Jordan Axt
@jordanaxt.bsky.social
Associate Professor of Psychology at McGill, Director of Data and Methodology at Project Implicit.
Should be available to download here: osf.io/nh5wg/files/...
OSF
osf.io
December 2, 2025 at 4:20 PM
Should be available to download here: osf.io/nh5wg/files/...
Other Bluesky authors include @michelangelo77.bsky.social @adamhahn.bsky.social and @tomcostello.bsky.social. But again check out the full paper here! osf.io/preprints/ps....
OSF
osf.io
December 2, 2025 at 2:14 PM
Other Bluesky authors include @michelangelo77.bsky.social @adamhahn.bsky.social and @tomcostello.bsky.social. But again check out the full paper here! osf.io/preprints/ps....
Such a pleasure to work on this project, especially with co-leads Paul Connor and Suzanne Hoogeveen. Additional thanks to Eric Uhlmann, Cory Clark, Gregory Mitchell and Philip Tetlock, who made sure the adversarial collaboration model could be used to contribute to the study of implicit attitudes.
December 2, 2025 at 2:14 PM
Such a pleasure to work on this project, especially with co-leads Paul Connor and Suzanne Hoogeveen. Additional thanks to Eric Uhlmann, Cory Clark, Gregory Mitchell and Philip Tetlock, who made sure the adversarial collaboration model could be used to contribute to the study of implicit attitudes.
Much, much more -- including tests of various moderators -- is available in the paper. In all we think this work lends itself to optimistic and pessimistic interpretations of the results and what the findings mean for the larger field of implicit social cognition.
December 2, 2025 at 2:14 PM
Much, much more -- including tests of various moderators -- is available in the paper. In all we think this work lends itself to optimistic and pessimistic interpretations of the results and what the findings mean for the larger field of implicit social cognition.
Notably, our behavioral tasks did not show anti-Black discrimination on average -- several showed slight pro-Black biases in behavior. This complicates some of our conclusions and raises more general questions about whether we can expect anti-Black discrimination to arise in typical "lab" studies.
December 2, 2025 at 2:14 PM
Notably, our behavioral tasks did not show anti-Black discrimination on average -- several showed slight pro-Black biases in behavior. This complicates some of our conclusions and raises more general questions about whether we can expect anti-Black discrimination to arise in typical "lab" studies.
Implicit racial attitudes accounted for ~2.5% of variance in behavior beyond explicit racial attitudes, an effect size that was *just* over our agreed upon threshold for what would constitute a practically significant effect. Explicit racial attitudes still explained much more variance (~45%).
December 2, 2025 at 2:14 PM
Implicit racial attitudes accounted for ~2.5% of variance in behavior beyond explicit racial attitudes, an effect size that was *just* over our agreed upon threshold for what would constitute a practically significant effect. Explicit racial attitudes still explained much more variance (~45%).
Over 2000 White American adults across two study sessions completed: four measures of implicit racial attitudes (IAT, SC-IAT, AMP, EPT), four measures of explicit racial attitudes, and four behavioral discrimination measures (like hypothetical admissions or hiring tasks).
December 2, 2025 at 2:14 PM
Over 2000 White American adults across two study sessions completed: four measures of implicit racial attitudes (IAT, SC-IAT, AMP, EPT), four measures of explicit racial attitudes, and four behavioral discrimination measures (like hypothetical admissions or hiring tasks).
Proponents, skeptics and more neutral observers of indirect measures like the IAT worked together to design a study and pre-register analyses, with everyone agreeing that results would be an informative test of our central questions.
December 2, 2025 at 2:14 PM
Proponents, skeptics and more neutral observers of indirect measures like the IAT worked together to design a study and pre-register analyses, with everyone agreeing that results would be an informative test of our central questions.
But please read the full paper here! osf.io/preprints/ps....
OSF
osf.io
December 2, 2025 at 2:03 PM
But please read the full paper here! osf.io/preprints/ps....
Other Bluesky authors include @michelangelo77.bsky.social @adamhahn.bsky.social @tomcostello.bsky.social
December 2, 2025 at 2:03 PM
Other Bluesky authors include @michelangelo77.bsky.social @adamhahn.bsky.social @tomcostello.bsky.social
Such a pleasure to work on this project, especially with co-leads Paul Connor and Suzanne Hoogeveen. Additional thanks to Eric Uhlmann, Cory Clark, Gregory Mitchell and Philip Tetlock, who made sure this adversarial collaboration model could make a contribution to the study of implicit attitudes.
December 2, 2025 at 2:03 PM
Such a pleasure to work on this project, especially with co-leads Paul Connor and Suzanne Hoogeveen. Additional thanks to Eric Uhlmann, Cory Clark, Gregory Mitchell and Philip Tetlock, who made sure this adversarial collaboration model could make a contribution to the study of implicit attitudes.
Much more -- including tests of various moderators -- in the paper. In all we think this work lends itself to both comparatively optimistic and pessimistic interpretations of the results and what the findings mean for larger discussions about the field of implicit social cognition.
December 2, 2025 at 2:03 PM
Much more -- including tests of various moderators -- in the paper. In all we think this work lends itself to both comparatively optimistic and pessimistic interpretations of the results and what the findings mean for larger discussions about the field of implicit social cognition.
Notably, our behavioral tasks did not show anti-Black discrimination on average—several showed slight “pro-Black” biases in behavior. This complicates some of our conclusions and raises more general questions about whether we can expect anti-Black discrimination to arise in typical “lab” studies.
December 2, 2025 at 2:03 PM
Notably, our behavioral tasks did not show anti-Black discrimination on average—several showed slight “pro-Black” biases in behavior. This complicates some of our conclusions and raises more general questions about whether we can expect anti-Black discrimination to arise in typical “lab” studies.
Implicit racial attitudes accounted for ~2.5% of variance beyond explicit attitudes on behavior, an effect size that was *just* over our agreed upon threshold for what would constitute a practically significant effect. Explicit racial attitudes still explained much more variance in behavior (~45%).
December 2, 2025 at 2:03 PM
Implicit racial attitudes accounted for ~2.5% of variance beyond explicit attitudes on behavior, an effect size that was *just* over our agreed upon threshold for what would constitute a practically significant effect. Explicit racial attitudes still explained much more variance in behavior (~45%).
In the study, over 2000 White American adults completed: four measures of implicit racial attitudes (IAT, SC-IAT, AMP, EPT), four measures of explicit racial attitudes, and four behavioral discrimination measures (like hypothetical admissions or hiring tasks).
December 2, 2025 at 2:03 PM
In the study, over 2000 White American adults completed: four measures of implicit racial attitudes (IAT, SC-IAT, AMP, EPT), four measures of explicit racial attitudes, and four behavioral discrimination measures (like hypothetical admissions or hiring tasks).
Proponents, skeptics and more neutral observers of indirect measures like the IAT worked together to agree on measures, design the study, and pre-register analyses, with all agreeing that results would be an informative test of our central questions.
December 2, 2025 at 2:03 PM
Proponents, skeptics and more neutral observers of indirect measures like the IAT worked together to agree on measures, design the study, and pre-register analyses, with all agreeing that results would be an informative test of our central questions.
For sure, I think there is a "physiological" component here that contributes to differences in *desired* portion sizes. Though there are also societal factors in terms of bodily expectations. Paper finds that explicit gender-portion beliefs do correlate with things like support for beauty ideals.
May 13, 2025 at 5:36 PM
For sure, I think there is a "physiological" component here that contributes to differences in *desired* portion sizes. Though there are also societal factors in terms of bodily expectations. Paper finds that explicit gender-portion beliefs do correlate with things like support for beauty ideals.
Though also interesting that many people seem to believe in a gender effect. Check out the 500k likes on this video, for example: www.tiktok.com/@travelintho...
Your husband orders your chipotle order… when he orders it for me, I get wayyyy more food #chipotle #chipotlehacks #foodie #mexicanfood #burritobowl #rvlife #fulltimetraveler #husbandgoals
TikTok video by Fulltime Travel| Libby & Alex
www.tiktok.com
May 13, 2025 at 4:15 PM
Though also interesting that many people seem to believe in a gender effect. Check out the 500k likes on this video, for example: www.tiktok.com/@travelintho...
Yeah, I think that's right. There is certainly variance in portion sizes given at these restos -- here is a fun demonstration of that:
www.cnn.com/chipotle-por...
But that variance does not seem related to customer gender alone. Could also be as you note that men are more into order 'hacks'
www.cnn.com/chipotle-por...
But that variance does not seem related to customer gender alone. Could also be as you note that men are more into order 'hacks'
May 13, 2025 at 4:15 PM
Yeah, I think that's right. There is certainly variance in portion sizes given at these restos -- here is a fun demonstration of that:
www.cnn.com/chipotle-por...
But that variance does not seem related to customer gender alone. Could also be as you note that men are more into order 'hacks'
www.cnn.com/chipotle-por...
But that variance does not seem related to customer gender alone. Could also be as you note that men are more into order 'hacks'
Read much more about this (open access) work, led by lab members Elisabeth Irvine and William Li, here: authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...
ScienceDirect.com | Science, health and medical journals, full text articles and books.
authors.elsevier.com
May 13, 2025 at 2:15 PM
Read much more about this (open access) work, led by lab members Elisabeth Irvine and William Li, here: authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...
This field study finding was far from obvious, though – a majority of both a laypeople and social psychologist sample predicted that men would receive larger portions than women in our field study.
May 13, 2025 at 2:15 PM
This field study finding was far from obvious, though – a majority of both a laypeople and social psychologist sample predicted that men would receive larger portions than women in our field study.
Perhaps surprisingly, the field study showed no significant difference in portion sizes given to men vs. women. Hard to know exactly why this occurred, but one possibility is that standardization in serving practices at such restaurants may have limited the impact of gender on portion decisions.
May 13, 2025 at 2:15 PM
Perhaps surprisingly, the field study showed no significant difference in portion sizes given to men vs. women. Hard to know exactly why this occurred, but one possibility is that standardization in serving practices at such restaurants may have limited the impact of gender on portion decisions.
But my favorite (and most expensive) part is the field study, where we sent 91 pairs of men and women – matched on BMI -- to fast-casual restaurants where they ordered the exact same meal from the same server separated by a few minutes. We then weighed their portions outside the restaurant.
May 13, 2025 at 2:15 PM
But my favorite (and most expensive) part is the field study, where we sent 91 pairs of men and women – matched on BMI -- to fast-casual restaurants where they ordered the exact same meal from the same server separated by a few minutes. We then weighed their portions outside the restaurant.