Assessing the validityof the Self versus other interest implicit association test.

Emily M Thornton,Lara B Aknin,Valerio Capraro

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0234032

Abstract

There is great variability in the ways that humans treat one another, ranging from extreme compassion (e.g., philanthropy, organ donation) to self-interested cruelty (e.g., theft, murder). What underlies and explains this variability? Past research has primarily examined human prosociality using explicit self-report scales, which are susceptible to self-presentation biases. However, these concerns can be alleviated with the use of implicit attitude tests that assess automatic associations. Here, we introduce and assess the validity of a new test of implicit prosociality–the Self versus Other Interest Implicit Association Test (SOI-IAT)–administered to two samples in pre-registered studies: regular blood donors (Study 1; N = 153) and a nationally representative sample of Americans (Study 2; N = 467). To assess validity, we investigated whether SOI-IAT scores were correlated with explicit measures of prosociality within each sample and compared SOI-IAT scores of the control sample (representative sample of Americans) with the prosocial sample (blood donors). While SOI-IAT scores were higher in the prosocial blood donor sample, SOI-IAT scores were generally uncorrelated with explicit measures and actual prosocial behaviour. Thus, the SOI-IAT may be able to detect group differences in everyday prosociality, but future testing is needed for a more robust validation of the SOI-IAT. These unexpected findings underscore the importance of sharing null and mixed results to fill gaps in the scientific record and highlight the challenges of conducting research on implicit processes.

Highlights

According to Giving USA Today, 2017 saw more money donated to charity than ever before, at $410 billion dollars [1]
There were nearly as many mass shootings as there were days in a calendar year, at 346 incidents [2]. While these statistics are limited to the United States, the contradictory picture of humanity they paint illustrates a broader paradox of human behaviour: on one hand, people donated more money than ever, and yet, at the same time, were extremely antisocial. This exemplifies a fundamental issue in social psychology and beyond: There is great variability in how humans treat each other, but how can we quantify and predict it? In two studies, we evaluate the construct validity of a novel method of prosocial attitude assessment that circumvents many of the pitfalls of traditional measures of prosociality–the Self versus Other Implicit Association Test
Correlation analyses (α = 0.05, one tail) revealed that d-scores were positively but not significantly correlated with existing explicit measures of prosociality assessed here using the Altruistic Personality Scale (r(151) = 0.07, p = 0.20), Social Responsibility subscale (r(151) = 0.13, p = 0.05), Moral Reasoning subscale (r(151) = 0.09, p = 0.14), Perspective Taking subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (r(151) = 0.09, p = 0.14), Empathic Concern subscale of the IRI (r(151) = 0.07, p = 0.21), and amount of money given to the stranger in the hypothetical dictator game (r(151) = 0.03, p = 0.36; see Table 1)

Summary

Introduction

According to Giving USA Today, 2017 saw more money donated to charity than ever before, at $410 billion dollars [1]. There were nearly as many mass shootings as there were days in a calendar year, at 346 incidents [2] While these statistics are limited to the United States, the contradictory picture of humanity they paint illustrates a broader paradox of human behaviour: on one hand, people donated more money than ever, and yet, at the same time, were extremely antisocial. This exemplifies a fundamental issue in social psychology and beyond: There is great variability in how humans treat each other, but how can we quantify and predict it? This exemplifies a fundamental issue in social psychology and beyond: There is great variability in how humans treat each other, but how can we quantify and predict it? In two studies, we evaluate the construct validity of a novel method of prosocial attitude assessment that circumvents many of the pitfalls of traditional measures of prosociality–the Self versus Other Implicit Association Test (hereafter, SOI-IAT).

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion