The Effect of Implicitly Incentivized Faking on Explicit and Implicit Measures of Doping Attitude: When Athletes Want to Pretend an Even More Negative Attitude to Doping

Wolff W, Schindler S, Brand R (2015)
PLoS ONE 10(4): e0118507.

Download
OA
Zeitschriftenaufsatz | Veröffentlicht | Englisch
Volltext vorhanden für diesen Nachweis
Autor/in
; ;
Abstract / Bemerkung
The Implicit Association Test (IAT) aims to measure participants’ automatic evaluation of an attitude object and is useful especially for the measurement of attitudes related to socially sensitive subjects, e.g. doping in sports. Several studies indicate that IAT scores can be faked on instruction. But fully or semi-instructed research scenarios might not properly reflect what happens in more realistic situations, when participants secretly decide to try faking the test. The present study is the first to investigate IAT faking when there is only an implicit incentive to do so. Sixty-five athletes (22.83 years ± 2.45; 25 women) were randomly assigned to an incentive-to-fake condition or a control condition. Participants in the incentive-to-fake condition were manipulated to believe that athletes with lenient doping attitudes would be referred to a tedious 45-minute anti-doping program. Attitudes were measured with the pictorial doping brief IAT (BIAT) and with the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS). A one-way MANOVA revealed significant differences between conditions after the manipulation in PEAS scores, but not in the doping BIAT. In the light of our hypothesis this suggests that participants successfully faked an exceedingly negative attitude to doping when completing the PEAS, but were unsuccessful in doing so on the reaction time-based test. This study assessed BIAT faking in a setting that aimed to resemble a situation in which participants want to hide their attempts to cheat. The two measures of attitude were differentially affected by the implicit incentive. Our findings provide evidence that the pictorial doping BIAT is relatively robust against spontaneous and naïve faking attempts. (B)IATs might be less prone to faking than implied by previous studies.
Erscheinungsjahr
Zeitschriftentitel
PLoS ONE
Band
10
Ausgabe
4
Art.-Nr.
e0118507
ISSN
Finanzierungs-Informationen
Article Processing Charge funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Open Access Publication Fund of Bielefeld University.
PUB-ID

Zitieren

Wolff W, Schindler S, Brand R. The Effect of Implicitly Incentivized Faking on Explicit and Implicit Measures of Doping Attitude: When Athletes Want to Pretend an Even More Negative Attitude to Doping. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(4): e0118507.
Wolff, W., Schindler, S., & Brand, R. (2015). The Effect of Implicitly Incentivized Faking on Explicit and Implicit Measures of Doping Attitude: When Athletes Want to Pretend an Even More Negative Attitude to Doping. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0118507. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118507
Wolff, W., Schindler, S., and Brand, R. (2015). The Effect of Implicitly Incentivized Faking on Explicit and Implicit Measures of Doping Attitude: When Athletes Want to Pretend an Even More Negative Attitude to Doping. PLoS ONE 10:e0118507.
Wolff, W., Schindler, S., & Brand, R., 2015. The Effect of Implicitly Incentivized Faking on Explicit and Implicit Measures of Doping Attitude: When Athletes Want to Pretend an Even More Negative Attitude to Doping. PLoS ONE, 10(4): e0118507.
W. Wolff, S. Schindler, and R. Brand, “The Effect of Implicitly Incentivized Faking on Explicit and Implicit Measures of Doping Attitude: When Athletes Want to Pretend an Even More Negative Attitude to Doping”, PLoS ONE, vol. 10, 2015, : e0118507.
Wolff, W., Schindler, S., Brand, R.: The Effect of Implicitly Incentivized Faking on Explicit and Implicit Measures of Doping Attitude: When Athletes Want to Pretend an Even More Negative Attitude to Doping. PLoS ONE. 10, : e0118507 (2015).
Wolff, Wanja, Schindler, Sebastian, and Brand, Ralf. “The Effect of Implicitly Incentivized Faking on Explicit and Implicit Measures of Doping Attitude: When Athletes Want to Pretend an Even More Negative Attitude to Doping”. PLoS ONE 10.4 (2015): e0118507.
Alle Dateien verfügbar unter der/den folgenden Lizenz(en):
Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0):
Volltext(e)
Access Level
OA Open Access
Zuletzt Hochgeladen
2019-09-06T09:18:31Z

6 Zitationen in Europe PMC

Daten bereitgestellt von Europe PubMed Central.

Reducing Stigma and Punitive Attitudes Toward Pedophiles Through Narrative Humanization.
Harper CA, Bartels RM, Hogue TE., Sex Abuse 30(5), 2018
PMID: 27941002
The psychology of doping.
Elbe AM, Barkoukis V., Curr Opin Psychol 16(), 2017
PMID: 28813359
Uninstructed BIAT faking when ego depleted or in normal state: differential effect on brain and behavior.
Wolff W, Schindler S, Englert C, Brand R, Kissler J., BMC Neurosci 17(1), 2016
PMID: 27142046
Cerebral correlates of faking: evidence from a brief implicit association test on doping attitudes.
Schindler S, Wolff W, Kissler JM, Brand R., Front Behav Neurosci 9(), 2015
PMID: 26074798

31 References

Daten bereitgestellt von Europe PubMed Central.

Voluntary controllability of the implicit association test (IAT)
AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 2003
Exaggeration is harder than understatement, but practice makes perfect!
Rohner J, Schroder-Abe M, Schutz A., Exp Psychol 58(6), 2011
PMID: 21592941
Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test.
Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JL., J Pers Soc Psychol 74(6), 1998
PMID: 9654756
Empathy and social desirability: a comparison of delinquent and non-delinquent participants using direct and indirect measures
AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 2009
Is the implicit association test immune to faking?
Steffens MC., Exp Psychol 51(3), 2004
PMID: 15267125
Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity.
Greenwald AG, Poehlman TA, Uhlmann EL, Banaji MR., J Pers Soc Psychol 97(1), 2009
PMID: 19586237
Faking the IAT: Aided and unaided response control on the Implicit Association Tests
AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 2005
Faking of the Implicit Association Test Is Statistically Detectable and Partly Correctable
AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 2010
What do fakers actually do to fake the IAT? An investigation of faking strategies under different faking conditions
AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 2013
Intentional faking of the single category Implicit Association Test and the Implicit Association Test.
Stieger S, Goritz AS, Hergovich A, Voracek M., Psychol Rep 109(1), 2011
PMID: 22049663
A Bayesian latent group analysis for detecting poor effort in the assessment of malingering.
Ortega A, Wagenmakers EJ, Lee MD, Markowitsch HJ, Piefke M., Arch Clin Neuropsychol 27(4), 2012
PMID: 22543568
Using the yes/no recognition response pattern to detect memory malingering.
Schindler S, Kissler J, Kuhl KP, Hellweg R, Bengner T., BMC Psychol 1(1), 2013
PMID: 25566364
Detecting malingering in traumatic brain injury and chronic pain: a comparison of three forced-choice symptom validity tests.
Greve KW, Ord J, Curtis KL, Bianchini KJ, Brennan A., Clin Neuropsychol 22(5), 2008
PMID: 18756391
Predictive validity of an Implicit Association Test for assessing anxiety.
Egloff B, Schmukle SC., J Pers Soc Psychol 83(6), 2002
PMID: 12500823
Does social desirability influence the relationship between doping attitudes and doping susceptibility in athletes?
AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 2010
Measuring explicit attitude toward doping: Review of the psychometric properties of the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale
AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 2009
Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct
AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 2002
The Brief Implicit Association Test.
Sriram N, Greenwald AG., Exp Psychol 56(4), 2009
PMID: 19439401
Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm.
Greenwald AG, Nosek BA, Banaji MR., J Pers Soc Psychol 85(2), 2003
PMID: 12916565

AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 1994
Incongruence in doping related attitudes, beliefs and opinions in the context of discordant behavioural data: in which measure do we trust?
Petroczi A, Uvacsek M, Nepusz T, Deshmukh N, Shah I, Aidman EV, Barker J, Toth M, Naughton DP., PLoS ONE 6(4), 2011
PMID: 21541317
Is poor performance on recognition memory effort measures indicative of generalized poor performance on neuropsychological tests?
Constantinou M, Bauer L, Ashendorf L, Fisher JM, McCaffrey RJ., Arch Clin Neuropsychol 20(2), 2005
PMID: 15708729
Implicit measures in social cognition. research: their meaning and use.
Fazio RH, Olson MA., Annu Rev Psychol 54(), 2002
PMID: 12172003
How'd they do it? Malingering strategies on symptom validity tests.
Tan JE, Slick DJ, Strauss E, Hultsch DF., Clin Neuropsychol 16(4), 2002
PMID: 12822058
The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition.
Karpinski A, Steinman RB., J Pers Soc Psychol 91(1), 2006
PMID: 16834477
Personal and psychosocial predictors of doping use in physical activity settings: a meta-analysis.
Ntoumanis N, Ng JY, Barkoukis V, Backhouse S., Sports Med 44(11), 2014
PMID: 25138312
The doping mindset—Part II: Potentials and pitfalls in capturing athletes’ doping attitudes with response-time methodology
AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 2014

Export

Markieren/ Markierung löschen
Markierte Publikationen

Open Data PUB

Web of Science

Dieser Datensatz im Web of Science®

Quellen

PMID: 25902142
PubMed | Europe PMC

Suchen in

Google Scholar