Self-report measures are characterized as being susceptible to threats associated with deliberate dissimulation or response distortion (i.e., social desirability responding) and careless responding. Careless responding typically arises in low-stakes settings (e.g., participating in a study for course credit) where some respondents are not motivated to respond in a conscientious manner to the items. In contrast, in high-stakes assessments (e.g., prehire assessments), because of the outcomes associated with their responses, respondents are motivated to present themselves in as favorable a light as possible and, thus, may respond dishonestly in an effort to accomplish this objective. In this article, we draw a distinction between the lazy respondent, which we associate with careless responding, and the dishonest respondent, which we associate with response distortion. We then seek to answer the following questions for both careless responding and response distortion: ( a) What is it? ( b) Why is it a problem or concern? ( c) Why do people engage in it? ( d) How pervasive is it? ( e) Can and how is it prevented or mitigated? (  f ) How is it detected? ( g) What does one do when one detects it? We conclude with a discussion of suggested future research directions and some practical guidelines for practitioners and researchers. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Pscyhology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 8 is January 21, 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Device‐type effects on cognitive tests appear to covary with whether unproctored internet‐based test (UIT) scores were obtained operationally or nonoperationally. The present study examined whether the testing environment and distractions therein—one of three contextual factors identified as plausible explanations—accounts for this covariation. Four‐hundred and twenty‐five college students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions which differed by the testing environment and device used to complete a cognitive test. Test scores did not differ between conditions despite greater distractions reported by those who tested in the distracting environment. Results were replicated within‐study, and suggest that the self‐selection and testing‐stakes hypotheses warrant subsequent empirical examination as explanations for the differences in device‐type effects observed in operational and nonoperational settings.

No abstract

No abstract