INTRODUCTION
GOING IMPLICIT’: USING IMPLICIT MEASURES IN
Therefore, Chapter 3 (Narrow aspects of honesty-humility predict collegial cheating) gives the results of how the main predictor (honesty-humility as part of the HEXACO model) and the criteria (dishonest behavior) are related (De Vries et al., 2011; Hilbig & Zettler, 2015). The development of projective measures can be traced back to the psychoanalytic theory of Sigmund Freud (Uhlmann et al., 2012). Example of a picture history exercise image to assess the need for power (Schüler et al., 2015).
In addition, some evidence suggests that implicit cognition may vary across groups (Drescher & Schultheiss, 2016; Runge et al., 2018). In addition, there is a lack of literature on the criterion-related validity of CRTs to predict more specific facets of performance (Ones et al., 2017). Later, Kurdi et al. 2018) suggested that implicit cognition can influence explicit cognition, which then drives behavior.
Countries where implicit measures are used less frequently include Belgium and the Netherlands (Muñiz et al., 2001; Piotrowski, 2015). Accessibility Word Stem Completion Task Grenard et al. 2008) Accessibility Word Fragment Completion Task Weiskrantz, Warrington,.
NARROW FACETS OF HONESTY-HUMILITY PREDICT
For example, honesty-humility (one of six broad traits derived from the HEXACO-Personality Inventory; Lee & Ashton, 2004) has consistently shown negative relationships with anti-academic behavior (De Vries et al., 2011). Anti-academic behavior was found to be negatively related to the global trait of honesty-humility (r = -.40, p < .01; indicating a medium to large effect) (De Vries et al., 2011). The narrow aspects of honesty-humility can be related to anti-academic behavior in different ways.
For example, De Vries et al. 2011) found that four narrow facets of honesty–humility were negatively related to broad anti-academic behavior. In addition, the findings of De Vries et al. 2011) revealed that honesty (expressed as a relative weight in percentage) explained 67.7% of the total variance in predicting anti-academic behavior. In addition, fairness was found to be the best predictor of anti-academic behavior compared to the other three narrow facets of fairness–humility (De Vries et al., 2011).
The set of narrow honesty-humility facets (fairness, honesty, greed avoidance, modesty) will explain more variation in collegial cheating than a model containing only the global trait (honesty-humility). The relative weights (%) of honesty-humility are narrow facets as predictors of anti-academic behavior and collegial cheating.
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCT VALIDATION OF AN
For this reason, we developed the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald et al., 1998) to assess honesty and humility (called the IAT-HH). Thus, the IAT-HH presents two target categories: high honesty-humility (with the item labels sincere, honest, modest, generous) and low honesty-humility (with the item labels insincere, dishonest, dishonest, greedy). Target categories were used for high honesty-modesty (fair, sincere, generous, modest) and low honesty-modesty (dishonest, dishonest, greedy, immodest).
Item label definitions for high and low honesty, humility target categories on the IAT-HH. The relationship between implicit honesty and humility (i.e., IAT-HH) and overt (self-reported) sincerity will show a low to moderate, positive correlation (H1a), but that implicit and overt honesty-humility will also be distinct (H1b). Examining the implicit and explicit honesty-humility nomological network: Social desirability, cognitive ability, and the ability to identify criteria (ATIC).
Social desirability will be positively related to both implicit honesty and humility (H2a) and explicit honesty and humility (H2b), and both implicit and explicit honesty and humility will be related to social desirability in a similar way (H2c). Implicit and explicit honesty-humility will similarly relate to the ability to identify criteria (ATIC). Finally, Model 3 shows the best fit, illustrating that implicit and explicit honesty-modesty are distinct but also related constructs.
Subsequently, the relationship between implicit honesty and humility and the respective concepts was compared with that of explicit honesty and humility. Explicit honesty and humility will be negatively related to counter-academic behavior (H1a), cheating (H1b), self-declared cheating (H1c), and will be positively related to GPA (H1d). Implied honesty and humility will be negatively related to counter-academic behavior (H2a), cheating (H2b), self-confessed cheating (H2c), and will be positively related to GPA (H2d).
Implicit honesty-humility will contribute to explicit honesty-humility by incrementally predicting contra-academic behavior (H3a), objective cheating (H3b), self-confessed cheating (H3d), and grade averages (H3d). To measure implicit honesty-humility, we developed the Implicit Association Test for honesty-humility (IAT-HH), which was programmed and administered online using Inquisit Millisecond (Draine, 2016). In this study, we wanted to test whether the IAT-HH could be used to predict negative (counter)academic criteria, in the same way that explicit (self-report) honesty and humility do.
To clarify, in the current study, implicit and explicit honesty-humility was applied first, followed by objective cheating (five weeks later), then counter-academic behavior and self-declared cheating (seven weeks after implicit/explicit honesty-humility was administered). We also tested whether implicit and explicit honesty-humility scores were related to desirable academic criteria (GPA scores).
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Therefore, it was decided to use the IAT method to assess the construct of honesty-humility. First, the development of the implicit association test for honesty-humility (i.e. called the IAT-HH) is described. During the development of the IAT-HH, three subject experts (SMEs) provided advice on which IAT stimuli would best capture implicit honesty-humility.
In determining the construct validity of the IAT-HH, the implicit and explicit measures of honesty-humility were related, so both tests measured the same underlying construct. In further establishing the convergent validity of the IAT-HH, social desirability showed a strong relationship with explicit honesty-humility, but not with implicit honesty-humility. However, the results found that the relationship between (implicit versus explicit) honesty-humility and GPA scores was inconsistent.
Second, another implication concerns when the implicit association test (as a method) is used to assess honesty–humility (i.e., the construct). It may be that the IAT method may be less suitable for assessing the honesty-humility construct. In practice, this implies that explicit honesty-humility (specifically fairness) can be used to identify students who have engaged in anti-academic behavior (in the past).
However, the results also showed that sincerity-humility and social desirability were positively related. The results and findings of the current research add to the meaning of honesty-humility (clear) in four ways. The results of the present dissertation contribute to a better understanding of the operation of implicit honesty-humility.
By creating conceptual correspondence, the implicit-explicit honesty-humility relationship should be strengthened, which in turn may improve the predictive validity of the IAT-HH for predicting dishonesty criteria (e.g., cheating). For this reason, tags at school or at home can be used in the implicit and explicit measurement of honesty-humility. During the development of the IAT-HH, three subject matter experts (SMEs) provided advice on which IAT stimuli would best capture implicit honesty–humility.
In determining the convergent validity of the IAT-HH, the implicit and explicit measures of honesty-humility were shown to be distinct but also related constructs. The results revealed that implicit (but not explicit) honesty-humility and ATIC were significantly and positively related.
