: 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.
Applying Implicit Propositional Measures to Detect Faking in Personality-Related Scales: Reliability, Discriminating Power, and Classification Accuracy / Dentale, Francesco; Vecchione, Michele. - In: PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETTIN. - ISSN 0146-1672. - (2024). [10.1177/01461672241286209]
Applying Implicit Propositional Measures to Detect Faking in Personality-Related Scales: Reliability, Discriminating Power, and Classification Accuracy
Dentale, Francesco
Primo
;Vecchione, MicheleSecondo
2024
Abstract
: 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.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.