↓ Skip to main content

Uninstructed BIAT faking when ego depleted or in normal state: differential effect on brain and behavior

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neuroscience, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Uninstructed BIAT faking when ego depleted or in normal state: differential effect on brain and behavior
Published in
BMC Neuroscience, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12868-016-0249-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wanja Wolff, Sebastian Schindler, Christoph Englert, Ralf Brand, Johanna Kissler

Abstract

Deception can distort psychological tests on socially sensitive topics. Understanding the cerebral processes that are involved in such faking can be useful in detection and prevention of deception. Previous research shows that faking a brief implicit association test (BIAT) evokes a characteristic ERP response. It is not yet known whether temporarily available self-control resources moderate this response. We randomly assigned 22 participants (15 females, 24.23 ± 2.91 years old) to a counterbalanced repeated-measurements design. Participants first completed a Brief-IAT (BIAT) on doping attitudes as a baseline measure and were then instructed to fake a negative doping attitude both when self-control resources were depleted and non-depleted. Cerebral activity during BIAT performance was assessed using high-density EEG. Compared to the baseline BIAT, event-related potentials showed a first interaction at the parietal P1, while significant post hoc differences were found only at the later occurring late positive potential. Here, significantly decreased amplitudes were recorded for 'normal' faking, but not in the depletion condition. In source space, enhanced activity was found for 'normal' faking in the bilateral temporoparietal junction. Behaviorally, participants were successful in faking the BIAT successfully in both conditions. Results indicate that temporarily available self-control resources do not affect overt faking success on a BIAT. However, differences were found on an electrophysiological level. This indicates that while on a phenotypical level self-control resources play a negligible role in deliberate test faking the underlying cerebral processes are markedly different.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Student > Master 11 15%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Sports and Recreations 4 5%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 25 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,325,615
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neuroscience
#1,056
of 1,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,101
of 298,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neuroscience
#19
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,246 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,754 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.