Detecting cocaine use? The autobiographical implicit association test (aIAT) produces false positives in a real-world setting.

Abstract

BackgroundThe autobiographical Implicit Association Test (aIAT) is a novel application of the implicit association concept for detecting life events. It has been used to reveal concealed knowledge in clinical and forensic settings, including detecting drug use. In this study, we aimed to explore the functionality of the aIAT to identify drug use in real-world settings.MethodsThe study used mixed methodology with known groups of drug users and nonusers. Recreational cocaine users (n = 23) and non-users (n = 23) were recruited through ethnographic methodology and assessed using a bespoke brief aIAT for cocaine use. An identical aIAT test for heroin detection was also administered to a sub-sample of 10 cocaine users and 13 nonusers. The accuracy of the cocaine aIAT was measured through ROC analysis. Paradoxical aIAT results were explored by integrating craving, consumption measures and life-story interviews into the analysis.ResultsWhilst the two brief aIATs showed good concurrent validity for cocaine users by accurately detecting drug using status for 18 of the 23 users (78.3%), the test falsely reported 61% cocaine users in the non-user comparison group. The average D-scores were 0.257±0.246 for the cocaine users and 0.134±0.367 for the non-users, showing no discriminatory power (t(44) = 1.339, p = 0.187; AUC = 0.605, p = 0.223). Results were independent from craving and recent cocaine use. The comparison group’s cocaine and heroin aIAT scores correlated significantly (r(13) = 0.776, p = 0.002) whilst an accurate absence of such relationship was evidenced in the cocaine using sample (r(10) = 0.061, p = 0.866). Triangulation with life-story interviews suggests that in the absence of an autobiographical event, this test may measure an alternative cognitive construct linked to the Self-concept.ConclusionThe aIAT is a variant of an attitude measure and can be better rationalized if propositional thinking is implied to explain outcomes. The Relational Frame and Social Knowledge Structure theories can perhaps provide a more plausible theoretical background. Further work is required to clarify which factors underlie this testing technique’s functioning. Reappraisal is advised before further forensic use of the instrument to ensure that general associations not related to autobiographical memory do not confound results.