By: Vaughan

Vaughan — Wed, 20 May 2009 06:41:54 +0000

See the following:
Implicit consumer preferences and their influence on product choice
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20126
Predictive Validity of the Implicit Association Test in Studies of Brands, Consumer Attitudes, and Behavior
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_9
Is the Implicit Association Test a Valid and Valuable Measure of Implicit Consumer Social Cognition?
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_8

By: TR

TR — Tue, 19 May 2009 23:34:55 +0000

“Interestingly, the students reported no explicit preference for the drug, suggesting that the effect of the branding slipped in under the radar of consciousness. The message got through despite it being not being held as a conscious memory.”
OR, a person could interpret this as evidence that the IAT isn’t particularly diagnostic of attitudes or preferences. At the very least, minute differences in reaction time (which would be quite expected after minute exposure through what essentially amounts to product placement) to a product that already has positive associations due to it being “among the most promoted brand-name statins in the United States (from the article)” hardly qualifies as a “nice demonstration” of the “dramatic” effects of signaling. I also think that signaling of this sort is quite important for interpersonal evaluation, but the outcomes you want are judgment, not reaction time.
Given how skeptical you are of much of neuroscience data (on which I generally agree w/you), perhaps you should consider whether your support for IAT is warranted in this case, or whether, as in the case of many people’s obsession w/brain data, you have fallen prey to the allure of a sexy method.

Comments on: Send a signal to table three please

By: Vaughan

By: TR