Detecting fakers of the autobiographical IAT

Autobiographical memories might be identified using a variant of the implicit association test (IAT), or the autobiographical IAT (aIAT). The aIAT provides a measure of association between true sentences and sentences describing an autobiographical event. This tool might be used to evaluate whether specific autobiographical information is encoded within the respondent's mind/brain. This paper examines possible problems arising when the aIAT is used as a lie-detector technique. The results indicate that, when given previous instruction or training with an aIAT, examinees can alter their results and beat the ‘memory-detector’. However, we have been able to detect successful fakers of aIAT on the basis of their specific response patterns. Our algorithm has the ability to spot the faker in a satisfactory manner. If, as demonstrated here, faking can be detected, then the real autobiographical event might also be identified when the examinee attempts to alter their results. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  K. Fiedler,et al.  Faking the IAT: Aided and Unaided Response Control on the Implicit Association Tests , 2005 .

[2]  C. Honts,et al.  Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of the concealed knowledge test. , 1996, Psychophysiology.

[3]  D. Lykken.  The GSR in the detection of guilt. , 1959 .

[4]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Neural correlates of different types of deception: an fMRI investigation. , 2003, Cerebral cortex.

[5]  C. Honts,et al.  Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests. , 1994, The Journal of applied psychology.

[6]  R. Hicks,et al.  Experimenter effects on the physiological experiment. , 1970, Psychophysiology.

[7]  J. Reid,et al.  A revised questioning technique in lie-detection tests. , 1947, The Journal of criminal law and criminology, including the American journal of police science.

[8]  E. Kingdom.  THE ‘MENTAL’ AND THE ‘PHYSICAL’ , 1969 .

[9]  Eitan Elaad,et al.  Effects of context and state of guilt on the detection of concealed crime information. , 2009, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[10]  Do-Yeong Kim.  Voluntary Controllability of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) , 2003 .

[11]  R. Gur,et al.  Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event‐related fMRI , 2005, Human brain mapping.

[12]  Gershon Ben-Shakhar,et al.  The validity of psychophysiological detection of information with the Guilty Knowledge Test: a meta-analytic review. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[13]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  Bruno Verschuere,et al.  Cheating the Lie Detector , 2009, Psychological science.

[15]  Fred E. Inbau,et al.  Truth and deception : the polygraph (lie-detector) technique , 1977 .

[16]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Faking of the Implicit Association Test Is Statistically Detectable and Partly Correctable , 2010 .

[17]  Umberto Castiello,et al.  How to Accurately Detect Autobiographical Events , 2008, Psychological science.

[18]  G. Sartori,et al.  Lie-specific involvement of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in deception. , 2008, Cerebral cortex.

[19]  David T. Lykken,et al.  The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: The effects of faking. , 1960 .

[20]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.