в области избирательного, потребительского и коммуникативного поведения, где предсказанный результат был подтвержден или опровергнут реальными действиями. В одних случаях прогноз по данным репрезентативной выборки проверялся по отношению к фактическому поведению рассматриваемой группы (например, корпуса избирателей или потребителей определенной категории товаров). В других случаях точность прогноза проверялась для каждого респондента, что позволяет избежать эффекта «взаимной компенсации» ошибочных прогнозов с противоположными знаками. Использованный метод тестирования состоял в сравнении точности прогноза для пар «контрольных» и «экспериментальных» прогнозных моделей. Вторые отличались от первых только тем, что в качестве дополнительного фактора использовали косвенные измерения ГАТО. Все модели были использованы в своих наиболее простых и очевидных форматах. Оказалось, что результаты нашего метаанализа не вполне соответствуют общей тенденции: данные ГАТО значительно и устойчиво повышают точность прогнозирования поведения; его влияние на точность индивидуальных прогнозов (для каждого респондента) оказалось выше, чем на точность групповых прогнозов.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>indirect measurement</kwd><kwd>criterion validity</kwd><kwd>predictive validity</kwd><kwd>factors of behavior</kwd><kwd>dual system theories</kwd><kwd>structural theory of attitude</kwd><kwd>implicit attitudes</kwd><kwd>GATA</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>косвенные измерения</kwd><kwd>критериальная валидность</kwd><kwd>предиктивная валидность</kwd><kwd>факторы поведения</kwd><kwd>теории дуальной системы</kwd><kwd>структурная теория установки</kwd><kwd>имплицитная установка</kwd><kwd>ГАТО</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group/></article-meta></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><mixed-citation>Allport G. Attitudes. A Handbook of Social Psychology. Clark University Press; 1935.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><mixed-citation>Brownstein M., Madva A., Gawronski B. What do implicit measures measure? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. 2019; 10 (5).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><mixed-citation>Brownstein M., Madva A., Gawronski B. Understanding implicit bias: Putting the criticism into perspective. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. 2020, 101 (2).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><mixed-citation>Chernozub O. Affective components of electoral behavior: Design and validity of visual association test of attitude. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. 2018; 3. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><mixed-citation>Chernozub O. Implicit factors and inconsistency of electoral behavior: From attitude to behavior. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. 2020; 5.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><mixed-citation>Chernozub O. Graphic associative test of attitudes as a convenient implicit measurement tool for mass polls. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2023; 23 (1).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><mixed-citation>Chernozub O., Belonozhko M. Comparative analysis of implicit GATA and IAT measures: Unity in diversity. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. 2023; 5. (In Russ.)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><mixed-citation>Chernozub O., Shuraeva L. Orthogonality of IAT and GATA results: The worse the better? Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. 2023; 6. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><mixed-citation>Corneille O., Hütter M. Implicit? What do you mean? A comprehensive review of the delusive implicitness construct in attitude research. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2020; 24 (3).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><mixed-citation>De Houwer J., Moors A. How to define and examine the implicitness of implicit measures. B. Wittenbrink, N. Schwartz (Eds.). Implicit Measures of Attitudes: Procedures and Controversies. Guilford; 2007.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><mixed-citation>Eagly A., Chaiken S. The psychology of attitudes. Journal of Marketing. 1993; 34 (2).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><mixed-citation>Eagly A., Chaiken S. The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitude. Social Cognition. 2007; 25 (5).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><mixed-citation>Evans J. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology. 2008; 59.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><mixed-citation>Fazio R. Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition. 2007; 25 (5).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><mixed-citation>Fazio R. The role of attitudes in memory-based decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1990; 59 (4).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><mixed-citation>Gawronski B., de Houwer J., Sherman J. Twenty-five years of research using implicit measures. Social Cognition. 2020; 38.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17.</label><mixed-citation>Gilovich T., Griffin D. Introduction - Heuristics and biases: Then and now. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, D. Kahneman (Eds.). Heuristic and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press; 2002.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18.</label><mixed-citation>Greenwald A., Poehlman T., Uhlmann E., Banaji M. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009; 97 (1).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19.</label><mixed-citation>Greenwald A., Smith C., Sriram N., Bar-Anan Y., Nosek B. Implicit race attitudes predicted vote in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 2009; 9.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><label>20.</label><mixed-citation>Greenwald A., Banaji M., Nosek B. Statistically small effects of the Implicit Association Test can have societally large effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2015; 108 (4).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><label>21.</label><mixed-citation>Greenwald A., Brendl M., Cai H., Cvencek D., Dovidio J., Friese M., Wiers R. Best research practices for using the Implicit Association Test. Behavior Research Methods. 2021; 20.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><label>22.</label><mixed-citation>Hassan L., Shiu S., Shaw D. Who says there is an intention-behavior gap? Assessing the empirical evidence of an intention-behavior gap in ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics. 2016; 136 (2).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><label>23.</label><mixed-citation>Irving L., Smith C. Measure what you are trying to predict: Applying the correspondence principle to the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2020; 86.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><label>24.</label><mixed-citation>Kahneman D., Frederick S. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, D. Kahneman (Eds.). Heuristic and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press; 2002.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><label>25.</label><mixed-citation>Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><label>26.</label><mixed-citation>Machery E. Anomalies in implicit attitudes research. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1569.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><label>27.</label><mixed-citation>Machery E. Anomalies in implicit attitudes research: Not so easily dismissed. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1591.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B28"><label>28.</label><mixed-citation>Metcalfe J., Mischel W. A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review. 1999; 106.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B29"><label>29.</label><mixed-citation>Mitchell G., Tetlock P. Popularity as a poor proxy for utility: The case of implicit prejudice. S. Lilienfeld, I. Waldman (Eds.). Psychological Science under Scrutiny: Recent Challenges and Proposed Solutions. Wiley; 2017.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B30"><label>30.</label><mixed-citation>Moors A., Koster M. Behavior prediction requires implicit measures of stimulus-goal discrepancies and expected utilities of behavior options rather than of attitudes toward objects. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1611.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B31"><label>31.</label><mixed-citation>Payne B., Vuletich H., Lundberg K. The bias of crowds: How implicit bias bridges personal and systemic prejudice. Psychological Inquiry. 2017; 28 (4).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B32"><label>32.</label><mixed-citation>Perugini M. Predictive models of implicit and explicit attitudes. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2005; 44 (1).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B33"><label>33.</label><mixed-citation>Perugini M., Richetin J., Zogmaister C. Prediction of behavior. Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications. Guilford Press; 2010.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B34"><label>34.</label><mixed-citation>Petty R., Duane T., Wegener D., Fabrigar L. Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology. 1997; 48 (1).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B35"><label>35.</label><mixed-citation>Roccato M., Zogmaister C. Predicting the vote through implicit and explicit attitudes: A field research. Political Psychology. 2010; 31.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B36"><label>36.</label><mixed-citation>Rosenberg M., Hovland C., McGuire W., Abelson R., Brehm J. Attitude Organization and Change: An Analysis of Consistency among Attitude Components. Yale University Press; 1960.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B37"><label>37.</label><mixed-citation>Strack F., Deutsch R. Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2004; 8.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B38"><label>38.</label><mixed-citation>Strack F., Neumann R. Furrowing the brow may undermine perceived fame: The role of facial feedback in judgments of celebrity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2000; 26.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B39"><label>39.</label><mixed-citation>Sussman R., Gifford R. Causality in the theory of planned behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2019; 45 (6).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B40"><label>40.</label><mixed-citation>Thurstone L. Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology. 1928; 33.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
