Personality assessments are a valuable tool for selecting employees, as they are reasonably strong predictors of job performance while also demonstrating relatively small subgroup differences. Implementing personality tests in selection systems, however, may risk negative consequences due to the relatively poor applicant reactions they often evoke. Multiple approaches to improving applicant reactions have been studied, such as providing information about the predictive validity of the test or rewording the test to reflect a work frame-of-reference, with mixed success. It may be beneficial to explain the relatively little adverse impact of personality tests to applicants, similar to predictive validity explanations, as well as combining such a non-discrimination explanation with other interventions to produce stronger effects. To test this, participants were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions that represented various combinations of predictive validity explanations, non-discrimination explanations, and test frame-of-reference, completing a personality test in a hypothetical selection scenario. Results suggest that applicant reactions are most favorable when a single explanation is provided for a work frame-of-reference personality test, though providing both explanations was nearly as favorable. Exploratory analyses suggest that these findings may be attributable to both forms of explanations, but not test frame-of-reference, influencing perceptions of information known, thereby introducing redundancy between predictive validity and non-discrimination explanations. Implications of the results, limitations of study, and directions for future research are discussed.