IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0202873.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Indirect (implicit) and direct (explicit) self-esteem measures are virtually unrelated: A meta-analysis of the initial preference task

Author

Listed:
  • Jakob Pietschnig
  • Georg Gittler
  • Stefan Stieger
  • Michael Forster
  • Natalia Gadek
  • Andreas Gartus
  • Krisztina Kocsis-Bogar
  • Bettina Kubicek
  • Marko Lüftenegger
  • Jerome Olsen
  • Roman Prem
  • Nina Ruiz
  • Benjamin G Serfas
  • Martin Voracek

Abstract

Background: The initial preference task (IPT) is an implicit measure that has featured prominently in the literature and enjoys high popularity because it offers to provide an unobtrusive and objective assessment of self-esteem that is easy to administer. However, its use for self-esteem assessment may be limited because of weak associations with direct personality measures. Moreover, moderator effects of sample- and study-related variables need investigation to determine the value of IPT-based assessments of self-esteem. Methods: Conventional and grey-literature database searches, as well as screening of reference lists of obtained articles, yielded a total of 105 independent healthy adult samples (N = 17,777) originating from 60 studies. Summary effect estimates and subgroup analyses for potential effect moderators (e.g., administration order, algorithm, rating type) were calculated by means of meta-analytic random- and mixed-effects models. Moreover, we accounted for potential influences of publication year, publication status (published vs. not), and participant sex in a weighted stepwise hierarchical multiple meta-regression. We tested for dissemination bias through six methods. Results: There was no noteworthy correlation between IPT-based implicit and explicit self-esteem (r = .102), indicating conceptual independence of these two constructs. Effects were stronger when the B-algorithm was used for calculation of IPT-scores and the IPT was administered only once, whilst all other moderators did not show significant influences. Regression analyses revealed a somewhat stronger (albeit non-significant) effect for men. Moreover, there was no evidence for dissemination bias or a decline effect, although effects from published studies were numerically somewhat stronger than unpublished effects. Discussion: We show that there is no noteworthy association between IPT-based implicit and explicit self-esteem, which is broadly consistent with dual-process models of implicit and explicit evaluations on the one hand, but also casts doubt on the suitability of the IPT for the assessment of implicit self-esteem on the other hand.

Suggested Citation

  • Jakob Pietschnig & Georg Gittler & Stefan Stieger & Michael Forster & Natalia Gadek & Andreas Gartus & Krisztina Kocsis-Bogar & Bettina Kubicek & Marko Lüftenegger & Jerome Olsen & Roman Prem & Nina R, 2018. "Indirect (implicit) and direct (explicit) self-esteem measures are virtually unrelated: A meta-analysis of the initial preference task," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-19, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0202873
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202873
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202873
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202873&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0202873?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0202873. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.