Search

Concerns about faking on pre-employment personality assessment are well founded as respondents often dissimulate. This potentially affects the accuracy of hiring decisions, predictive validity of assessment scores, and defensibility of using personality assessment for high-stakes decision making. We use Jackson's forced-choice instrument and provide novel construct validity evidence. Moreover, our laboratory and field evidence suggests that although respondents are able to elevate test scores in similar magnitudes when instructed, they do not elevate their scores as much when using the forced-choice format. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is often assumed that informant, or peer evaluation is more trustworthy than self-evaluation because the former is less vulnerable to social desirability response style. The current study examines this assumption in three independent samples, conceptually distinguishing between two types of social desirability: desirability due to item characteristics and due to a person's trait characteristics. We found that self-ratings (Studies 1–3) and peer ratings (Studies 2–3) are equally liable to item desirability in two cultures (Canada and China) with the relation further moderated by rater's trait desirability. Results challenge the popular assumption that informant ratings are impervious to social desirability. Relationship closeness has a moderating role, with closer targets rated more favorably than more distant ones. Results demonstrate the importance of conceptually distinguishing between item and trait desirability and are discussed in terms of a motivational account of response inflation. • Self- and peer-ratings are both affected by trait and item desirability. • Trait desirability is moderated by item desirability on both ratings. • Results were replicated across samples from Canada and China. • Intimacy with rated target may further moderate the desirability-rating relation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We evaluated the validity of the Overclaiming Questionnaire (OCQ) as a measure of job applicants’ faking of personality tests. We assessed whether the OCQ (a) converged with an established measure of applicant faking, Residualized Individual Change Scores (RICSs); (b) predicted admission of faking and faking tendencies (Faking Frequency, Minimizing Weaknesses, Exaggerating Strengths, and Complete Misrepresentation); and, (c) predicted the aforementioned measures as strongly as RICSs did. First, 261 participants were instructed to respond honesty to an extraversion measure. Next, in a mock job application, they filled out the extraversion measure again, as well as the OCQ. The OCQ only weakly predicted RICSs ( r = .17), Faking Admission ( r = .18), and Faking Frequency ( r = .15), and it failed to correlate significantly with Minimizing Weaknesses, Exaggerating Strengths, and Complete Misrepresentation. Moreover, the OCQ performed significantly worse than RICS in predicting Faking Admission, Faking Frequency, Minimizing Weaknesses, Exaggerating Strengths, and Complete Misrepresentation. We urge caution in using the current version of the OCQ to measure faking, but speculate that the innovative approach taken in the OCQ might be more effectively exploited if the OCQ content were tailored to the specific job that applicants are being tested for. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior meta-analyses demonstrate that people can intentionally distort Big Five personality scores when instructed. As yet, there is no equivalent meta-analysis addressing instructed faking on the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Therefore, we review mean score changes to the dark triad domains and facets under instructed faking. Due to insufficient k for meta-analysis, narcissism and Machiavellianism were systematically reviewed alongside psychopathy. The systematic review revealed inconsistent findings for narcissism and Machiavellianism with several effects in the opposite direction than expected. The psychopathy meta-analysis showed that: (a) scores were significantly lower under fake good compared to answer honestly instructions (d = −0.40); and (b) scores were significantly higher under fake bad compared to answer honestly instructions (d = 1.88). Subgroup analyses revealed significant score decreases under fake good instructions for both primary (d = −0.56) and secondary psychopathy (d = −0.96), and a significant score increase under fake bad instructions for primary (d = 1.69) and secondary psychopathy (d = 1.50). We conclude that dark triad measures are fakeable to a similar extent as the Big Five, and discuss the relevance of our findings for dark triad assessment in several applied contexts. • People can significantly fake good, and bad on self-report psychopathy measures. • Primary and secondary psychopathy scores decrease under fake good instructions. • Primary and secondary psychopathy scores increase under fake bad instructions. • People fake bad on total and vulnerable, but not grandiose narcissism. • Faking scores on Machiavellianism depend on the self-report scale being used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] Instructed faking increases scores on HEXACO domains and facets. [•] HEXACO facets (but not domains) are less reliable under instructed faking. [•] Intelligence correlates more strongly with faked than honest HEXACO scores. [•] These correlations are larger for Gc then Gf. [•] Effects of instructed faking are larger if subjects first answer honestly then fake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: We use a within-person research design to compare response distortion on personality test scores obtained in a simulated selection context with scores obtained in a condition without motivation to distort. Even after accounting for measurement error, rank order changes result in a significant number of individuals being selected based on their selection context scores who would not be selected based on their nonmotivated scores. Yet, many individuals who distort do not elevate their scores enough to move to the top of the distribution, which alleviates some concern about combining personality measures with top-down selection procedures that adopt a low selection ratio. Common correction methods failed to accurately detect individuals who distort, and the correction practice of partialling lie scale scores from personality traits inaccurately eliminated individuals who did not truly distort. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]