Abstract
Despite the established validity of personality measures for personnel selection, their susceptibility to faking has been a persistent concern. However, the lack of studies that combine generalizability with experimental control makes it difficult to determine the effects of applicant faking. This study addressed this deficit in two ways. First, we compared a subtle incentive to fake with the explicit “fake-good” instructions used in most faking experiments. Second, we compared standard Likert scales to multidimensional forced choice (MFC) scales designed to resist deception, including more and less fakable versions of the same MFC inventory. MFC scales substantially reduced motivated score elevation but also appeared to elicit selective faking on work-relevant dimensions. Despite reducing the effectiveness of impression management attempts, MFC scales did not retain more validity than Likert scales when participants faked. However, results suggested that faking artificially bolstered the criterion-related validity of Likert scales while diminishing their construct validity.
Highlights
Despite the established validity of personality measures for personnel selection, their susceptibility to faking has been a persistent concern
multidimensional forced choice (MFC) scales substantially reduced motivated score elevation and appeared to elicit selective faking on work-relevant dimensions
Nall = sample size before applying the attention check filter; Nfiltered = final sample size after checks for low-effort responding; SS = single stimulus; MFC–relaxed = multidimensional forced choice with relaxed social desirability matching constraint; MFC–strict = multidimensional forced choice with strict social desirability matching constraint. a Honest and faked responses from Conditions 1–3 are treated as separate conditions for data analysis purposes
Summary
Despite the established validity of personality measures for personnel selection, their susceptibility to faking has been a persistent concern. Substantial distortion and outright lying have been documented on a variety of predictors, including interviews, biographical information, and personality questionnaires (Anderson et al, 1984; Cascio, 1975; Pannone, 1984; Weiss & Feldman, 2006) Despite such findings, meta-analytic syntheses suggest that personality traits such as conscientiousness and emotional stability retain substantial criterion-related validity in employment settings (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick et al, 2001). Meta-analytic syntheses suggest that personality traits such as conscientiousness and emotional stability retain substantial criterion-related validity in employment settings (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick et al, 2001) This evidence has led some researchers to argue that the negative effects of faking are largely exaggerated (e.g., Ones et al, 1996), whereas others remain concerned. A variety of other factors—including selection, attrition, and differential motivation to take a personality test seriously—may influence group differences in personality scores (as well as validity coefficients)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
