Faking Detection Validity and Incremental Validity of Response Latencies to MMPI Subtle and Obvious Items

Hsu, Louis M.; Santelli, John; Hsu, Jennifer Ryan

doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5302_6

Cited by 53 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In their 2012 study, van Hooft and Born generally found that (p. 308) "faking involves a faster response process for both positively and negatively keyed items" (our emphasis). This finding aligns with that of others (e.g., George, 1990;Hsu et al, 1989;Nowakowska, 1970) and indicates that, in general, presenting positively may be an automatized component of self-presentation. Paulhus (1993), in describing the process of responding to personality items, asserted that an association between positivity of responding and automaticity exists and that it may be attributable to a tendency toward positive self-presentation taught from childhood.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…For example, Holden, Fekken, and Jackson (1985) reported that shorter latencies were associated with answering items that were more saturated with socially desirable responding. Hsu, Santelli, and Hsu (1989) found shorter item response times for fakers than for respondents answering under standard instructions. Similarly, George (1990) indicated that, as compared to honest responding, faking was associated with shorter response latencies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 78%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Response latencies are alive and well for identifying fakers on a self-report personality inventory: A reconsideration of van Hooft and Born (2012)

Holden

Lambert

2014

Behav Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Van Hooft and Born (Journal of Applied Psychology 97: [301][302][303][304][305][306][307][308][309][310][311][312][313][314][315][316] 2012) presented data challenging both the correctness of a congruence model of faking on personality test items and the relative merit (i.e., effect size) of response latencies for identifying fakers. We suggest that their analysis of response times was suboptimal, and that it followed neither from a congruence model of faking nor from published protocols on appropriately filtering the noise in personality test item answering times. Using new data and following recommended analytic procedures, we confirmed the relative utility of response times for identifying personality test fakers, and our obtained results, again, reinforce a congruence model of faking.Keywords Response latencies . Faking . Congruence . Response favorabilityCan the response times associated with answering self-report personality items identify individuals who are faking? Over the decades, various perspectives regarding response times and dissimulation have emerged. Some have argued that faking is a complex process that, relative to honest answering, requires extra cognitive processing and editing. In support of this perspective, McDaniel and Timm (1990) found that, when instructed to answer dishonestly, respondents took more time to answer items than when they were instructed to answer honestly, particularly for items pertaining to socially undesirable behaviors (e.g., drug use). Furthermore, in advocating for a response editing approach to answering, Holtgraves (2004) had respondents answer personality items in contexts varying in evaluation demands, and found that instructions inducing socially desirable responding resulted in longer response times than did other instructional sets.A contrary view, whereby faking is associated with faster responding, also has empirical support. For example, Holden, Fekken, and Jackson (1985) reported that shorter latencies were associated with answering items that were more saturated with socially desirable responding. Hsu, Santelli, and Hsu (1989) found shorter item response times for fakers than for respondents answering under standard instructions. Similarly, George (1990) indicated that, as compared to honest responding, faking was associated with shorter response latencies.Given the empirical evidence that faking can seemingly result in either slower or faster responding, a more complex model becomes necessary. Nowakowska's (1970) schematic diagram for responding to questionnaire items proposes multiple pathways that consider both the social desirability of item stimuli and a cognitively demanding intellectual evaluation associated with response disclosure. As such, socially desirable responding (e.g., faking) can be more primitive, easy, and straightforward (i.e., fast), or can be more controlling of the truth and, thus, slower. Holden, Kroner, Fekken, and Popham (1992) have also articulated a more complex model of faking that is derived from schema theory. T...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

mentioning

confidence: 78%

Response latencies are alive and well for identifying fakers on a self-report personality inventory: A reconsideration of van Hooft and Born (2012)

Holden

Lambert

2014

Behav Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Investigations that use the measures in actual selection or in faking experiments that approximate such demand characteristics are especially relevant. It is noteworthy that a recent faking experiment (Hsu, Santelli, & Hsu, 1989) found that latency . measures (the mean latencies for subtle and obvious MMPI items) were able to detect dissimulation.…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Response Latency Measures for Biographical Inventories

Stricker

Alderton

1991

ETS Research Report Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study assessed the usefulness of response latency data for biographical inventory items in enhancing the inventory's validity. The Armed Services Applicant Profile (ASAP) was computer administered to Navy recruits, and the regular score, latency‐weighted scores, and measures of deviant latencies were obtained. The latency‐weighted scores did not improve the ASAP's validity in predicting six‐month retention, when used instead of or in addition to the regular score, and the deviant latency measures did not function as suppressor or moderator variables to increase the ASAP's validity. But subgroups of items with differing latencies varied systematically in their internal‐consistency reliability (with increased reliability for subgroups with shorter latencies), and a small subgroup of items with moderate latencies was almost as valid as the regular score, suggesting that latency data may be useful in writing and selecting inventory items.

show abstract

“…Several studies have failed to find any link between slower RTs and dissimulation (Brunetti, Schlottmann, Scott, & Hallrah, 1998;Kruger, Reilly, & Russell, 1991;McManus, 1990). One study even found an inverse link (Hsu, Santelli, & Hsu, 1989). These patchy findings may stem from the inherent noisiness of RT data (Pachella, 1974).…”

Section: Drawbacks Of Current Rt Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

When vying reveals lying: the timed antagonistic response alethiometer

Gregg

2006

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments tested a new computer-based lie-detection technique. The Timed Antagonistic Response Alethiometer (TARA) manufacturers a situation in which, if respondents lie, they must perform two incompatible tasks, whereas if they tell the truth, they can perform two compatible ones. Both tasks involve repeatedly classifying target and control statements as true or false. The incompatible task combination, being more difficult, takes longer to complete correctly; hence, slower responses diagnose dishonesty. Experiment 1 found that, while concurrently classifying control statements honestly, participants invariably took longer to classify target statements dishonestly than honestly. Exploiting this effect, Experiment 2 found that separate groups of liars and truth-tellers could be distinguished with about 85% accuracy. The properties and potential of the technique are discussed.

show abstract

Faking Detection Validity and Incremental Validity of Response Latencies to MMPI Subtle and Obvious Items

Cited by 53 publications

References 0 publications

Response latencies are alive and well for identifying fakers on a self-report personality inventory: A reconsideration of van Hooft and Born (2012)

Response latencies are alive and well for identifying fakers on a self-report personality inventory: A reconsideration of van Hooft and Born (2012)

Response Latency Measures for Biographical Inventories

When vying reveals lying: the timed antagonistic response alethiometer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About