AbstractOrganizations using personality tests in management development programs must choose from an array of personality tests and formats. The most common formats are normative (for example, Likert type) and forced choice. Although there are some potential advantages to using the forced‐choice format for development, it is possible that participants may view the forced‐choice format more negatively than the normative format. Hypothesis 1 proposed that participants would initially view the forced‐choice format as less accurate, less respectful, less useful, and providing less test taker control. Hypothesis 2 proposed that an explanation of forced‐choice format benefits would mitigate initial negative reactions. Finally, hypothesis 3 proposed that receiving test feedback would mitigate negative perceptions of forced‐choice format accuracy and usefulness. The participants, 255 part‐time M.B.A. students in a leadership development course, were randomly assigned to three experimental conditions: normative, forced choice with an explanation, and forced choice with no explanation.