Faking of the Implicit Association Test Is Statistically Detectable and Partly Correctable

Cvencek, Dario; Greenwald, Anthony G.; Brown, Anthony Scott; Gray, Nicola S.; Snowden, Robert Jefferson

doi:10.1080/01973533.2010.519236

Cited by 122 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although some research has tried to uncover what people actually do to fake the IAT (e.g., Agosta, Ghirardi, Zogmaister, Castiello, & Sartori, 2011;Cvencek, Greenwald, Brown, Gray, & Snowden, 2010;Röhner et al, 2013), the processes behind faking on the IAT still represent a sort of black box. The diffusion model has allowed us to peer into this black box to reveal at least three important insights into the faking process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff: Construct- and faking-related variance on the Implicit Association Test (IAT)

Röhner

Ewers

2015

Behav Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research has indicated that diffusion model analyses allow the user to decompose the traditional IAT effect (D measure) into three newly developed IAT effects: IAT v , which has already been shown to be significantly related to the construct-related variance of the IAT effect, and IAT a and IAT t0 , both of which have been assumed to provide an indication of faking. But research on the impacts of faking on IAT v , IAT a , and IAT t0 is still warranted. By reanalyzing a data set containing both faked and unfaked IAT effects, we investigated whether diffusion model analyses could be used to separate construct-related variance from faking-related variance on the IAT. Our results revealed that this separation is not yet possible. As had already been shown for the traditional IAT effect, IAT v was affected by faking. Interestingly, it was affected by faking only under more difficult faking conditions (i.e., when participants were asked to fake without being given recommended strategies for how to do so, and when they were requested to fake high scores). By contrast, IAT a was affected by faking only in the comparably easy faking condition (i.e., when participants had been informed about possible faking strategies and were asked to fake low scores). IAT t0 was not affected by faking at all. Our results show that although diffusion model analyses cannot yet provide a clear separation between construct-and faking-related variance, they allow us to peer into the black box of the faking process itself, and thus provide a useful tool for analyzing and interpreting IAT scores.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff: Construct- and faking-related variance on the Implicit Association Test (IAT)

Röhner

Ewers

2015

Behav Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The standard deviations in the faking condition were considerably larger than other conditions by 27% in Study 1, 44% in Study 2, 36% in Study 3, and 40% in Study 4 making it easy to detect compared to "real" interventions that presumably altered the activation or expression of implicit preferences (see Table 2). In this context, actual interventions shifting activation and expression of implicit preferences could outperform task manipulation through faking, and the latter is detectable (as "not real") through increases in variability (Cvencek et al, 2010;Röhner, Schröder-Abé, & Schütz, 2013). This way, mechanism research can focus on the particular combinations that are effective rather than the inefficiently examining all possible combinations with maximal experimental control.…”

Section: Notable Features Of Successful Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions.

Lai¹,

Marini

Lehr

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

526

482

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many methods for reducing implicit prejudice have been identified, but little is known about their relative effectiveness. We held a research contest to experimentally compare interventions for reducing the expression of implicit racial prejudice. Teams submitted seventeen interventions that were tested an average of 3.70 times each in four studies (total N = 17,021), with rules for revising interventions between studies. Eight of seventeen interventions were effective at reducing implicit preferences for Whites compared to Blacks, particularly ones that provided experience with counterstereotypical exemplars, used evaluative conditioning methods, and provided strategies to override biases. The other nine interventions were ineffective, particularly ones that engaged participants with others' perspectives, asked participants to consider egalitarian values, or induced a positive emotion. The most potent interventions were ones that invoked high self-involvement or linked Black people with positivity and White people with negativity. No intervention consistently reduced explicit racial preferences. Furthermore, intervention effectiveness only weakly extended to implicit preferences for Asians and Hispanics. Abstract = 160 words Keywords = attitudes, racial prejudice, implicit social cognition, malleability, Implicit Association Test September 9, 2016 update: We updated this manuscript to fix several minor reporting errors that we have learned about since the publication of the manuscript in August 2014. For a summary of these updates, please see pages 67 and 68. Authors' note:This project was supported by a gift from Project Implicit. Lai and Hawkins are consultants and Nosek is an officer of Project Implicit, Inc., a non-profit organization that includes in its mission "To develop and deliver methods for investigating and applying phenomena of implicit social cognition, including especially phenomena of implicit bias based on age, race, gender or other factors. Thoughts and feelings outside of conscious awareness shape social perception, judgment and action (Bargh, 1999;Devine, 1989;Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Nowhere has this idea been more explored than in studies of racial prejudice in which people report egalitarian racial attitudes, but also implicitly prefer Whites compared to Blacks (Devine, 1989;Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997;Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995;. These studies have been influential because implicit racial preferences predict behaviors such as negative interracial contact (McConnell & Leibold, 2001), biases in medical decision-making (Green et al., 2007), and hiring discrimination (Rooth, 2010).From the hundreds of studies conducted, we can conclude that implicit preferences (1) are related to, but distinct from, explicit preferences (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995;, (2) are constructed through different mechanisms than explicit preferences (De Houwer, Teige-Mocigemba, Spruyt, & Moors, 2009;Ranganath & Nosek, 2008;Ratliff & Nosek, 2011;Rydell & McConnell, 2006), ...

show abstract

“…Verschuere and De Houwer (2009) demonstrated that, when coached, people can "fake" their aIAT responses, just as they can with other lie-detection tests. However, these fakers can often be identified (Agosta, Ghirardi, Zogmaister, Castiello, & Sartori, 2011;Cvencek, Greenwald, Brown, Gray, & Snowden, 2010). In general, we know that aIAT (and IAT) scores are malleable using subtle manipulations.…”

Section: Abstract False Memory Concepts and Categories Automaticitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Source confusion influences the effectiveness of the autobiographical IAT

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the claim that the autobiographical Implicit Association Test (aIAT) can detect concealed memories. Subjects read action statements (e.g., "break the toothpick") and either performed the action or completed math problems. They then imagined some of these actions and some new actions. Two weeks later, the subjects completed a memory test and then an aIAT in which they categorized true and false statements (e.g., "I am in front of the computer") and whether they had or had not performed actions from Session 1. For half of the subjects, the nonperformed statements were actions that they saw but did not perform; for the remaining subjects, these statements were actions that they saw and imagined but did not perform. Our results showed that the aIAT can distinguish between true autobiographical events (performed actions) and false events (nonperformed actions), but that it is less effective, the more that subjects remember performing actions that they did not really perform. Thus, the diagnosticity of the aIAT may be limited.

show abstract

Faking of the Implicit Association Test Is Statistically Detectable and Partly Correctable

Cited by 122 publications

References 17 publications

Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff: Construct- and faking-related variance on the Implicit Association Test (IAT)

Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff: Construct- and faking-related variance on the Implicit Association Test (IAT)

Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions.

Source confusion influences the effectiveness of the autobiographical IAT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About