The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is the Implicit Association Test Immune to Faking?
Abstract
Abstract. One of the main advantages of measures of automatic cognition is supposed to be that they are less susceptible to faking than explicit tests. It is an empirical question, however, to what degree these measures can be faked, and the response might well differ for different measures. We tested whether the Implicit Association Test (IAT, Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998 ) cannot be faked as easily as explicit measures of the same constructs. We chose the Big-Five dimensions conscientiousness and extraversion as the constructs of interest. The results show, indeed, that the IAT is much less susceptible to faking than questionnaire measures are, even if no selective faking of single dimensions of the questionnaire occurred. However, given limited experience, scores on the IAT, too, are susceptible to faking.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317 · cited 1×
“…people are Ð even though we know that, in addition to systematic errors like self-deception and selfenhancement, demand characteristics, evaluation apprehension, and impression management factors influence self-reports (e.g., Furnham, 1986; Nederhof, 1985; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Strack, 1994).”
BackgroundTHE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META‐ANALYSIS
BARRICK, M. R., & MOUNT, M. K. (1991) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x · Cited by 8,689
Automatic and effortful processes in memory.
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1979) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.108.3.356 · Cited by 2,812
Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review
Nederhof, A. J. (1985) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420150303 · Cited by 2,340 · cited 1×
“…people are Ð even though we know that, in addition to systematic errors like self-deception and selfenhancement, demand characteristics, evaluation apprehension, and impression management factors influence self-reports (e.g., Furnham, 1986; Nederhof, 1985; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Strack, 1994).”
BackgroundResponse bias, social desirability and dissimulation
Furnham, A. (1986) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0 · Cited by 1,033
Cited by
Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity.
Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015575 · Cited by 3,257
Impulse and Self-Control From a Dual-Systems Perspective
Hofmann, W., Friese, M., & Strack, F. (2009) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01116.x · Cited by 1,487
The Single Category Implicit Association Test as a measure of implicit social cognition.
Karpinski, A., & Steinman, R. B. (2006) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.16 · Cited by 1,108
van den Bergh, L., Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., Voeten, M., & Holland, R. W. (2010) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/0002831209353594 · Cited by 625
Reducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across time
Lai, C. K., Skinner, A. L., Cooley, E., Murrar, S., Brauer, M., Devos, T., Calanchini, J., Xiao, Y. J., Pedram, C., Marshburn, C. K., et al. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000179 · Cited by 624
Metadata
- Authors
- Steffens, M. C.
- Venue
- Experimental Psychology
- Publisher
- Hogrefe Publishing Group
- Published
- 2004-06
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 165-179
- ISSN
- 0949-3964 (ISSN-L)
- 1618-3169
- 2190-5142
- OpenAlex
- W2129912157
- Cited by
- 379
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 56.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Is the Implicit Association Test Immune to Faking? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1027/1618-3169.51.3.165
- The paper
- Steffens, M. C. (2004). Is the Implicit Association Test Immune to Faking? Experimental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.51.3.165
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
