Tag Info

Quantitative papers There are a number of papers that didn't use a Bayesian approach but provide a relevant basis for developing quantitative Bayesian models: Zickar et al (2004) performed a mixed-model using item response theory to examine different classes of respondents to personality tests. While it doesn't appear to be a Bayesian analysis, it is an ...

You wrote: For the purposes of this question I would assume that it's fairly common knowledge in psychology that people touch nose or cover the mouth when saying something part of them does not believe to be true. Avoid make assumptions like this. This is not common knowledge, and in fact it is not even true. Vrij et al. (2010) discuss the literature ...

I've never looked at the GNAT before but, even though it's just about as transparent as IAT, the critical thing making it difficult to fake bias is the deadlining. In order to fake one would would have to respond in no-go trials where one would not and that also misrepresented their association. That calculation would be difficult to do in the time window ...

Richard Griffith and Patrick Converse (2012) provide a good review of personality faking research that has employed a within-subjects design to examine changes in responses to personality tests between an applicant and a development context. The following represent my review of the papers identified by Griffith and Converse (2012). I take it as fairly ...