Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 489–509 | Cite as

Do people fake on personality inventories? A verbal protocol analysis

Article

Abstract

Research has focused heavily on whether individuals can fake on personality inventories. Research is less clear on whether individuals actually do fake on personality inventories. Verbal protocol analysis was used to trace the motivational processes for 12 participants as they completed a personality inventory in an applicant context. Exploratory analyses suggested that individuals do fake on personality inventories; that individuals can be classed into one of three faking classes (honest responders, slight fakers, and extreme fakers); and that honest fakers take less time to complete and make less corrections to their personality inventories than faking responders. Study implications, limitations, and future research will be discussed.

Keywords

faking personality testing verbal protocol analysis 

References

  1. Anderson C. D., Warner J. L., Spencer C. C. (1984) Inflation bias in self-assessment examinations: Implications for valid employee selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 574–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asch, S. (1961). Issues in the study of social influences on judgment. In I. A. Berg & B. M. Bass (Eds.), Conformity and deviation (pp. 143–153). Oxford, England: HarperGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber A. E., Roehling M. V. (1993). Job postings and the decision to interview: A verbal protocol analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 845–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrick M. R., Mount M. K., Judge T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bass B. M. (1957). Faking by sales applicants of a forced choice personality inventory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, 403–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker T. E., Colquitt A. L. (1992). Potential versus actual faking of a biodata form: An analysis along several dimensions of item type. Personnel Psychology, 45, 389–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowen C., Martin B. A., Hunt S. T. (2002). A comparison of ipsative and normative approaches for ability to control faking in personality questionnaires. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10, 240–259Google Scholar
  8. Cable D. M., Graham M. E. (2000). The determinants of job seekers’ reputation perceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 929–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carroll J. S., Johnson E. J. (1990). Decision research: A field guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  10. Christiansen N. D., Burns G. N., Montgomery G. E. (2005). Reconsidering forced-choice item formats for applicant personality assessment. Human Performance, 18, 267–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christiansen N. D., Goffin R. D., Johnston N. G., Rothstein M. G. (1994). Correcting the 16PF for faking: Effects on criterion-related validity and individual hiring decisions. Personnel Psychology, 47, 847–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Douglas, E. F., McDaniel, M. A., & Snell, A. F. (1996, August). The validity of non-cognitive measures decays when applicants fake. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunnette M. D., McCartney J., Carlson H. C., Kirchner W. K. (1962). A study of faking behavior on a forced-choice self-description checklist. Personnel Psychology, 15, 13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dwight S. A., Donovan J. J. (2003). Do warnings not to fake reduce faking? Human Performance, 16, 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellingson J. E., Smith D. B., Sackett P. R. (2001). Investigating the influence of social desirability on personality factor structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 122–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ePredix. (2004). Criterion International Service Inventory (short form) technical report. Minneapolis, MN: Unpublished technical reportGoogle Scholar
  17. Ericsson K. A., Simon H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Frei R. L., McDaniel M. A. (1998). Validity of customer service measures in personnel selection: A review of criterion and construct evidence. Human Performance, 11, 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. George, M. S. (1990). The use of response latency to study accuracy and consistency in a computerized lifestyle assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  20. Heggestad E. D., Morrison M., Reeve C. L., McCloy R. A. (2006). Forced-choice assessments of personality for selection: Evaluating issues of normative assessment and faking resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 9–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hogan, R. T. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 873–919). Palo Alto, CA, US: Consulting Psychologists Press, IncGoogle Scholar
  22. Holden R. R., Jackson D. N. (1981). Subtlety, information, and faking effects in personality assessment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 379–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holden R. R., Wood L. L., Tomashewski L. (2001). Do response time limitations counteract the effect of faking on personality inventory validity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 160–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hough L. M. (1998). Effects of intentional distortion in personality measurement and evaluation of suggested palliatives. Human Performance, 11, 209–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hough L. M., Eaton N. K., Dunnette M. D., Kamp J. D., McCloy R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hsu L. M., Santelli J., Hsu J. R. (1989). Faking detection validity and incremental validity of response validity of response latencies to MMPI subtle and obvious items. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 278–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Isenberg D. J. (1986). Thinking and managing: A verbal protocol analysis of managerial problem solving. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 775–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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, 371–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. James L. W., McIntyre M. D., Glisson C. A., Green P. D., Patton T. W., LeBreton J. M., Frost B. C., Russell S. M., Sablynski C. J., Mitchell T. R., Williams L. J. (2005). A conditional reasoning measure for aggression. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 69–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin S. L., Klimoski R. J. (1990). Use of verbal protocols to trace cognitions associated with self- and supervisor evaluations of performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 135–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McDaniel, M. A., & Timm, H. W. (August, 1990). Lying takes time: Predicting deception in biodata using response latency. Paper presented at the 98th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  32. McFarland L. A. (2003). Warning against faking on a personality test: Effects on applicant reactions and personality test scores. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McFarland L. A., Ryan A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 812–821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mersman J. L., Shultz K. S. (1998). Individual differences in the ability to fake on personality measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mueller-Hanson R., Heggestad E. D., Thornton G. C. III. (2003). Faking and selection: Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 348–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nisbett R. E., Wilson T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ones D. S., Viswesvaran C. (1998). The effects of social desirability and faking on personality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance, 11, 245–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ones D. S., Viswesvaran C., Reiss A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pannone R. D. (1984). Predicting test performance: A content valid approach to screening applicants. Personnel Psychology, 37, 507–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robie C., Tuzinski K. A., Bly P. R. (2005). Faking in the individual assessment process. Minneapolis, MN: Personnel Decisions InternationalGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosse J. G., Stecher M. D., Miller J. L., Levin R. A. (1998). The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 634–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ryan A. M., McFarland L., Baron H., Page R. (1999). An international look at selection practices: Nation and culture as explanations for variability in practice. Personnel Psychology, 52, 359–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shepherd, W. J., Brown, D. J., & Robie, C. (2005, April). Equivalence of tests administered on computer versus interactive voice response. In F. Drasgow (Chair), Innovations in computerized assessment: Research on practical issues. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith D. B., Ellingson J. E. (2002). Substance versus style: A new look at social desirability in motivating contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 211–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stark S., Chernyshenko O. S., Chan K., Lee W. C., Drasgow F. (2001). Effects of the testing situation on item responding: Cause for concern. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 943–953PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tett R. P., Guterman H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Topping G. D., O’Gorman J. G. (1997). Effects of faking set on validity of the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tull, K. T. (1998). The effects of faking behavior on the prediction of sales performance using the Guilford Zimmerman temperament survey and the NEO Five Factor Inventory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Akron, Akron, OHGoogle Scholar
  49. Viswesvaran C., Ones D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Worthington D. L., Schlottmann R. S. (1986). The predictive validity of subtle and obvious empirically derived psychological test items under faking conditions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 171–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zickar M. J., Drasgow F. (1996). Detecting faking on a personality instrument using appropriateness measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zickar M. J., Gibby R. E., Robie C. (2004). Uncovering faking samples in applicant, incumbent, and experimental data sets: An application of mixed-model item response theory. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 168–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zickar M. J., Robie C. (1999). Modeling faking good on personality items: An item-level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 551–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business, LCC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chet Robie
    • 1
  • Douglas J. Brown
    • 2
  • James C. Beaty
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Business & EconomicsWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  3. 3.PreVisorMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations