The “g” in Faking: Doublethink the Validity of Personality Self-Report Measures for Applicant Selection

Abstract

The meta-analytic finding that faking does not affect the criterion validity of self-report measures in applicant selection suggests cognitive abilities are crucial to fake personality to an expected optimal profile in self-report measures. Previous studies in this field typically focus on how the extent of faking changes self-report measurement. However, the effect of faking ability is rarely considered. In Study 1 (n = 151), we link two questionnaires, the WSQ and the NEO-PI-R, to use them for later faking ability tasks. With O∗NET expert ratings and the linked questionnaires, we establish veridical responses of optimal personality profiles for both questionnaires. Based on this, in Study 2, we develop six faking ability task employing both questionnaires and three common jobs to fake for. To score the tasks, we introduce profile similarity metrics that compare faked response vectors to optimal profile vectors. The faking ability tasks were administered to a community sample (n = 210) who additionally completed measures of cognitive abilities, namely general mental ability, crystallized intelligence, and interpersonal abilities. For all, based on previous research, it can be argued that they should predict individual differences in faking ability. We establish a measurement model of faking ability and its relation to the other cognitive abilities. Using structural equations modeling, we find the strongest effect for crystallized intelligence and weaker effects for general mental ability and interpersonal abilities, all positively predicting faking ability. We show for the first time that we can measure faking ability with psychometrically sound techniques, establish a confirmatory factor model of faking ability and that it is largely explained by other cognitive abilities. We conclude that research supporting a positive link between self-reported personality and job performance is presumably confounded by cognitive abilities, because they are predictive of both faking self-reported personality and job performance. We recommend researchers to broaden their measurements with assessments of faking ability or other cognitive abilities (besides general mental ability) in research regarding applicant selection.

Testing competing claims about overclaiming

“…Apart from honesty-humility, faking was repeatedly described as a deliberate positive self-presentation or an intentional bias (e.g., Dunlop et al, 2019;Geiger et al, 2018;Ziegler, 2011), and the degree to which it met requirements should be considered an ability (Geiger et al, 2018). In line with this idea and given theoretical accounts of faking ability (e.g., Ziegler, 2011), it should be considered that the setting in which an OCQ is administered (low-stakes vs. high-stakes) might play an important role for the validity of overclaiming as a potential marker of deliberate positive self-representations such as faking (Dunlop et al, 2019).…”

“…Faking ability was measured using the paradigm presented in Geiger, Olderbak, Sauter, and Wilhelm (2018) with items from the Work Style Questionnaire (WSQ), a selfreport measure originally developed for O*NET (Borman et al, 1999). The questionnaire consists of 16 items defining various aspects of a typical work style (e.g.…”

Technology-Based Assessment: A Theoretical Framework, Psychometric Modeling, and Substantial Issues in the Assessment of Cognitive Abilities

“…In the present study, opportunity to cheat was held constant for all participants in both conditions by experimentally varying the level of proctoring. But participant differ in the anticipated costs and utility for the participants and also their ability (Geiger et al, 2018).…”

“…Consequently, the proneness to cheating is an important characteristic of psychological ability tests administered with digital devices. Conversely, in the assessment of typical behavior, successful faking mostly hinges on participants' faking ability (Geiger, Olderbak, Sauter, & Wilhelm, 2018) rather than test-mode .…”

“…Taken together, questionnaire-based methods do not depend on the assessment modality: They can be included in both paper-pencil and computer-based tests or self-reports. However, questionnaires can easily be manipulated if a test-taker is motivated and capable (Geiger et al, 2018). Especially when they are included in test batteries of cognitive abilities, participants might figure out the purpose of these scales.…”