Implicit Personality Theory: Myth or fact? An illustration of how empirical research can miss

The present paper examines some problems in the current literature on Implicit Personality Theory (IPT) with specific reference to the controversial publications by Mirels (1976) and Jackson, Chan, and Stricker (1979). Their disputes address the question of whether individuals' estimates of trait co‐occurrence accurately reflect actual (empirical) trait co‐occurrence in personality ratings. The cogency of the disputes is undermined, however, by both studies' deficiences at the levels of theory, measurement, and statistical analysis. For instance, the indices used for representing estimated and empirical trait co‐occurrence are neither adequately justified nor commensurate. For future personality attribution research, we discuss both the theoretical distinction between two (comparative and absolute) judgment formats frequently involved in data gathering and the empirical distinction between sophisticated and unsophisticated research strategies involved in data analysis. Finally, it was concluded that due to the residual effect of the empiricism of the 1950s and 1960s, and a lack of logical coherence between cognitive psychology, psychometric theories, and statistical data manipulations, IPT is still at an early stage of development. Future investigators should therefore develop a rigorous program with the sophistication of so‐called “nomological operationalization” for a systematic investigation of IPT.