Impact of electronic warnings on online personality scores and test-taker reactions in an applicant simulation

Burns, Gary N.; Fillipowski, Jenna N.; Morris, Megan B.; Shoda, Elizabeth A.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.051

Cited by 23 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 39 publications

(80 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Future research could shed light on ways to mitigate faking of observer‐ratings of personality. Previous research has already sought ways to reduce faking of self‐reported personality scales (e.g., Fan et al, ), and two strategies seem to be particularly promising: the use of warnings (e.g., Burns, Fillipowski, Morris, & Shoda, ) and the use of a forced‐choice instead of normative answering format (e.g., Christiansen, Burns, & Montgomery, ; O'Neill et al, in press). These faking‐reducing strategies could also be tested with observer‐ratings of personality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are observer ratings of applicants’ personality also faked? Yes, but less than self‐reports

König

Thommen

Wittwer

et al. 2017

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although self‐report personality tests are a comparatively cheap and easy‐to‐administer personnel selection tool, researchers have criticized them for not predicting enough criterion‐related variance. Researchers have suggested using observer‐ratings of personality (e.g., as part of a reference check from a supervisor) because observer‐ratings have been reported to be more predictive. However, it is theoretically and empirically unclear whether supervisors also engage in faking (the intentional distortion of responses). Study 1 explored faking among managers who were first asked to imagine that a subordinate had to leave his/her job for private reasons and then to rate the personality of the subordinate. A week later, managers rated their subordinates honestly. A repeated‐measures MANOVA indicated that managers did fake. Study 2 (among supervisors of working students) replicated the above findings but also showed that there is less faking in supervisor‐ratings than in self‐ratings. Furthermore, we found no evidence that the validity of personality scales for predicting academic performance depends on self‐ versus observer‐ratings or on an applicant versus an honest condition. These two studies thus show that practitioners should not equate personality ratings obtained from observers in a selection context with honest personality ratings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are observer ratings of applicants’ personality also faked? Yes, but less than self‐reports

König

Thommen

Wittwer

et al. 2017

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The findings of this study hold promise for the continued use of the relevant instruments in the financial services company because positive TAs have been found to relate to perceived or actual performance and the perceived fairness of the testing process, which in turn promotes positive attitudes towards the selection process and the company in general (Burns et al, 2015;Schmitt, 2013). Furthermore, the way job applicants perceive the instruments a company uses for selection purposes is advantageous for business in that it plays an important role in attracting and retaining workers from different ethnic groups, influences societal perceptions of the company's commitment to fair selection practice and reduces the likelihood of legal action instituted by unsuccessful applicants (Gilliland & Steiner, 2012;Hausknecht et al, 2004).…”

Section: Practical Implicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…emphasising the advantages of responding honestly) increase test takers' motivation, whereas negative warnings (e.g. emphasising the negative outcomes of dishonesty) increase test takers' levels of anxiety, resulting in inaccurate responses (Burns, Fillipowski, Morris & Shoda, 2015). Research has shown that anxiety has a differential impact on applicants' cognitive test performance within a personnel selection context (Proost, Derous, Schreurs, Hagtvet & De Witte, 2008).…”

Section: Determinants Of Personality and Cognitive Ability Testtakingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Job applicants’ attitudes towards cognitive ability and personality testing

Visser

Schaap

2017

SA j. hum. resour. manag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Orientation: Growing research has shown that not only test validity considerations but also the test-taking attitudes of job applicants are important in the choice of selection instruments as these can contribute to test performance and the perceived fairness of the selection process.Research purpose: The main purpose of this study was to determine the test-taking attitudes of a diverse group of job applicants towards personality and cognitive ability tests administered conjointly online as part of employee selection in a financial services company in South Africa.Motivation for the study: If users understand how job applicants view specific test types, they will know which assessments are perceived more negatively and how this situation can potentially be rectified.Research design, approach and method: A non-experimental and cross-sectional survey design was used. An adapted version of the Test Attitude Survey was used to determine job applicants’ attitudes towards tests administered online as part of an employee selection process. The sample consisted of a group of job applicants (N = 160) who were diverse in terms of ethnicity and age and the educational level applicable for sales and supervisory positions.Main findings: On average, the job applicants responded equally positively to the cognitive ability and personality tests. The African job applicants had a statistically significantly more positive attitude towards the tests than the other groups, and candidates applying for the sales position viewed the cognitive ability tests significantly less positively than the personality test.Practical and managerial implications: The choice of selection tests used in combination as well as the testing conditions that are applicable should be considered carefully as they are the factors that can potentially influence the test-taking motivation and general test-taking attitudes of job applicants.Contribution: This study consolidated the research findings on the determinants of attitudinal responses to cognitive ability and personality testing and produced valuable empirical findings on job applicants’ attitudes towards both test types when administered conjointly

show abstract

“…Although other types of middle‐warnings have been studied using U.S. samples, these studies are limited in several ways. For instance, some studies were conducted in lab settings (e.g., Burns et al, ; Ellingson et al, ), and their findings thus might not generalize to real‐world selection settings. Butcher et al () used a paper‐and‐pencil personality test, which is no longer a common practice in today's testing industry.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, a feeling of guilt was found to be a potential mechanism underlying the warning effect among fakers. Burns, Fillipowski, Morris, and Shoda (2015) compared three different middle-warnings in a lab study. The first warning contained an accusation component conveying that the test taker have been identified as a faker, whereas the second and third warnings were positively and negatively worded warnings, respectively, without the accusation component.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing faking on personality tests: Testing a new faking‐mitigation procedure in a U.S. job applicant sample

Lopez

Hou

Fan

2019

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Faking has remained a major concern for organizations using self‐report personality measures for selection. Scholars recenlty developed a new middle‐warning faking‐mitigation procedure. The present replication study was the first field test in the United States using 193 applicants for an entry‐level position in a New York‐based consulting firm. Results replicated most of Fan et al.'s findings including (a) the middle‐warning significantly lowered fakers' personality scores over retesting, whereas the control message had little influence on nonfakers; (b) the above warning effect carried over to personality scales that were not retested; and (c) the persistent tendency of potential fakers rising to the top of personality score distribution was weakened. In addition, applicants' perceptions were not being negatively affected by the warning.

show abstract

Impact of electronic warnings on online personality scores and test-taker reactions in an applicant simulation

Cited by 23 publications

References 39 publications

Are observer ratings of applicants’ personality also faked? Yes, but less than self‐reports

Are observer ratings of applicants’ personality also faked? Yes, but less than self‐reports

Job applicants’ attitudes towards cognitive ability and personality testing

Reducing faking on personality tests: Testing a new faking‐mitigation procedure in a U.S. job applicant sample

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About