Faking and Faking Detection on the Comrey Personality Scales: Replication and Extension

Abstract

normal behavior, and providing scores on 8 personality dimensions and two validity scales. Braun and Iervolino (1972) found that mean scores were significantly higher under faking vs standard instructions for the two validity scales, and for five of the eight personality scales. Also, 71% of faking instruction Ss had unacceptable scores on at least one of the rwo validity scales, compared with only 20% of Ss having standard instructions. In the present study, 155 university students completed the scales under instructions identical with those used by Braun and Iervolino. Thus, 75 had instructions to be honest and forthright, and 80 had instructions to fake so as to make an excellent impression but to also conceal their faking. Results of t tests based on independent groups showed that mean scores on the two validity scales, Validity Check (V) and Response Bias (R), were significantly higher under faking vs standard instructions, as was also true for six of the eight personality scales: Trust, Social Conformity, Activity, Emotional Stability, Extraversion, and Empathy. These findings are highly similar to those of the original study. Detection of faking was studied as follows. As in the original investigation, the percent of Ss equaling or exceeding the following cut-off points was determined for each group separately: V,19; V,26; R,57; R,70. These represent values that would be either one or two SDs above the manual means for both men and women. This procedure had to be used in the original study since Ss were not asked to indicate their sex. Also determined in both studies were the percents scoring one or more SDs above the mean on eirher V or R. This latter method is the one which correctly detected 71 % o[ the faking group in the original study at the expense of 20% of the control group's false positives. The present smdy again found 20% of the control group's false positives, but only 54% of faking Ss detected, and with the difference between control and faking percents significant (p < .01). However, the percent of faking group detections in the present study was significantly less than in the original invesr~gauon (54 vs 71; p < .01). Since in the present study, S did record own sex, a modified faking detection analysis was also run using V and R norms specific to a given S's sex. While the percent of faking Ss detected increased from 54 to 64, the percent of control false positives also increased from 20 to 26, resulting in no substantial net gain in effectiveness of detection. In conclusion, the present results confirm those of the original investigation. The Comrey scales may be faked, but the detection keys show some degree of usefulness even when Ss are aware of their existence and try to beat them.