Abstract
Abstract Whether respondents are able to fake their answers on personality questionnaires when so instructed and whether they are able to fake equally well on normative and ipsative type scales was investigated. Three hundred and one laboratory participants completed both a normative and an ipsative version of the Occupational Personality Questionnaire either honestly or in a fake-good condition. They also identified what they believed to be an ideal personality profile for the specified job. Regional business managers/human resource professionals completed an ideal personality profile for the same job. Results revealed a significant interaction such that the form (ipsative/normative) moderated the relationship between instructions (honest/faking) and the amount of agreement between participants' ideal and actual ratings. There was no difference in the degree of faking on the ipsative form between the honest and faking group, while on the normative form there was significantly more faking in the faking group than in the honest group. In addition, there was considerable agreement between the laboratory respondents and the business managers on what constitutes an ideal personality profile for the specified job.
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
