The nature of faking: A homogeneous and predictable construct?

Abstract

Faking remains an unsolved problem in high-stakes personality assessment. It is important that the evaluation of so-called faking-detection scales differs between psychological disciplines. One of the reasons for this might be the unclear nature of actual faking behavior. In the present study, we aimed to apply a modeling technique introduced by Ziegler, Maaß, Griffith, and Gammon (2015) that allows capturing of interindividual differences in faking behavior as a latent variable. We used this approach to isolate variance because of experimentally induced faking good and faking bad of the Big Five, and we predicted this variance with a variety of theoretically relevant constructs (socially desirable responding, overclaiming, and dark triad traits). We tested a sample (n = 233) divided between 2 experimental conditions and n = 167 persons in a control condition twice (honest/faking and honest/honest). The application of the modeling approach for all 5 personality domains was successful. In a second step, factor scores for all faking variables derived from these prior analyses were tested for homogeneity within each faking condition. Results showed that whereas faking was neither homogeneous within each condition (i.e., faking good vs. faking bad), nor was it homogeneous across conditions. Thus, faking is a complex psychological process that is responsive to specific situational demands. In a final step, the faking variables representing faking good and faking bad were regressed onto scores from other measures. The results indicated that the common variance shared by some social desirability scales predicted faking. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

The Good, the Bad, and the Clever: Faking Ability as a Socio-Emotional Ability?

“…This allowed us to investigate the question of whether faking good and bad are a homogeneous construct. Obviously, faking behavior differs between faking good and bad (Bensch et al 2019). However, whether this results in distinct factors of faking ability, an essential determinant of faking performance (Geiger et al 2018), was a previously unresolved question.…”

“…Faking good refers to an attempt to appear better than is actually the case; faking bad refers to attempts to appear worse than actually is the case. Participants instructed to fake easily grasp this distinction and fake accordingly (Bensch et al 2019): faking good and bad are understood as different situational demands. Situational demands can also differ within faking good (Geiger et al 2018;Pelt et al 2018) or bad conditions, i.e., faking good for different jobs has different situational demands.…”

“…Whether faking performance is determined by a general faking ability or independent ability factors based on situational demands (e.g., faking good vs. faking bad) is an empirical question that we will address in this manuscript. Considering not only the distinct response patterns that arise when faking good versus bad (Bensch et al 2019), but also that the typical situations in which they occur differ, it might be argued that faking good and bad form distinct factors. However, the ability to fake good for highly distinct jobs is correlated between these conditions, although they have different situational demands (Pelt et al 2018) and is best described as a common ability factor (Geiger et al 2018).…”

Testing competing claims about overclaiming

“…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). More precisely, the evidence that the OC bias index is predictive of faking in low-stakes settings is rather weak (Dunlop et al, 2019;Feeney & Goffin, 2015;Ludeke & Makransky, 2016;Müller & Moshagen, 2019), higher in high-stakes setting (e.g., Bing et al, 2011; al., 2019), but still not ubiquitous (Bensch et al, 2019).…”

Does multidimensional forced-choice prevent faking? Comparing the susceptibility of the multidimensional forced-choice format and the rating scale format to faking.

“…In clinical settings, faking bad is more of a concern than faking good. First evidence indicates that the psychological processes underlying faking good and faking bad may differ (Bensch, Horstmann, Greiff, & Ziegler, 2019). More research is needed to illuminate the psychological processes underlying faking good and bad and whether general desirability matching is able to reduce faking bad.…”