Imagining a false alibi impairs concealed memory detection with the autobiographical Implicit Association Test.

Abstract

Imagining counterfactual versions of past events can distort memory. In three experiments, we examined whether imagining a false alibi for a mock crime would make suspects appear less guilty in a concealed memory detection test, the autobiographical Implicit Association Test (aIAT), which aims to determine which of two autobiographical events are true. First, "guilty" participants completed a mock crime, whereas "innocent" participants completed an innocent act. Next, some of the guilty participants were asked to imagine a false alibi that corresponded to the innocent act. Finally, all groups completed the aIAT. Across experiments, we varied the type of aIAT used and also compared the effectiveness of the false alibi countermeasure when only imagined once, versus when it was repeatedly imagined over a week long period. The aIAT accurately detected the mock crime as true for guilty participants without a false alibi, but was consistently less able to detect the mock crime as true for guilty participants who had imagined a false alibi. The findings suggest that if guilty suspects fabricate an alibi, this may create a memory for the alibi that appears to be true based on the aIAT, which is problematic for its real-life applications in concealed memory detection. Public significance statement:We found that rehearsing a false alibi can impair truth detection with a computerized test, the autobiographical Implicit Association Test. This finding is important because it suggests the test is vulnerable to faking, and that real life applications of this test are premature.

Examining the efficacy of STD testing public health messages tailored to youth’s regulatory focus.

“…To interpret the Bayes Factor for each model, we used guidelines specified by Wagenmakers et al and demonstrated by Dhammapeera & Bergström in their recent publication (Dhammapeera et al, 2020; Wagenmakers et al, 2011). Under these guidelines, a Bayes Factor of H 1 over H 0 (BF 10 ) that is greater than 3 indicates substantial support for the alternative hypothesis whereas a Bayes Factor below 1 indicates support for the null hypothesis (Dhammapeera et al, 2020). For our first model, examining the effect of condition on STD testing stigma, Bayes Factor = 7.32, indicating substantial evidence in support of the hypothesis that condition has an effect on STD testing stigma.…”

“…Because we were not aware of any previous studies that have examined the influence of RFT tailored health messages on participants’ STD testing cognitions, the Jeffreys-Zellner-Siow (JZS) method, which uses default rather than researcher-specified priors, was used to estimate the Bayes Factor (Andraszewicz et al, 2015). The Bayes Factor can range from zero to infinity and indicates the likelihood that the hypothesis (alternative [H 1 ] vs. null [H 0 ]) is true (Dhammapeera et al, 2020). To interpret the Bayes Factor for each model, we used guidelines specified by Wagenmakers et al and demonstrated by Dhammapeera & Bergström in their recent publication (Dhammapeera et al, 2020; Wagenmakers et al, 2011).…”

“…The Bayes Factor can range from zero to infinity and indicates the likelihood that the hypothesis (alternative [H 1 ] vs. null [H 0 ]) is true (Dhammapeera et al, 2020). To interpret the Bayes Factor for each model, we used guidelines specified by Wagenmakers et al and demonstrated by Dhammapeera & Bergström in their recent publication (Dhammapeera et al, 2020; Wagenmakers et al, 2011). Under these guidelines, a Bayes Factor of H 1 over H 0 (BF 10 ) that is greater than 3 indicates substantial support for the alternative hypothesis whereas a Bayes Factor below 1 indicates support for the null hypothesis (Dhammapeera et al, 2020).…”

How vulnerable is the reaction time concealed information test to faking?

“…Other faking strategies may influence performance already at an earlier stage. For instance, asking participants to suppress their memory of certain events or to vividly imagine having performed another action (e.g., the alibi) has been shown effective in RT-based tests and in tests using other measures (Dhammapeera, Hu, & Bergström, 2020; Gronau, Elber, Satran, Breska, & Ben-Shakhar, 2015; Hu, Bergström, Bodenhausen, & Rosenfeld, 2015; Suchotzki, Berlijn, Donath, & Gamer, 2018). Thereby, such strategies may affect the memories themselves rather than just participants behavior during the test and may therefore be more difficult to detect.…”

Sounding and imagining sounds improve visual time perception: Application of the modality effect of time perception

“…It is reasonable to expect individuals to improve their visual time perception by sounding when they perceive visual stimuli. Moreover, some studies have found that imagining a sound produces auditory processing similar to that of sounding (Dhammapeera et al, 2020; Halpern & Zatorre, 1999; Herholz et al, 2008, 2009; Zatorre & Halpern, 2005). As such, if sounding improves visual time perception, it follows that imagining a sound may also improve visual time perception.…”