The acceptability of "fake" versus "bona fide" personality test interpretations.

Sundberg, Norman D.

doi:10.1037/h0044374

Cited by 71 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is a positive outcome for the forced-choice format given that it possesses an inherent disadvantage in comparison to the normative format. Feedback resulting from a forced-choice personality test is unlikely to be as globally positive (by design) as feedback resulting from a normative personality test because normative tests (Furnham, 1989;Furnham & Varian, 1988;Sundberg, 1955). In spite of this inherent disadvantage, it appears that forced-choice personality test feedback has the potential to be viewed at a comparably positive level of accuracy to that of normative personality test feedback.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Using personality tests in leadership development: Test format effects and the mitigating impact of explanations and feedback

Harland

2003

Human Resource Dev Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizations using personality tests in management development programs must choose from an array of personality tests and formats. The most common formats are normative (for example, Likert type) and forced choice. Although there are some potential advantages to using the forced‐choice format for development, it is possible that participants may view the forced‐choice format more negatively than the normative format. Hypothesis 1 proposed that participants would initially view the forced‐choice format as less accurate, less respectful, less useful, and providing less test taker control. Hypothesis 2 proposed that an explanation of forced‐choice format benefits would mitigate initial negative reactions. Finally, hypothesis 3 proposed that receiving test feedback would mitigate negative perceptions of forced‐choice format accuracy and usefulness. The participants, 255 part‐time M.B.A. students in a leadership development course, were randomly assigned to three experimental conditions: normative, forced choice with an explanation, and forced choice with no explanation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Using personality tests in leadership development: Test format effects and the mitigating impact of explanations and feedback

Harland

2003

Human Resource Dev Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The feedback was either positive or negative. Previous studies using the typical Barnum paradigm indicate that people rate positive feedback as being more accurate in describing their personalities than negative feedback (Collins, Dmitruk, & Ranney, 1977;MosherJ965;Snyder & CIair, 1977;Sundberg, 1955;Weisberg, 1970). Since people in group situations, as well as one-to-one situations, can receive both positive and negative feedback, it is relevant to investigate the role of feedback favorability in the group context.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

The Barnum Effect in a Group Setting

Snyder

Newburg²

1981

Journal of Personality Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study expands the typical Barnum effect paradigm by investigating reactions to feedback in a group setting. People initially participated in a group experience (8 per group), and then were given bogus positive or negative feedback (the favorability manipulation) purportedly prepared by either the group leader or another group member (the source status manipulation). The answerability manipulation led participants to believe that they either would or would not have to share their reactions to the feedback with the person who prepared it. Positive feedback was rated as more accurate and accepted more highly than the negative feedback, though no differences in recall of either the positive or negative feedback emerged. Additionally, a pattern of results revealed that the feedback from the group leader generated greater perceived accuracy, acceptance, and recall than did feedback from another group member. Implications for the impact of feedback given by a high status person in group settings are discussed.

show abstract

“…It has been consistently demonstrated that individuals readily accept general personality statements as accurate descriptions of their personalities, when they are told th~at the statements are based upon information taken from psychological tests (Forer, 1949;Snyder & Larson, 1972;Stagner, 1958;Sundberg, 1955;Ulrich, Stachnik, & Stainton, 1963). Additional research has been conducted to identify the factors associated with the acceptance of false personality feedback.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Self-Ideal Discrepancy and Acceptance of False Personality Interpretations

Glenn¹,

Janda²

1977

Journal of Personality Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of self-ideal discrepancy and favorability of content on subjects' acceptance of personality interpretations were studied. Subjects accepted more favorable than neutral statements and more neutral than unfavorable statements. A significant effect was found for self-ideal discrepancy and for the interaction between self-ideal discrepancy and content favorability. In contrast to moderate and low discrepancy subjects, high discrepancy subjects accepted more of the interpretations, accepted more unfavorable, and rejected more favorable interpretations. High discrepancy subjects also accepted more neutral interpretations than did low discrepancy subjects. High discrepancy subjects expected to receive more negative feedback than low discrepancy subjects, and also interpreted this feedback more negatively than did low discrepancy subjects, while scores for the moderate discrepancy subjects were consistently between these two groups.

show abstract

The acceptability of "fake" versus "bona fide" personality test interpretations.

Cited by 71 publications

References 3 publications

Using personality tests in leadership development: Test format effects and the mitigating impact of explanations and feedback

Using personality tests in leadership development: Test format effects and the mitigating impact of explanations and feedback

The Barnum Effect in a Group Setting

Self-Ideal Discrepancy and Acceptance of False Personality Interpretations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About