Although there has been a steady growth in research and use of self-report measures of personality in the last 20 years, faking in personality testing remains as a major concern. Blatant extreme responding (BER), which includes endorsing desirable extreme responses (i.e., 1 and 5 s), has recently been identified as a potential faking detection technique. In a large-scale (N = 358,033), high-stakes selection context, we investigate the construct validity of BER, the extent to which BER relates to general mental ability, and the extent to which BER differs across jobs, gender, and ethnic groups. We find that BER reflects applicant faking by showing that BER relates to a more established measure of faking, an unlikely virtue (UV) scale, and that applicants score higher than incumbents on BER. BER is (slightly) positively related to general mental ability whereas UV is negatively related to it. Applicants for managerial positions score slightly higher on BER than applicants for nonmanagerial positions. In addition, there was no gender or racial differences on BER. The implications of these findings for detecting faking in personnel selection are delineated.

The current study investigated the effect of workload variability on performance and stress, as well as the role of social support as a potential intervention. Based on previous research it was predicted that a shift in workload from either high to low or low to high would lower performance and increase stress, while the provision of social support would result in higher performance and lower stress. Results revealed significant decrements in performance following workload shifts, though no increase in stress was perceived. Performance in both workload conditions significantly, but inconsistently, increased following the provision of social support and stress significantly decreased following the shift from high to low workload. Implications and future research steps are discussed further.

No abstract

No abstract