Abstract
AbstractResearch has shown that even experts cannot detect faking above chance, but recent studies have suggested that machine learning may help in this endeavor. However, faking differs between faking conditions, previous efforts have not taken these differences into account, and faking indices have yet to be integrated into such approaches. We reanalyzed seven data sets (N = 1,039) with various faking conditions (high and low scores, different constructs, naïve and informed faking, faking with and without practice, different measures [self-reports vs. implicit association tests; IATs]). We investigated the extent to which and how machine learning classifiers could detect faking under these conditions and compared different input data (response patterns, scores, faking indices) and different classifiers (logistic regression, random forest, XGBoost). We also explored the features that classifiers used for detection. Our results show that machine learning has the potential to detect faking, but detection success varies between conditions from chance levels to 100%. There were differences in detection (e.g., detecting low-score faking was better than detecting high-score faking). For self-reports, response patterns and scores were comparable with regard to faking detection, whereas for IATs, faking indices and response patterns were superior to scores. Logistic regression and random forest worked about equally well and outperformed XGBoost. In most cases, classifiers used more than one feature (faking occurred over different pathways), and the features varied in their relevance. Our research supports the assumption of different faking processes and explains why detecting faking is a complex endeavor.
Funder
Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Psychology,Psychology (miscellaneous),Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference101 articles.
1. Agosta, S., Ghirardi, V., Zogmaister, C., Castiello, U., & Sartori, G. (2011). Detecting fakers of the autobiographical IAT. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 299–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1691
2. Allramseder, M. (2018). Datenerhebung, -auswertung und –interpretation am Beispiel von Fälschungsverhalten [Data collection, -analyses, and interpretation for the example of faking]. Project thesis. University of Technology, Chemnitz, Germany.
3. Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2009). Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and implicit self-concept of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016229
4. Bengtsson, H. (2020). R.utils: Various programming utilities. R package version 2.10.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=R.utils
5. Bensch, D., Maaß, U., Greiff, S., Horstmann, K. T, & Ziegler, M. (2019). The nature of faking: A homogeneous and predictable construct? Psychol Assess., 31, 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000619
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献