Cognitive Ability and Self-Reported Efficacy of Self-Presentation Predict Faking on Personality Measures

Abstract

Abstract. The main aim of the present study was to investigate whether faking on personality measures is predicted by cognitive ability and self-reported efficacy of positive self-presentation (ESP) assessed under honest conditions. 123 participants completed the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) and the self-deceptive enhancement (SDE) and impression management (IM) scales of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Version 7 (BIDR) under four instructional sets: honest, fake bad, fake good, and two specifically formulated applicant instructions. In line with the assumption that personality measures lose their original meaning under the instruction to fake, it could be shown that the relationship between honest and faked NEO-FFI scales decreased with increasing situational pressure. In line with the hypothesis that faking reflects an ability, it could be demonstrated that general intelligence was related to the amount of faking, to the ability to perceive the situational requirements, and to the ability to fake in line with the situational requirements. In addition, self-reported ESP, but not SDE and IM, was positively related to positive self-presentation. Our findings imply that faking on personality measures should not only be seen as a threat to validity, but rather as a positive, adaptive, and probably predictive variable, which should be investigated in its own right.

How Emotional Intelligence Might Get You the Job: The Relationship Between Trait Emotional Intelligence and Faking on Personality Tests

“…Similarly, when a job indicated that lower scores on certain traits might be better, higher EI was associated with stronger effects in that direction. The nature of the effects and the effect sizes were roughly in line with those found for other traits known to be related to the ability to fake, such as openness (Raymark & Tafero, 2009), integrity (McFarland & Ryan, 2000, and efficacy of self-presentation (Pauls & Crost, 2005). In addition, trait EI showed incremental validity over GMA and the Big Five personality dimensions in its relation with the ability to fake.…”

“…They found that the produced personality profiles differed considerably between the two conditions. Although they were not the first to discover that differential instructional sets result in different personality profiles (Furnham, 1990;Mahar, Colognon, & Duck, 1995;Martin, Bowen, & Hunt, 2002;Pauls & Crost, 2005), they concluded, "Further research is needed, examining a number of different jobs, to determine whether individual differences in ability to fake toward a job are stable across jobs" (p. 101). The present study directly addresses this question by using a within-subject design to investigate faking toward two very distinctive jobs and the role of trait EI in doing so.…”

“…Adequate faking may be more cognitively demanding than responding honestly (Van Hooft & Born, 2012) and therefore require a prerequisite level of intelligence (Bing, Whanger, Davison, & VanHook, 2004); this notion is supported by studies finding personality scales to become more g-loaded under faking instructions (Bing et al, 2004;Mersman & Shultz, 1998) or when a more fake-resistant forced-choice item format is used (e.g., Christiansen, Burns, & Montgomery, 2005;Vasilopoulos, Cucina, Dyomina, Morewitz, & Reilly, 2006). Furthermore, GMA may be instrumental in one's test-taking strategy (Snell et al, 1999) and in correctly understanding what is meant and measured by the items in a personality test (Pauls & Crost, 2005;Tett et al, 2012). Yet, for reasons just outlined, we expect trait EI to facilitate in assessing whether agreeing or disagreeing with an item will increase the chances of getting the desired job.…”

“…General intelligence or general mental ability (GMA) has previously been found to be related to faking ability and impression management (Huffcutt, Roth, & McDaniel, 1996;Mersman & Shultz, 1998;Pauls & Crost, 2005;. Adequate faking may be more cognitively demanding than responding honestly (Van Hooft & Born, 2012) and therefore require a prerequisite level of intelligence (Bing, Whanger, Davison, & VanHook, 2004); this notion is supported by studies finding personality scales to become more g-loaded under faking instructions (Bing et al, 2004;Mersman & Shultz, 1998) or when a more fake-resistant forced-choice item format is used (e.g., Christiansen, Burns, & Montgomery, 2005;Vasilopoulos, Cucina, Dyomina, Morewitz, & Reilly, 2006).…”

İşe Alim Görüşmeleri̇nde Aldatma Davranişinin Görüşmeye Gi̇ren Ve Gi̇rmeyen Ki̇şi̇ler Açisindan İncelenmesi̇

“…Yine işe alınacak kişilere uygulanan ve işe alım görüşmelerinde aldatma davranışına benzeyen, kişilik testlerinde aldatma davranışı hakkında da birçok araştırma mevcuttur (Arthur, Woehr ve Graziano, 2001;Birkeland, Manson, Kisamore, Brannick ve Smith, 2006;Christiansen, Goffm, Johnston ve Rothstein, 1994;Dalen, Stanton ve Roberts, 2001;Goffin ve Christiansen, 2003;Furnham, 1990;Heggestad, Morrison, Charlie, McCloy, 2006;Hogan, Barrett ve Hogan, 2007;Holden ve Hibbs, 1995;Jackson, Wroblewski ve Ashton, 2000;Luther ve Thornton III, 1999;Mahar, Cologon ve Duck, 1995;Pauls ve Crost, 2005;Rothstein ve Goffin, 2006;Rosse, Stecher, Miller ve Levin, 1998;Schmitt ve Oswald, 2006;Ones ve Viswesvaran, 1998;Van Hooft ve Born, 2012).…”