Abstract

Faking detection is an ongoing challenge in psychological assessment. A notable approach for detecting fakers involves the inspection of response latencies and is based on the congruence model of faking. According to this model, respondents who fake good will provide favorable responses (i.e., congruent answers) faster than they provide unfavorable (i.e., incongruent) responses. Although the model has been validated in various experimental faking studies, to date, research supporting the congruence model has focused on scales with large numbers of items. Furthermore, in this previous research, fakers have usually been warned that faking could be detected. In view of the trend to use increasingly shorter scales in assessment, it becomes important to investigate whether the congruence model also applies to self-report measures with small numbers of items. In addition, it is unclear whether warning participants about faking detection is necessary for a successful application of the congruence model. To address these issues, we reanalyzed data sets of two studies that investigated faking good and faking bad on extraversion (n = 255) and need for cognition (n = 146) scales. Reanalyses demonstrated that having only a few items per scale and not warning participants represent a challenge for the congruence model. The congruence model of faking was only partly confirmed under such conditions. Although faking good on extraversion was associated with the expected longer latencies for incongruent answers, all other conditions remained nonsignificant. Thus, properties of the measurement and properties of the procedure affect the successful application of the congruence model.

Highlights

  • ANOVAs revealed that participants were motivated and well able to fake high and low scores on the extraversion scale and on the need for cognition scale

  • Our results revealed that the congruence model of faking was only partly supported under these conditions

  • Our results indicate that having a small number of items on a measure and not warning participants about faking detection has a deleterious effect on successfully applying the congruence model of faking

Read more

Summary

Methods

To examine whether response latencies differ between fakers and non-fakers under the abovementioned challenging conditions, we reanalyzed data sets that were previously collected under the supervision of the lead author in an investigation of faking on scales measuring extraversion (Klink, 2018) and both extraversion and need for cognition (Hütten, 2018; Möller, 2017). We chose these data sets for several reasons: First, data sets were from studies that included both faking good and faking bad instructions.

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call