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

Abstract

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...

What is Applicant Faking Behavior? A Review on the Current State of Theory and Modeling Techniques

“…Studies using item response theory (IRT) models (O'Brien & LaHuis, 2011;Robie, Zickar, & Schmit, 2001;Scherbaum, Sabet, Kern, & Agnello, 2013;Zickar et al, 2004) and/or structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques (Honkaniemi, Tolvanen, & Feldt, 2011 2012; Ziegler & Buehner, 2009;Ziegler et al, 2015) have found that faking behavior differs between tests, items and individuals, and is hard to disentangle. Additionally, examining response latencies has provided insights into response processes (Holden, Kroner, Fekken, & Popham, 1992;Holden & Lambert, 2015;Komar, Komar, Robie, & Taggar, 2010). The most used method of detecting faking in practical as well as research settings is using SDR scales (Goffin & Christiansen, 2003;O'Connell, Kung, & Tristan, 2011).…”

“…The trouble of detecting faking on an individual level can be illustrated with the response latencies approach (Holden & Lambert, 2015;Komar et al, 2010). Holden and colleagues (1992) proposed a congruence model of faking.…”

“…They proposed that faking as a response process towards a desired direction takes less time, while faking against that direction requires more time than honest responses. Figure 2 presents key findings of Holden and Lambert's (2015) examination of response latencies on a group level. Providing evidence for the congruence model, the latency differences were significant across honest, faking-good and faking-bad conditions.…”

“…Providing evidence for the congruence model, the latency differences were significant across honest, faking-good and faking-bad conditions. However, Holden and Lambert (2015) also examined how well Figure 2: Distribution of response latencies depending on faking instruction on a group-level according to Holden and Lambert (2015).…”

Self-report personality tests and medical school selection

“…The majority of the faking research is cross-sectional, and participants receive instructions either to answer honestly ("honest conditions") or to make a good impression or to make a specific impression of themselves ("faking conditions") (Shoss and Strube 2011;Tett et al 2012;Topping and O'Gorman 1997). In the endeavour to identify and avoid the faking behaviour when answering to personality tests, some strategies were devised such as the use of social desirability scales or the use of response times (Donovan et al 2003;Holden and Lambert 2015). However, how faking may affect personality assessment usefulness in the medical selection field has been poorly addressed.…”