fake

Participants assigned to either of the faking conditions were provided with a rationale for the IRAP assessment strategy before the second or third IRAP (depending on condition), and were subsequently asked if they would be willing to attempt to fake the measure on the next administration.

The additional time consumed by the provision of the faking instructions and the FQQ, as well as engagement in the faking strategy (e.g., slowing down on consistent blocks), seems to have disproportionately impacted the real-fake-fake condition.

For the real-real-fake condition, the ANOVA was significant (p< 0.001), with post hoc comparisons revealing significant differences across all IRAP administrations (all ps < 0.003): the initial two non-faked IRAPs showed a significant decrease in the average latency from the first to the second IRAP, while the third faked IRAP exhibited a significantly longer average latency, consistent with faking instructions.

FQQ Analyses Scores for the Following Instructions and Success at Faking questions of the FQQ were subjected to independent-samples t tests comparing the two faking conditions.

In contrast to the findings of McKenna and colleagues (2007) suggesting that the IRAP is relatively immune to faking intentions, the current findings suggest that the IRAP is readily faked when participants are provided with straightforward instructions for doing so.

Despite clear success at faking, there remained a dissociation between IRAP performance and self-reports of faking performance.