Two implicit propositional measures designed to detect faking in personality-related scales were tested across four experimental studies. Study 1 (n = 116) included the Deception Relational Responding Task and Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire as the faking-detector and target scale, respectively. Respondents were randomly assigned to faking or no-faking conditions. Faking respondents were instructed to appear opposite to their narcissistic profile, while no-faking had to respond honestly. In Study 2 (n = 133), the faking-detector was the Deception Implicit Association Test (Dec-aIAT), while the target scale and faking/no-faking instructions remained the same. In Studies 3 (n = 74) and 4 (n = 111), the faking-detector was again the Dec-aIAT, while the target scale was the Big Five Questionnaire-2. Faking respondents had to adhere to a desirable target profile (Study 3; faking-good) or its opposite (Study 4; faking-bad) while no-faking should respond honestly. Overall, the implicit measures showed adequate-to-excellent reliability, discriminating power, and classification accuracy.
AlessandriG.VecchioneM. (2012). The higher-order factors of the Big Five as predictors of job performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(6), 779784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.037
4.
BackM. D.KüfnerA. C.DufnerM.GerlachT. M.RauthmannJ. F.DenissenJ. J. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1013–1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034431
CalannaP.LauriolaM.SagginoA.TommasiM.FurlanS. (2020). Using a supervised machine learning algorithm for detecting faking good in a personality self-report. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28, 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12279
7.
CapraraG. V.BarbaranelliC.BorgogniL.VecchioneM. (2007). Big Five Questionnaire-2: Manuale. Organizzazioni Speciali.
8.
CvencekD.GreenwaldA. G.BrownA. S.GrayN. S.SnowdenR. J. (2010). Faking of the Implicit Association Test is statistically detectable and partly correctable. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 302–314. doi:10.1080/01973533.2010.519236
De HouwerJ.HeiderN.SpruytA.RoetsA.HughesS. (2015). The relational responding task: Toward a new implicit measure of beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 319. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00319
11.
DentaleF.VecchioneM.GhezziV.SpagnoloG.SzemenyeiE.BarbaranelliC. (2020). Beyond an associative conception of automatic self-evaluations: Applying the relational responding task to measure self-esteem. The Psychological Record, 70(2), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-020-00392-4
12.
FiedlerK.BluemkeM. (2005). Faking the IAT: Aided and unaided response control on the Implicit Association Tests. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2704_3
13.
GawronskiB.De HouwerJ.ShermanJ. W. (Eds.). (2020). Twenty-five years of research using implicit measures [Special Issue of Social Cognition, Volume 38, Issue Supplement]. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2020.38.supp.s1
14.
GoldbergL. R.JohnsonJ. A.EberH. W.HoganR.AshtonM. C.CloningerC. R.GoughH. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Proceedings of the 2005 Meeting of the Association of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
15.
GoldammerP.StöckliP. L.EscherY. A.AnnenH.JonasK. (2023). On the utility of indirect methods for detecting faking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 00131644231209520. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644231209520
16.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
17.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197
18.
HathawayS.McKinleyJ. (1947). Manual for administering and scoring the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). University of Minnesota Press.
19.
HosmerD.W.LemeshowS. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed., pp. 160–164). John Wiley and Sons.
20.
HuX.RosenfeldJ. P.BodenhausenG. V. (2012). Combating automatic autobiographical associations: The effect of instruction and training in strategically concealing information in the Autobiographical Implicit Association Test. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1079–1085. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612443834
21.
HughesS.Barnes-HolmesD.De HouwerJ. (2011). The dominance of associative theorizing in implicit attitude research: Propositional and behavioral alternatives. The Psychological Record, 61(3), 465–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395772
22.
KvamP. D.IrvingL. H.SokratousK.SmithC. T. (2024). Improving the reliability and validity of the IAT with a dynamic model driven by similarity. Behavior Research Methods, 56(3), 2158–2193. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02141-1
23.
MeissnerF.RothermundK. (2013). Estimating the contributions of associations and recoding in the Implicit Association Test: The ReAL model for the IAT. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030734
24.
MillerC.E.BarrettG.V. (2001). The coachability and fakability of personality selection tests used for police selection. Paper presented at the 25th annual conference of the International Personnel Management Association Assessment Council, Newport Beach, CA, June 10–14.
25.
RöhnerJ.EwersT. (2016). Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff: Construct- and faking-related variance on the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0568-1
26.
RöhnerJ.HoldenR. R.SchützA. (2023). IAT faking indices revisited: Aspects of replicability and differential validity. Behavior Research Methods, 55(2), 670–693. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01845-0
27.
RöhnerJ.IliescuD. (2023). On the death of Implicit Association Tests (IATs). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 39(5), 317–322. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000778
28.
RöhnerJ.LaiC. K. (2021). A diffusion model approach for understanding the impact of 17 interventions on the Race Implicit Association Test. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(9), 1374–1389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220974489
29.
RöhnerJ.Schröder-AbéM.SchützA. (2011). Exaggeration is harder than understatement, but practice makes perfect! Faking success in the IAT. Experimental Psychology, 58(6), 464–472. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000114
30.
RöhnerJ.Schröder-AbéM.SchützA. (2013). What do fakers actually do to fake the IAT? An investigation of faking strategies under different faking conditions. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4), 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.02.009
31.
RöhnerJ.ThossP. (2018). EZ: An easy way to conduct a more fine-grained analysis of faked and nonfaked Implicit Association Test (IAT) data. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 14(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.14.1.p017
32.
RöhnerJ.ThossP.SchützA. (2022). Lying on the dissection table: Anatomizing faked responses. Behavior Research Methods, 54(6), 2878–2904. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01770-8
33.
WalczykJ. J.SewellN.DiBenedettoM. B. (2018). A review of approaches to detecting malingering in forensic contexts and promising cognitive load-inducing lie detection techniques. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, 700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00700
34.
SartoriG.AgostaS.ZogmaisterC.FerraraS. D.CastielloU. (2008). How to accurately detect autobiographical events. Psychological Science, 19(8), 772–780. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02156.x
35.
StrackF.DeutschR. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1
36.
VecchioneM.DentaleF.GrazianoM.DufnerM.WetzelE.LeckeltM.BackM. D. (2018). An Italian validation of the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (NARQ): Further evidence for a two-dimensional model of grandiose narcissism. Applied Psychology Bulletin, 281(67), 29–37. 10.26387/bpa.281.3
37.
VenturaM. (2012). The detection of faking through word use. In ZieglerM.MacCannC.RobertsR.D. (Eds.), New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 165–174). Oxford University Press.
38.
VerschuereB.PratiV.De HouwerJ. (2009). Cheating the lie detector: Faking in the autobiographical Implicit Association Test. Psychological Science, 20, 410–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.0230
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
