Suspicion probes are the traditional tool employed to assess the extent to which participants suspect intentional misdirection or deception within the research context. A primary reason psychologists use deception in research settings is to prevent participants from altering their behavior in light of knowing what is being studied, which could undermine internal validity as well as threaten the generalizability of findings to the real world (i.e., external validity). The present article elucidates a number of challenges with suspicion probes. A definition and framework for conceptualizing the construct of suspicion in research settings are proposed. Following a literature review, an analysis of existing evidence, and new data on the prevalence of using and reporting suspicion probes, we conclude that suspicion is a likely problem in research practice. We provide a decision guide to help researchers navigate the numerous choices involved in addressing potential suspicion and call for a combination of (a) renewed research leading to empirically supported tools and best practices and (b) systemic changes to editorial policies, funding practices, professional standards, and research training that would increase rigor and focus on this aspect of research methodology.
AdairJ. G. (1972). Demand characteristics or conformity? Suspiciousness of deception and experimenter bias in conformity research. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 4(3), 238–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082309
2.
AdairJ. G.DushenkoT. W.LindsayR. C. L. (1985). Ethical regulations and their impact on research practice. American Psychologist, 40(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.1.59
3.
AdairJ. G.SchachterB. S. (1972). To cooperate or look good? The subjects’ and experimenters’ perceptions of each others’ intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8(1), 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(72)90062-5
4.
AdairJ. G.SpinnerB. (1981). Subjects’ access to cognitive processes: Demand characteristics and verbal report. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 11(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1981.tb00021.x
AndersonS. F. (2020). Misinterpreting p: The discrepancy between p values and the probability the null hypothesis is true, the influence of multiple testing, and implications for the replication crisis. Psychological Methods, 25(5), 596–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000248
7.
AronsonE.EllsworthP. C.CarlsmithJ. M.GonzalesM. H. (1990). Methods of research in social psychology (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
8.
AronsonE.WilsonT. D.BrewerM. B. (1998). Experimentation in social psychology. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 99–142). McGraw-Hill.
9.
BarghJ. A.ChartrandT. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In ReisH. T.JuddC. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253–285). Cambridge University Press.
10.
BarrettD. W.NeubergS. L.LuceC. (2007, May). Deception and suspicion probes in psychological research [Poster presentation]. 19th Annual Meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, Washington, DC.
11.
BaumrindD. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s “behavioral study of obedience.” American Psychologist, 19, 421–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040128
12.
BernardiR. A.NashJ. (2022). The importance and efficacy of controlling for social desirability response bias. Ethics & Behavior. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2093201
13.
BlackhartG. C.BrownK. E.ClarkT.PierceD. L.ShellK. (2012). Assessing the adequacy of postexperimental inquiries in deception research and the factors that promote participant honesty. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0132-6
14.
BlatchleyB.O’BrienK. R. (2007). Deceiving the participant: Are we creating the reputational spillover effect?North American Journal of Psychology, 9(3), 519–534.
15.
BobkoP.BarelkaA. J.HirshfieldL. M. (2014). The construct of state-level suspicion: A model and research agenda for automated and information technology contexts. Human Factors, 56(3), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813497052
16.
BobkoP.BarelkaA. J.HirshfieldL. M.LyonsJ. B. (2014). Invited article: The construct of suspicion and how it can benefit theories and models in organizational science. Journal of Business Psychology, 29(3), 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9360-y
17.
BowlingN. A.HuangJ. L.BraggC. B.KhazonS.LiuM.BlackmoreC. E. (2016). Who cares and who is careless? Insufficient effort responding as a reflection of respondent personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(2), 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000085
18.
BoyntonM. H.PortnoyD. B.JohnsonB. J. (2013). Exploring the ethics and psychological impact of deception in psychological research. IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 35(2), 7–13.
19.
CapiolaA.JessupS. A.RyanT. J.AlarconG. M. (2019). Exploring the unique and shared variance of propensity to trust and suspicion propensity. Journal of Individual Differences, 40(4), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000294
20.
CarlstonD. E.CohenJ. L. (1980). A closer examination of subject roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 857–870. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.857
21.
ChristensenL. (1977). The negative subject: Myth, reality, or a prior experimental experience effect?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(6), 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.6.392
22.
ChristensenL. (1981). Positive self-presentation: A parsimonious explanation of subject motives. Psychological Record, 31(4), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394769
23.
ChristensenL. (1982). Examination of subject roles: A critique of Carlston and Cohen. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(3), 579–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167282083028
24.
CookT. D.BeanJ. R.CalderB. J.FreyR.KrovetzM. L.ReismanS. R. (1970). Demand characteristics and three conceptions of the frequently deceived subject. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14(3), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028849
25.
CorneilleO.LushP. (2023). Sixty years after Orne’s American Psychologist article: A conceptual framework for subjective experiences elicited by demand characteristics. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221104368
26.
CranoW. D.BrewerM. B. (1973). Principles of research in social psychology. McGraw-Hill.
27.
CranoW. D.BrewerM. B.LacA. (2015). Principles and methods of social research (3rd ed.). Routledge.
28.
CurranP. G. (2016). Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.006
29.
De BoeckP.JeonM. (2018). Perceived crisis and reforms: Issues, explanations, and remedies. Psychological Bulletin, 144(7), 757–777. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000154
30.
DienerE.CrandallR. (1978). Ethics in social and behavioral research. University of Chicago Press.
31.
Echebarria-EchabeA. (2010). Effects of suspicion on willingness to engage in systematic processing of persuasive arguments. Journal of Social Psychology, 150(2), 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903366412
32.
EdelmanR. I. (1970). Some variables affecting suspicion of deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15(4), 333–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029608
33.
EdlundJ. E.CuccoloK.IrgensM. S.WaggeJ. R.ZlokovichM. S. (2021). Saving science through replication studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691620984385
34.
EdlundJ. E.SagarinB. J.SkowronskiJ. J.JohnsonS. J.KutterJ. (2009). Whatever happens in the laboratory stays in the laboratory: The prevalence and prevention of participant crosstalk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(5), 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208331255
35.
EndlerN. S.HartleyS. (1973). Relative competence, reinforcement, and conformity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420030105
36.
EpleyN.HuffC. (1998). Suspicion, affective response, and educational benefit as a result of deception in psychology research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(7), 759–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298247008
FeinS.HiltonJ. L. (1994). Judging others in the shadow of suspicion. Motivation and Emotion, 18(2), 167–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02249398
39.
FeinS.McCloskeyA. L.TomlinsonT. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215–1226. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972311008
40.
FiedlerK.McCaugheyL.PragerJ. (2021). Quo vadis, methodology? The key role of manipulation checks for validity control and quality of science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 816–826. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970602
41.
FillenbaumS. (1966). Prior deception and subsequent experimental performance: The faithful subject. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(5), 532–537. http://dx.doi.org.wcsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/h0023860
GertlachP.TeodorescuK.HertwigR. (2019). The truth about lies: A meta-analysis on dishonest behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 145, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000174
44.
GibsonA. M.BowlingN. A. (2020). The effects of questionnaire length and behavioral consequences on careless responding. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(2), 410–420. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000526
45.
GlinskiR. J.GlinskiB. C.SlatinG. T. (1970). Nonnaïvety contamination in conformity experiments: Sources, effects, and implications for control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(3), 478–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030073
46.
GoldingS. L.LichtensteinE. (1970). Confession of awareness and prior knowledge of deception as a function of interview set and approval motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14(3), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028853
47.
GreenbergJ.FolgerR. (1988). Controversial issues in social research methods. Springer-Verlag.
48.
HardwickeT. E.ThibaultR. T.KosieJ. E.WallachJ. D.KidwellM. C.IoannidisJ. P. A. (2021). Estimating the prevalence of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in psychology (2014–2017). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691620979806
HedgesL. V.SchauerJ. M. (2018). Statistical analyses for studying replication: Meta-analytic perspectives. Psychological Methods, 24(5), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000189
51.
HelmA. E.MoulardJ. G.RichinsM. (2015). Consumer cynicism: Developing a scale to measure underlying attitudes influencing marketplace shaping and withdrawal behaviours. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39, 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12191
52.
HertwigR.OrtmannA. (2003). Economists’ and psychologists’ experimental practices: How they differ, why they differ, and how they could converge. In BrocasI.CarilloJ. D. (Eds.), The psychology of economic decisions (Vol. 1, pp. 253–272). Oxford University Press.
53.
HertwigR.OrtmannA. (2008). Deception in experiments: Revisiting arguments in its defense. Ethics and Behavior, 18(1), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420701712990
54.
HilbigB. E.ThielmannI.BöhmR. (2022). Bending our ethics code: Avoidable deception and its justification in psychological research. European Psychologist, 27(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000431
55.
HiltonJ. L.FeinS.MillerD. T. (1993). Suspicion and dispositional inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 501–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293195003
HolmesD. S. (1967). Amount of experience in experiments as a determinant of performance in later experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(4, Pt. 1), 403–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025187
58.
HolmesD. S.ApplebaumA. S. (1970). Nature of prior experimental experience as a determinant of performance in a subsequent experiment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14(3), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028850
59.
HorvatJ. (1986). Detection of suspiciousness as a function of pleas for honesty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 921–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.921
60.
HurttR. K. (2010). Development of a scale to measure professional skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 29(1), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2010.29.1.149
61.
IndibaraI.VarshneyS. (2021). Cynical consumer: How social cynicism impacts consumer attitude. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 38(1), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-07-2019-3305
62.
KanterD. L.WortzelL. H. (1985). Cynicism and alienation as marketing considerations: Some new ways to approach the female consumer. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/EB038816
63.
KelmanH. C. (1967). Human use of human subjects: The problem of deception in social psychological experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 67(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024072
64.
KimmelA. J. (2004). Ethical issues in social psychology research. In SansoneC.MorfC. C.PanterA. T. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of methods in social psychology (pp. 45–70). SAGE.
65.
KrawczykM. (2015). “Trust me, I am an economist.” A note on suspiciousness in laboratory experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 55, 103–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2014.12.003
66.
KruglanskiA. (1975). The human subject in the psychology experiment: Fact and artifact. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 101–147). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60249-X
67.
LevinS. M. (1961). The effects of awareness on verbal conditioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047321
68.
LevineT. R.McCornackS. A. (1991). The dark side of trust: Conceptualizing and measuring types of communicative suspicion. Communication Quarterly, 39(4), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379109369809
69.
LinettA.MonfortonJ.MacKenzieM. B.McCabeR. E.RowaK.AntonyM. M. (2019). The Social Suspiciousness Scale: Development, validation, and implications for understanding social anxiety disorder. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 41, 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-019-09724-3
70.
MacCounR. J.KerrN. L. (1987). Suspicion in the psychological laboratory: Kelman’s prophecy revisited. American Psychologist, 42(2), 199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.42.2.199.a
MaslingJ. (1966). Role-related behavior of the subject and psychologist and its effects upon psychological data. In LevineD. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 14, pp. 67–103). University of Nebraska Press.
73.
McGuireW. J. (1969). Suspiciousness of experimenter’s intent. In RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (Eds.), Artifact in behavioral research (pp. 13–57). Academic Press.
74.
MeadeA. W.CraigS. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085
75.
MilgramS. (1964). Issues in the study of obedience: A reply to Baumrind. American Psychologist, 19, 848–852. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044954
76.
MillerF.SchertzerS. (2014). Demand artifact: Objectively detecting biased participants in advertising research. Psychological Reports: Employment Psychology and Marketing, 115(3), 697–709. https://doi.org/10.2466/31.PR0.115c29z1
77.
MillerF. G.GluckJ. P.Jr.WendlerD. (2008). Debriefing and accountability in deceptive research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 18(3), 235–251.
78.
MorlingB. (2018). Research methods in psychology (3rd ed.). Norton.
NicholsA. L.EdlundJ. E. (2015). Practicing what we preach (and sometimes study): Methodological issues in experimental laboratory research. Review of General Psychology, 19(2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fgpr0000027
81.
NicholsA. L.ManerJ. K. (2008). The good-subject effect: Investigating participant demand characteristics. The Journal of General Psychology, 135(2), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.135.2.151-166
82.
NisbettR. E.WilsonT. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
83.
ObermillerC.SpangenbergE. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 72(2), 159–186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_03
84.
OlsonJ. A.RazA. (2021). Applying insights from magic to improve deception in research: The Swiss cheese model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 92, Article 104053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104053
85.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
86.
OrneM. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043424
87.
OrneM. T. (1969). Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. In RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (Eds.), Artifact in behavioral research (pp. 143–179). Academic Press.
88.
OrneM. T. (1970). Hypnosis, motivation, and the ecological validity of the psychological experiment. In ArnoldW. J.PageM. M. (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 18, pp. 187–265). University of Nebraska Press.
89.
OrtmannA.HertwigR. (2002). The costs of deception: Evidence from psychology. Experimental Economics, 5(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043424
PageM. M.ScheidtR. J. (1971). The elusive weapons effect: Demand awareness, evaluation apprehension, and slightly sophisticated subjects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20(3), 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031806
92.
PaulhusD. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In RobinsonJ. P.ShaverP. R.WrightsmanL. S. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). Academic Press.
93.
PaulhusD. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In BraunH. I.DouglasN.WileyD. E. (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–69). Erlbaum.
94.
PettyR. E.BriñolP.TormalaZ. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 772–741. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.722
95.
RubinZ.MooreJ. C. (1971). Assessment of subjects’ suspicion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(2), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030299
96.
RungJ. M.MaddenG. J. (2019). Demand characteristics in episodic future thinking II: The role of cues and cue content in changing delay discounting. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 26(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000260
97.
SansoneC.MorfC. C.PanterA. T. (Eds.). (2004). The SAGE handbook of methods in social psychology. SAGE.
98.
SassenbergK.DitrichL. (2019). Research in social psychology changed between 2011 and 2016: Larger samples, more self-report measures, and more online studies. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919838781
99.
SchiavoneS. R.VazireS. (2022). Reckoning with our crisis: An agenda for the field of social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221101060
SechrestL. (1984). Reliability and validity. In BellackA. S.HersenM. (Eds.), Research methods in clinical psychology (pp. 24–54). Pergamon Press.
102.
SharpeD.AdairJ. G.RoeseN. J. (1992). Twenty years of deception research: A decline in subjects’ trust?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 585–590. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167292185009
SharpeD.WheltonW. J. (2016). Frightened by an old scarecrow: The remarkable resilience of demand characteristics. Review of General Psychology, 20(4), 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fgpr0000087
105.
SieberJ. E.IannuzzoR.RodriguezB. (1995). Deception methods in psychology: Have they changed in 23 years?Ethics and Behavior, 5(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0501_5
106.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632
107.
SinaceurM. (2010). Suspending judgment to create value: Suspicion and trust in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 546–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.002
108.
StangD. J. (1976). Ineffective deception in conformity research: Some causes and consequences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6(3), 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420060306
109.
SteinJ. S.TeggeA. N.TurnerJ. K.BickelW. K. (2018). Episodic future thinking reduces delay counting and cigarette demand: An investigation of the good-subject effect. Journal of Behavior Modification, 41(2), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-017-9908-1
110.
StojanovA.HalberstadtJ. (2019). The Conspiracy Mentality Scale: Distinguishing between irrational and rational suspicion. Social Psychology, 50(4), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000381
StrickerL. J.MessickS.JacksonD. N. (1967). Suspicion of deception: Implications for conformity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021209
113.
StrickerL. J.MessickS.JacksonD. N. (1969). Evaluating deception in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027232
114.
TaylorK. M.ShepperdJ. A. (1996). Probing suspicion among participants in deception research. American Psychologist, 51(8), 886–887. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.8.886
115.
TeschF. E. (1977). Debriefing research participants: Though this be method there is madness to it. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.217
116.
ThielmannI.SpadaroG.BallietD. (2020). Personality and pro-social behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(1), 30–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000217
117.
Van HielA.Van AsscheJ.HaesevoetsT.De CremerD.HodsonG. (2022). A radical vision of radicalism: Political cynicism, not incrementally stronger partisan positions, explains political radicalization. Advances in Political Psychology, 43(Suppl. 1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12785
118.
VohraN. (2001). Improving the veridicality of post-experimental questionnaires. Psychological Studies, 46(1–2), 28–33. http://hdl.handle.net/11718/9798
119.
WardS. J.KingL. A. (2018). Moral self-regulation, moral identity, and religiosity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(3), 495–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000207
WhitleyB. E.Jr. (1996). Principles of research in behavioral science. Mayfield Publishing Company.
122.
WilsonT. D.AronsonE.CarlsmithK. (2010). The art of laboratory experimentation. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 51–81). Wiley.
123.
WoodM. J. (2017). Conspiracy suspicions as a proxy for beliefs in conspiracy theories: Implications for theory and measurement. British Journal of Psychology, 108, 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12231
124.
YuX.ChengY. (2019). Change-point analysis procedure based on weighted residuals to detect back random responding. Psychological Methods, 24(5), 658–674. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000212
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
