Faking an Implicit Measure of Addiction Proneness

Abstract

Self-report measures are known to be susceptible to faking, and response distortion is a particularly critical issue in the context of assessing job applicants (Holden & Kroner, 1992; Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, & McCloy, 1990). However, the advent of conditional reasoning methodology makes it possible to assess personality more objectively by focusing on implicit rather than explicit cognitions. Previous research has suggested that the conditional reasoning methodology is resistant to faking. This study evaluates the fakability of a new measure of addiction, the Conditional Reasoning Test of Addiction Proneness, which was developed specifically to assess the implicit cognitions that justify engaging in addictive behavior (Bowler, Bowler, & James, 2011). This study examined whether respondents could successfully distort their responses on the Conditional Reasoning Test for Addiction Proneness as well as a self-report measure of addiction, the Self-Assessment of Behavior. Results indicate that the self-report measure is susceptible to faking but the conditional reasoning measure is resistant to response distortion, thus providing further support that Conditional Reasoning Test of Addiction Proneness does in fact assess implicit cognitions.