The relationship between cognitive ability and personality scores in selection situations: A meta‐analysis

Abstract

Several faking theories have identified applicants’ cognitive ability (CA) as a determinant of faking—the intentional distortion of answers by candidates—but the corresponding empirical findings in the area of personality tests are often ambiguous. Following the assumption that CA is important for faking, we expected applicants with high CA to show higher personality scores in selection situations, leading in this case to significant correlations between CA and personality scores, but not in nonselection situations. This meta‐analysis (66 studies, k = 115 individual samples, N = 46,265) showed this pattern of results as well as moderation effects for the study design (laboratory vs. field), the response format of the personality test, and the type of CA test.

Effect of job applicant faking and cognitive ability on self‐other agreement and criterion validity of personality assessments

“…Further empirical evidence that higher cognitive ability applicants fake more comes from the meta‐analysis of Schilling, Becker, et al (2020), who found that intelligence correlated more with personality in job applicant (including lab studies) than in low‐stakes settings (see also Christiansen et al, 2005, 2021; Davison et al, 2021; Kasten et al, 2020). However, some studies have not obtained this result.…”

Valence, Instrumentality, Expectancy, and Ability as Determinants of Faking, and the Effects of Faking on Criterion-Related Validity

“…Other research using the same version of the ICAR with a large MTurk sample did not show a gender difference (Merz et al, 2020), and thus, we suspect that the relation we observed was a sampling fluke. The association of ability with faking also emerged in other research (Geiger et al, 2018;Schilling et al, 2021) and most notably in samples where the motivation to fake is manipulated (e.g., laboratory studies with job application instructions) rather than free to vary organically. However, cognitive ability did not appear to moderate the relations of any of the motivational predictors of faking and faking itself, and thus, in contrast to VIE theory predictions, possessing requisite ability appears from this research not to be a necessary condition for a motivated person to fake effectively (Ellingson & McFarland, 2011).…”

“…For example, several studies have suggested that those higher on cognitive ability tend to be better able to identify context-relevant criteria, and fake to these more effectively (Buehl et al, 2019;Geiger et al, 2018;König et al, 2006). Further, a recent meta-analysis by Schilling et al (2021) investigated the relation of cognitive ability and trait scale scores in situations where people would be expected to fake (in lab studies with faking instructions, and in real job applications). These authors found that people higher on cognitive ability tended to produce more desirable personality profiles (e.g., being more conscientious, emotionally stable) in these assessment situations.…”

“…An advantage of the repeated measures design employed in the present study is that it is possible to measure faking directly through score differences, rather than indirectly by examining the desirability of responses in one condition only (Schilling et al, 2021). Thus, here we are able to examine cognitive ability as a moderator of relations between motivation and faking behavior itself.…”

The Criterion-Related Validity of Conscientiousness in Personnel Selection: A Meta-Analytic Reality Check

“…However, this estimate hinges upon the low correlation of conscientiousness and cognitive ability, which was estimated in samples MA CONSCIENTIOUSNESS PERFORMANCE where faking was unlikely to be an issue (e.g., Judge et al, 2007, Table 3). Given the recent evidence that conscientiousness and cognitive ability are more strongly correlated under faking (Schilling et al, 2020), and that the construct validity of self-report measures of conscientiousness are potentially affected by faking, we need improved meta-analytic estimates of the correlation of both constructs and estimates of incremental validity under faking.…”