Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Forced-Choice Personality Measures and Academic Dishonesty: a Comparative Study

  • Published:
Journal of Academic Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Extant research (e.g., Wilks et al. 2016; Williams et al. 2010) has shown personality to be a predictor of engagement in academic dishonesty. The current study seeks to determine whether the type of personality measure affects predictive efficacy by comparing single stimulus and forced-choice measures of personality using a sample of 278 undergraduate students in two U.S. universities. Students scoring high on conscientiousness reported as engaging in fewer academic cheating behaviors than those scoring low on conscientiousness regardless of whether conscientiousness was measured using the forced-choice or single stimulus scale format. In addition, the forced-choice and single stimulus measures each contributed significant unique variance to prediction of academic dishonesty. For agreeableness, scores on the single stimulus measure were negatively correlated with academic dishonesty whereas there was a positive relationship found for the forced-choice measure. Overall, the forced-choice format of the Occupational Personality Questionnaire 32r (OPQ32r) did not show higher validities than the single stimulus IPIP counterpart in predicting self-reported academic dishonesty. Implications for future research and management education are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alias, M., Rasdi, R. M., Ismail, M., & Samah, B. A. (2013). Influences of individual-related factors and job satisfaction on workplace deviant behavior among support personnel in Malaysian public service organizations. Human Resource Development International, 16(5), 538–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartram, D. (2005). The great eight competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1185–1203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartram, D. (2007). Increasing validity with forced-choice criterion measurement formats. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(3), 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartram, D. (2012). Stability of OPQ32 personality constructs across languages, cultures and countries. In A. M. Ryan, T. L. Frederick, Leong, & F. Oswald (Eds.), Conducting multinational research projects in organizational Psychology: Challenges and opportunities. American Psychological Association.

  • Beaujouan, Y. (2000). The convergence of the factorial structure of the OPQ (occupational personality questionnaire) towards the five factor model, in seven countries. European Review Of Applied Psychology / Revue Européenne De Psychologie Appliquée, 50(4), 349–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biderman, M. D., Nguyen, N. T., & Sebren, J. (2008). Time-on-task mediates the conscientiousness – Performance relationship. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), 887–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clariana, M. (2013). Personality procrastination, procrastination and cheating in students from different university degree programs. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 30(2), 452–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giluk, T. L., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2015). Big five personality and academic dishonesty: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Individual Differences, 72(1), 59–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harpp, D. N., Hogan, J. J., & Jennings, J. S. (1996). Crime in the classroom part II. An update. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(4), 349–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, L. E. (1970). Some properties of ipsative, normative, and forced-choice normative measures. Psychological Bulletin, 74(3), 167–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoerger, M. (2013). ZH: An updated version of Steiger's Z and web-based calculator for testing the statistical significance of the difference between dependent correlations. Retrieved from http://www.psychmike.com/dependent_correlations.php

  • Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan personality Inventory manual (2nd ed.). Tulsa: Hogan Assessment Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. N., Wroblewski, V. R., & Ashton, M. C. (2000). The impact of faking on employment tests: Does forced choice offer a solution? Human Performance, 13, 371–388. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1304_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Josephson Institute. (2012, November 20). The 2012 report card on the Ethics of American youth (installment 1: Honesty and integrity). Los Angeles: Josephson Institute of Ethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepes, S., McDaniel, M. A., Banks, G. C., Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2011). Big Five Validity and publication bias: Conscientiousness worse than assumed. Chicago: Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial & Organizational Psychology.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koljantic, M., & Silva, M. (2002). Comparison of Students' and Faculty's perceptions of occurrence of dishonest academic behaviors. Psychological Reports, 90(3), 883–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, J.M. (August, 4, 2013). How college classes encourage cheating. Our universities motivate students to be dishonest. Here’s how to fix them. The Boston Globe, p. K1.

  • Mc Cabe, D., & Trevino, L. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 522–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mc Cabe, D., Trevino, L., & Butterfield, K. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 219–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual factors on academic dishonesty: A multi-campus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38(3), 379–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 683–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N., & Hammer, A. (1998). MBTI handbook: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator (3rd ed.). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newstead, S. E., Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Armstead, P. (1996). Individual differences in student cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, N. T., & Biderman, M. D. (August, 2013). Predicting Counterproductive Work Behavior from a Bi-factor model of Big Five Personality. Orlando: Proceedings of the 2013 academy of management Annual Meeting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, N. T., & McDaniel, M. A. (2000). Faking and forced-choice scales in applicant screening: A meta-analysis. New Orleans: Poster presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial & organizational Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ones, D. S. (1993). The construct validity of integrity tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Iowa: University of Iowa City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 679–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostendorf, F. (1990). Sprache and persönlichkeitstrucktur: Zur Validität des Fünf-faktoren-modells der persönlichkeit [language and personality structure: Toward the validation of the five-factor model of personality]. Regensberg: S. Roderer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2015). Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plaisant, O., Courtois, R., Réveillère, C., Mendelsohn, G. A., & John, O. P. (2010). Validation par analyse factorielle du big five Inventory Français (BFI-Fr). Analyse convergente avec le NEO-PI-R. = factor structure and internal reliability of the French big five Inventory (BFI-Fr). Convergent and discriminant validation with the NEO-PI-R. Annales Médico-Psychologiques, 168(2), 97–106. doi:10.1016/j.amp.2009.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. A., & Wasieleski, D. M. (2012). Moral reasoning in computer-based task environments: Exploring the interplay between cognitive and technological factors on individuals’ propensity to break rules. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(3), 355–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salgado, J. F., & Táuriz, G. (2014). The five-factor model, forced-choice personality inventories and performance: A comprehensive meta-analysis of academic and occupational validity studies. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(1), 3–30. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.716198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., & Tauriz, G. (2015). The validity of ipsative and quasi-ipsative forced-choice personality inventories for different occupational groups: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(4), 797–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, K. T., Baysinger, M., Zolynsky, D., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Predicting counterproductive work behaviors with sub-clinical psychopathy: Beyond the five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(3), 300–305. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SHL Group. (2009-2011). OPQ32r Technical manual. Thames Ditton, United Kingdom: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87(2), 245–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, T. H., Kisamore, J. L., & Jawahar, I. M. (2008). Predicting students' perceptions of academic misconduct on the Hogan personality Inventory reliability scale. Psychological Reports, 102(2), 495–508. doi:10.2466/PR0.102.2.495-508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2010). Predicting academic misconduct intentions and behavior using the theory of planned behavior and personality. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szarota, P. (1996). Taxonomy of the Polish personality descriptive adjectives of the highest frequency of use. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 27, 342–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedel, A. (2014). The big five and tertiary academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 71(1), 66–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wesolowsky, G. O. (2000). Detecting excessive similarity in answers on multiple choice exams. Journal of Applied Statistics, 27(7), 909–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley Jr., B. E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 235–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, B. E., Nelson, A. B., & Jones, C. J. (1999). Gender differences in cheating attitudes and behavior: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 41(9), 657–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilks, D. C., Cruz, J. N., & Sousa, P. (2016). Personality traits and plagiarism: An empirical study with Portuguese undergraduate students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 14(3), 231. doi:10.1007/s10805-016-9261-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. M., Nathanson, C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Identifying and profiling scholastic cheaters: Their personality, cognitive ability, and motivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(3), 293–307.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD, 21252, USA

    Nhung T. Hendy

Authors
  1. Nhung T. Hendy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nhung T. Hendy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hendy, N.T. Forced-Choice Personality Measures and Academic Dishonesty: a Comparative Study. J Acad Ethics 15, 293–306 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9280-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9280-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation