Faking the IAT: Aided and Unaided Response Control on the Implicit Association Tests

By Klaus Fiedler, M. Bluemke. 2005

285 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c77e92bcb3212b136fb289cc63fa2a1cb7573276

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Racial bias and the validity of the Implicit Association Test (2016, background): “However, knowing they have just participated in a dictator game should not influence IAT score, as evidence shows it is difficult to fake or otherwise manipulate (Fiedler and Bluemke, 2005).”
Holding on to our functional roots when exploring new intellectual islands: A voyage through implicit cognition research (2012, background): “…More generally, the absence of a non-arbitrary zero point (Blanton & Jaccard, 2006), ability to exert strategic control over the behavioral effect (Fiedler & Bluemke, 2005) as well as individual differences in cognitive ability have been shown to influence the findings obtained from a number of…”
Applying processing trees in social psychology (2016, background): “That is, non-automatic processes can have an impact on performance in indirect tasks (e.g., faking instructions; Fiedler & Bluemke, 2005), whereas automatic processes can influence direct tests (e.g., mood affects self-reports unknowingly; Schwarz & Clore, 1983).”
Impulsive versus reflective influences on health behavior: a theoretical framework and empirical review (2008, background): “Responses on implicit measures are comparatively difficult to control unless the person is explicitly instructed on how to do this (e.g., Asendorpf, Banse, & Mücke, 2002; Egloff & Schmukle, 2002; Fiedler & Bluemke, 2005; Steffens, 2004).”
Assessment of Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition A Review of IAT Measures (2008, background): “Several studies have shown that IATs are fakable, although much less so than explicit self-reports (e.g., Fiedler & Bluemke, 2005; Schnabel, Banse, & Asendorpf, 2006a; Steffens, 2004).”
Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. (2009, background): “At the same time, most naive subjects do not spontaneously discover this strategy (Cvencek, Greenwald, Brown, Gray, & Snowden, 2008; Kim, 2003; Steffens, 2004; but cf. Fiedler & Bluemke, 2005).”
Novel attitudes can be faked on the Implicit Association Test (2007, methodology): “Until now, evidence for faking in the IAT was found only when participants performed the IAT for a second time immediately after completing the same IAT for the Wrst time (Fiedler & Bluemke, 2005; also see SteVens, 2004).”
Humble persons are more helpful than less humble persons: Evidence from three studies (2012, background): “In studies 2 and 3, we also included an implicit measure of humility, in part because implicit measures are more difficult to fake than self-report (Fiedler & Bluemke, 2005).”
Untangling the links between narcissism and self‐esteem: A theoretical and empirical review. (2008, unknown): “…know what is being measured or what their responses reveal when they complete the IAT, this instrument presumably bypasses most people’s ability to present a falsely positive self (Do-Yeong, 2003; Steffens, 2004; but see Fiedler & Bluemke, 2005, for evidence that people can ‘fake’ the IAT).”
Testing the Fake-ability of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP): The First Study (2007, unknown): “After the current study was conducted, a second successful IAT-faking study was published (Fiedler & Bluemke, 2005).”
The Implicit Association Test and sociolinguistic meaning (2012, background): “While the IAT is susceptible to faking to a degree (Fiedler and Bluemke, 2005), it is less so than explicit measures (Steffens, 2004).”
Unresolved problems with the “I”, the “A”, and the “T”: A logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) (2006, background): “Among German students, the proportion that takes longer to sort Turks and positive valence together than to map Germans and positive valence onto the same response key can be estimated to be more than 75% (N¼ 144; Fiedler & Bluemke, 2005; Exps.”
Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. (2009, background): “…can be consciously controlled seems to depend on a variety of variables, such as how much experience the participants have with the IAT (e.g., Fiedler & Bluemke, 2005; Steffens, 2004; see Czellar, 2006; De Houwer et al., 2007; and Schnabel, Banse, & Asendorpf, 2006, for other moderating…”