Using Personality Testing for Personnel Selection: Faking and Test-Taking Inductions

This research assessed whether warning subjects that faked responses could be detected would reduce the amount of faking that might occur when using a personality test for selection of police officers. Also, personality test subscales which best differentiated honest from dissimulated responses were determined. Subjects (N=120) were randomly assigned to a straight-take (that is, respond honestly), fake good, or modified fake good group. Both fake good groups were instructed to respond to the test so as to appear favourably for the job; additionally, the modified fake good group was warned that faking could be detected and could reduce hiring chances. Multivariate analyses revealed significant differences on the Denial and Deviation subscales between the three conditions (p <0.01). The pattern of differences suggested that the threat of faking detection reduced faking. Potential application of these findings in personnel selection was discussed.     

Intentional response distortion on personality tests: using eye-tracking to understand response processes when faking

Intentional response distortion or faking among job applicants completing measures such as personality and integrity tests is a concern in personnel selection. The present study aimed to investigate whether eye-tracking technology can improve our understanding of the response process when faking. In an experimental within-participants design, a Big Five personality test and an integrity measure were administered to 129 university students in 2 conditions: a respond honestly and a faking good instruction. Item responses, response latencies, and eye movements were measured. Results demonstrated that all personality dimensions were fakeable. In support of the theoretical position that faking involves a less cognitively demanding process than responding honestly, we found that response times were on average 0.25 s slower and participants had less eye fixations in the fake good condition. However, in the fake good condition, participants had more fixations on the 2 extreme response options of the 5-point answering scale, and they fixated on these more directly after having read the question. These findings support the idea that faking leads to semantic rather than self-referenced item interpretations. Eye-tracking was demonstrated to be potentially useful in detecting faking behavior, improving detecting rates over and beyond response extremity and latency metrics.     

How Emotional Intelligence Might Get You the Job: The Relationship Between Trait Emotional Intelligence and Faking on Personality Tests

This study examined trait emotional intelligence (EI) in relation to the ability to fake on personality tests. Undergraduate students (N = 129) were first instructed to fill out a personality inventory honestly, and subsequently in such a way as to maximize their chances of obtaining two distinctive job positions (lawyer and file clerk). Participants were able to change their scores in line with the hypothesized job profiles. Regression analyses showed that EI statistically predicted faking ability to an equal degree in both job scenarios. Finally, EI showed incremental validity over general mental ability and the Big Five personality traits in predicting the ability to fake. Possible implications of the results for the predictive validity of personality tests are discussed.     

POTENTIAL VERSUS ACTUAL FAKING OF A BIODATA FORM: AN ANALYSIS ALONG SEVERAL DIMENSIONS OF ITEM TYPE

Two studies examined faking of a 25-item biodata questionnaire. The first study investigated potential and actual faking of the form using three groups: a group told to make themselves look as good as possible, a group told to complete the form honestly, and a group completing the instrument in a real selection situation. Subjects were 58 current employees and 231 job applicants. Results indicated that subjects could fake the instrument when instructed to do so. Also, some faking appeared to be occurring in practice, although results depended upon the composition of the comparison group. Only eight items appeared to be fakable, and only three of these seemed to be faked in practice. In Study 2, 26 business majors rated the biodata items on eight dimensions of item type. Results showed that the three items faked in practice were less historical, objective, discrete, verifiable, and external than other items, and were more job relevant.     

The good,the bad and the mad: Response bias in self-report measures

This study set out to examine the susceptibility of five extensively used, self-report measures to response set bias. Subjects were requested either to fake good, (give a good impression), fake bad, (give a bad impression), fake mad, (give an impression of mental instability) or respond honestly. Subjects who faked good had significantly higher Extraversion, Lie and Social Desirability scores but lowest Neuroticism, Psychoticism and Social Anxiety scores. Subjects who faked bad had significantly lower Extraversion and higher Psychoticism and Social Anxiety scores. Fake mad subjects scored higher on Self-Monitoring and Locus of Control. Four of the eight scales showed significant differences between subjects faking bad and those faking mad. The results are discussed in terms of questionnaire design and respondent's motivation.     

Effects of the testing situation on item responding: cause for concern

The effects of faking on personality test scores have been studied previously by comparing (a) experimental groups instructed to fake or answer honestly, (b) subgroups created from a single sample of applicants or nonapplicants by using impression management scores, and (c) job applicants and nonapplicants. In this investigation, the latter 2 methods were used to study the effects of faking on the functioning of the items and scales of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. A variety of item response theory methods were used to detect differential item/test functioning, interpreted as evidence of faking. The presence of differential item/test functioning across testing situations suggests that faking adversely affects the construct validity of personality scales and that it is problematic to study faking by comparing groups defined by impression management scores.     

What is in Applicants' Minds When They Fill Out a Personality Test? Insights from a qualitative study

Many practitioners fear that applicants will fake if they are asked to fill out a personality test. Although this fear has inspired much research, it remains unknown what applicants think when they fill out a questionnaire. Thus, we conducted a qualitative interview study that was guided by grounded theory principles. We interviewed (a) real applicants directly after filling out a personality test; (b) real applicants who had filled out a personality test in their past job hunt; (c) hypothetical job applicants whom we asked to imagine being an applicant and to fill out a personality test; and (d) hypothetical applicants who had much experience with personality tests. Theoretical saturation was achieved after interviewing 23 people. A content analysis showed that much is going on in applicants' minds – that which is typically subsumed under the expression ‘faking’ actually consists of many facets. In particular, participants assumed that the interpretation of their responses could be based on (a) the consistency of their responses; (b) the endorsement of middle versus extreme answers; and (c) a certain profile, and these assumptions resulted in corresponding self‐presentation strategies. However, these strategies were not used by all participants. Some answered honestly, for different reasons ranging from honesty as a personality trait to the (false) belief that test administrators can catch fakers. All in all, this study questions whether measuring mean changes in classical faking studies captures all important facets.     

Validity of the M Test: simulation-design and natural-group approaches

The utility of the M Test (Beaber, Marston, Michelli, & Mills, (1985) as a screening measure for malingering was assessed using simulation-design (subjects asked to fake mental illness) and natural-group (forensic assessment cases suspected of malingering) approaches. A total of 318 subjects from community, clinical, and correctional settings completed the M Test under instructions to respond honestly or to simulate a major mental disorder. A factor analysis of the M Test items supported the original rationally based scale assignment, and the scales were found to have adequate internal reliability. To examine the predictive validity of the M Test, results revealed that sensitivity using the cutting scores suggested by Beaber et al. (1985) was much higher for simulating subjects (79.8%) than for the suspected malingerers (40.0%). The findings emphasize the danger of exclusive reliance on simulation studies for validating measures of malingering. It was concluded that, in its present form, the M Test does not constitute a good screening measure for assessing malingering.     

Fakability of a commercially produced pre-employment integrity test

Three groups of male inmates were given the PSC Survey ADT, a commercially available integrity test, under differing instructional conditions. Subjects told to fake good were able to provide more favorable test profiles than those who were told to respond truthfully or who were given no specific response set to follow. However, no differences were observed among groups on the Drinking and Drugs subscale. Using only recommended cut scores as criteria, subjects in the fake good condition would have been hired in greater numbers than subjects in the other two conditions. Practical implications of this study include the use of social desirability scales along with integrity tests, and the avoidance of inducing inappropriate response sets by strictly adhering to test instructions.This study was supported by a grant from Auburn University at Montgomery.We gratefully acknowledge the support and assistance of Warden Leoneal Davis and Dr. Paul Van Wyk of the Bullock County Correctional Facility and the Alabama Department of Corrections in conducting this study.     

Personality Psychology in Europe (Vol. 3) (Book)

This study explored the effect of defensive (i. e., fake-good) responding by substance-abusing patients on the scale scores of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-II; Millon, 1987). Patients asked to respond honestly (N = 62) had significantly higher scores on most of the scales than patients who were instructed to respond defensively (N = 62) and forensic subjects suspected of abusing psychoactive substances (N = 54). Significantly fewer subjects in the defensive responding simulation and the forensic group had elevated the Drug Dependence and Alcohol Dependence scales compared to the honestly responding patients. These results indicate that most drug-abusing individuals can conceal the presence of a substance-related disorder, as reflected by scale scores on the MCMI-II, if motivated to do so.     

Fakeability and correlates of the perception and preference inventory

This paper reports three studies designed to look at the usefulness of the Perception and Preference Inventory (PAPI). The first study looked at the fakeability of the PAPI by asking one group to fake good, another to fake bad, and a third group to respond honestly. Just over hald of the items yielded significant differences between the three groups, with most differences being between the fake bad and control group. In the second study the PAPI was correlated with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Extraversion-Introversion and to a lesser extent neuroticism was correlated with PAPI subscores, particularly the dimensions of work direction and work style. Five of the seven subscale scores from the PAPI were correlated with extraversion. In the third study the PAPI was correlated with the Baddeley Reasoning Test, which is itself correlated with many intelligence tests. There were very few significant correlations. Implications for the measurement of personality and individual differences in occupational and industrial settings are considered.     

Do Applicants Fake Their Personality Questionnaire Responses and How Successful are Their Attempts? A Case of Military Pilot Cadet Selection

This paper presents the results of three interrelated studies investigating the occurrence of response distortion on personality questionnaires within selection and the success of applicants in faking situations. In Study 1, comparison of the Big Five personality scores obtained from applicants in a military pilot cadet selection procedure with participants responding honestly, faking good, and faking an ideal candidate revealed that applicants responded more desirable than participants responding honestly but less desirable than respondents under fake instructions. The occurrence of faking within the military pilot selection process was replicated in Study 2 using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and another comparison group. Finally, in Study 3, comparison of personality profiles obtained in selection and ‘fake job’ situations with experts' estimates indicated that participants were partially successful in faking the desirable profile.     

Faking on self-report emotional intelligence and personality tests: Effects of faking opportunity, cognitive ability, and job type

We assessed the combined effects of cognitive ability, opportunity to fake, and trait job-relevance on faking self-report emotional intelligence and personality tests by having 150 undergraduates complete such tests honestly and then so as to appear ideal for one of three jobs: nurse practitioner, marketing manager, and computer programmer. Faking, as expected, was greater (a) in higher-g participants, (b) in those scoring lower under honest conditions (with greater opportunity to fake), and (c) on job-relevant traits. Predicted interactions accounted for additional unique variance in faking. Combining all three factors yielded a “perfect storm” standardized difference of around 2, more than double the overall .83 estimate. Implications for the study of faking are discussed.     

Assessing personality with a structured employment interview: construct-related validity and susceptibility to response inflation

The authors evaluated the extent to which a personality-based structured interview was susceptible to response inflation. Interview questions were developed to measure facets of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability. Interviewers administered mock interviews to participants instructed to respond honestly or like a job applicant. Interviewees completed scales of the same 3 facets from the NEO Personality Inventory, under the same honest and applicant-like instructions. Interviewers also evaluated interviewee personality with the NEO. Multitrait-multimethod analysis and confirmatory factor analysis provided some evidence for the construct-related validity of the personality interviews. As for response inflation, analyses revealed that the scores from the applicant-like condition were significantly more elevated (relative to honest condition scores) for self-report personality ratings than for interviewer personality ratings. In addition, instructions to respond like an applicant appeared to have a detrimental effect on the structure of the self-report and interview ratings, but not interviewer NEO ratings.     

签名对个体诚实度和道德感的影响

探讨签名的位置以及是否预告签名信息对个体诚实行为的影响, 同时探究不同承诺形式对个体道德行为的调节作用, 从而揭示签名对个体道德行为影响的机制。实验1比较不同签名的位置与是否预告签名信息两种条件下, 被试在有奖抛掷骰子的游戏中的诚实性表现。结果发现, 当游戏前告知需要签名时, 签名位置对被试的诚实行为没有显著影响; 而在游戏前不告知需要签名时, 上位签名的被试比下位签名的被试更倾向于做出诚实行为。实验2比较口头承诺方式与签名方式对个体诚实行为的影响, 结果发现, 口头承诺与上位签名均能促使个体做出诚实行为。结果表明, 签名对个体道德行为的影响, 是通过启动个体的自我认同感而实现的; 签名位置的效应, 实际上是由于启动的时段不同造成; 同时, 通过口头承诺的方式, 同样可以启动个体的自我认同感, 从而促进其实施道德行为。     

Effects of Response Instructions on Faking a Situational Judgment Test

A situational judgment test (SJT) and a Big 5 personality test were administered to 203 participants under instructions to respond honestly and to fake good using a within‐subjects design. Participants indicated both the best and worst response (i.e., Knowledge) and the most likely and least likely response (i.e., Behavioral Tendency) to each situation. Faking effect size for the SJT Behavioral Tendency response format was (d=.34) when participants responded first under honest instructions and (d=.15) when they responded first under faking instructions. Those for the Big 5 dimensions ranged from d=.26 to d=1.0. For the Knowledge response format results were inconsistent. Honest condition Knowledge SJT scores were more highly correlated with cognitive ability (r=.56) than were Behavioral Tendency SJT scores (r=.38). Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.     

Fakability of an empirically derived selection instrument

Fakability of an empirically derived selection instrument developed by criterion-keying for a specific occupation and organization was investigated. Ninety-four subjects completed the test under both Honest and Fake instructions. Instructions to simulate a highly motivated job applicant produced significant score increases on 7 of 10 scales and significant changes in narrative statements of predicted job performance based on these scores. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. The caveat to use tests only when the subject is motivated to answer honestly is repeated.     

Integrity Testing and Deviance: Construct Validity Issues and the Role of Situational Factors

Two studies were conducted to investigate relationships among several types of preemployment integrity tests and situational factors which could play a role in employee deviance. In one study, three integrity measures were administered to subjects who were told to assume the role of job applicant for a position in either a large, small, or unspecified organization. Moral development stage, social desirability, and demographic data were collected. While there was some construct consistency across the different integrity measures, the expected relation between honesty and moral development was not found. There was also no difference in integrity test scores as a function of the organizational size manipulation. In a second laboratory study in which subjects were asked to play the role of job incumbents, both size and perceived equity of organizational climate were experimentally manipulated. The dependent measure was a scale of likelihood of engaging in organizationally proscribed behaviors. While again no effect was found for organizational size, those individuals who perceived themselves as employed in an organization in which employees are mistreated tended to report greater likelihood of engaging in organizational deviance. Implications for integrity testing in personnel selection are discussed.