Valence, Instrumentality, Expectancy, and Ability as Determinants of Faking, and the Effects of Faking on Criterion-Related Validity

Abstract

We investigated individual differences in faking in simulated high-stakes personality assessments through the lens of expectancy (VIE) theory, using a novel experimental paradigm. Three hundred ninety-eight participants (MTurk) completed a “low-stakes” HEXACO personality assessment for research purposes. Three months later, we invited all 398 participants to compete for an opportunity to complete a genuine, well-paid, one-off MTurk job, and 201 accepted. After viewing the selection criteria, which described high levels of perfectionism as critical for selection, these participants completed the HEXACO personality assessment as part of their applications (“high-stakes”). All 201 participants were then informed their applications were successful and were invited to complete the performance task, with 189 accepting the offer. The task, which involved checking text data for inconsistencies, captured two objective performance criteria. We observed faking on measures of diligence and perfectionism. We found that perceived job desirability (valence) was the strongest (positive) determinant of individual differences in faking, along with perceived instrumentality and expectancy. Honesty-humility was also associated with faking however, unexpectedly, the association was positive. When all predictors were combined, only perceived job desirability remained a significant motivational determinant of faking, with cognitive ability also being a positive predictor. We found no evidence that cognitive ability moderated the relations of motivation and faking. To investigate the role of faking on predictive validity, we split the sample into those who had faked to a statistically large extent, and those who had not. We found that the validity of high-stakes assessments was higher amongst the group that had faked.

Intentional response distortion during the COVID‐19 pandemic

“…Thus, we can be rather confident that there is enough variance in valence to explain faking behavior in our study, as our job manipulation was not nearly as desirable as the one used in Dunlop et al (2022). We do acknowledge, however, that other individual differences that we did not account for (emotional stability; Bott et al, 2010; modesty; Dunlop et al, 2022; cognitive ability; Schilling et al, 2021) may also play a role in predicting faking behavior. Future research should consider measuring the mechanisms of VIE Theory directly as well as other individual differences to determine if they moderate the relationship between a recession selection manipulation and indicators of faking to provide more support for this theoretical framework applied to faking during COVID‐19.…”

“…Thus, we can be rather confident that there is enough variance in valence to explain faking behavior in our study, as our job manipulation was not nearly as desirable as the one used in Dunlop et al (2022). We do acknowledge, however, that other individual differences that we did not account for (emotional stability; Bott et al, 2010;modesty;Dunlop et al, 2022;cognitive ability;Schilling et al, 2021)…”

“…Findings regarding valence, however, have been mixed (Bott et al, 2010; Komar, 2013; Roess & Roche, 2017), potentially because telling participants that a job is highly desirable essentially holds valence constant. However, a recent study increased the perceived valence of a job significantly (i.e., paid MTurk workers 12 times the median hourly rate of pay) and found that valence was the strongest predictor of faking (Dunlop et al, 2022). Thus, we can be rather confident that there is enough variance in valence to explain faking behavior in our study, as our job manipulation was not nearly as desirable as the one used in Dunlop et al (2022).…”

“…However, a recent study increased the perceived valence of a job significantly (i.e., paid MTurk workers 12 times the median hourly rate of pay) and found that valence was the strongest predictor of faking (Dunlop et al, 2022). Thus, we can be rather confident that there is enough variance in valence to explain faking behavior in our study, as our job manipulation was not nearly as desirable as the one used in Dunlop et al (2022). We do acknowledge, however, that other individual differences that we did not account for (emotional stability; Bott et al, 2010; modesty; Dunlop et al, 2022; cognitive ability; Schilling et al, 2021) may also play a role in predicting faking behavior.…”

Are curmudgeon personality scales resistant to response distortion?

“…Faking, a form of response distortion, is often described as providing overly charitable reports of one's own personality due to an incentivized circumstance (Birkeland et al, 2006; Paulhus, 1984; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999). Although response distortion is viewed by many researchers as having negative effects on the validity of measures and hence the effectiveness the selection process, there is also evidence that response distortion is an adaptive response by applicants that can improve the selection process (Dunlop et al, 2022; Marcus, 2021; Tett & Simonet, 2011; Tett et al, 2022). Regardless of consequences of the response distortion, identifying the degree of response distortion present within a given measure will help clarify the underlying construct assessed by that measure.…”