Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 46–55 | Cite as

Faking personality questionnaires: Fabricating different profiles for different purposes

  • Adrian Furnham
Articles

Abstract

Over fifty subjects completed four personality measures used in personnel selection. Based on a latin-square design they were asked to fill them in as they would if they were trying to present themselves as ideal candidates for the job of librarian, advertising executive or banker, while on one questionnaire they gave “honest,” actual responses. The results indicated, as previous research in this area has shown, that the questionnaires are all highly susceptible to faking, and that a quite different prototypic profile arose for each of the three different jobs. The results are discussed in terms of the templates of fakers for specific jobs; the methods of detecting fakers, and what dissimulation studies tell us about theories of both occupations and personality.

Keywords

Current Psychology Personality Test Personality Measure Personality Questionnaire Preference Inventory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Archer, R., Gordon, R., & Kirchner, F. (1987). MMPI response—set characteristics among adolescents.Journal of Personality Assessment, 51, 506–516.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Briggs-Myers, L., & McCauley, M. (1985).A Guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type indicator. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologist Press.Google Scholar
  3. Burbeck, E., & Furnham, A. (1984). Personality and police selection: Trait differences in successful and non-successful applicants to the Metropolitan Police.Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cattell, R. (1969).The 16 PF, Form D, 1969 Edition, Windsor; N.F.E.R. Furnham, A. (1986A). The Social responsibility of the Type A behaviour pattern.Psychological Medicine, 16, 805–811.Google Scholar
  5. Furnham, A. (1986B). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation.Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Furnham, A. (1986).Lay Theories. Pergamon: Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Furnham, A. (1990). The fakeability of the 16 PF, Myers-Briggs and FIRO-B personality measures.Personality and Individual Differences. In Press.Google Scholar
  8. Furnham A., & Craig, S. (1987). Fakeability and correlates of the Perception and Preference inventory.Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 459–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Furnham, A., & Henderson, M. (1982). The good, the bad and the mad: response bias in self-report measures.Personality and Individual Differences, 3, 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and Innovators: A description and measure.Journal of Applied Psychology, 622–629.Google Scholar
  11. Kostick, M. (1977).Kosticks Perception and Preference Inventory. Brookline, Mass.: Applied Psychology Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Holland, J. (1973).Making Vocational Choices: A theory of Careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Holland, J. (1985).Vocational Preferences Inventory. Odessa, Florida: PAR Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Meredith, G. (1968). Stereotypic desirability profiles for the 16 PF questionnaire.Psychological Reports, 23, 1173–1174.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Myers, I., & McCauley, M. (1985).Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto: CPP.Google Scholar
  16. Robertson, I., & Makin, P. (1986). Management selection in Britain: A survey and critique.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 45–57.Google Scholar
  17. Velicer, W., & Weiner, B. (1975). Effects of sophistication and faking sets on the Eysenck Personality Inventory.Psychological Reports, 37, 71–73.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrian Furnham
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity College, LondonLondon

Personalised recommendations