The Role of Neuroscience Information in Choosing a Personality Test: Not as seductive as expected

Abstract

There is a large number of different personality tests used by practitioners for selection purposes, many of which are promoted by commercial test publishers and do not measure the Big Five. The present study examined one particular promotion factor used by at least one successful personality test: the influence of a link between the brain and personality on the decision for or against a personality test. This factor was chosen as past research has demonstrated the seductive appeal of neuroscience information on judgments in other areas. Three samples consisting of human resource practitioners, business management students, and psychology students rated two versions of a fictitious personality test, one with neuroscience information and one without. Contrary to our expectations, the personality test with neuroscience information was rated more negatively than the same test without this information. Human resource practitioners in particular reacted negatively, whereas psychology students were not influenced by our manipulation.

Who Overrates, Who Underrates? Personality and Its Link to Self–Other Agreement of Leadership Effectiveness

“…While the Big Five are extensively used in research, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) model continues to be the most widely used personality model in management counseling (Caplan, 2003; Diekmann, König, & Alles, 2015; Ginevra, Nota, Heppner, Heppner, & Soresi, 2014). Studying this measure clearly helps inform people on when and how to use it.…”

“…The MBTI was selected for several reasons. First, the MBTI is the most popular and commonly used personality measure in coaching (Diekmann et al, 2015; Ginevra et al, 2014). Thus, its use is a clear chance because it helps inform coaches and HR managers on when and how to use the MBTI.…”

Neuroscience explanations really do satisfy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the seductive allure of neuroscience

“…Expert knowledge of a relevant field tends to confer immunity to the impact of extraneous neuroscience. This is true not only of neuroscientists (Weisberg et al, 2008), but also experts in personnel selection who evaluated a personality test with neuroscience information (Diekmann et al, 2015). However, this ability to identify irrelevant neuroscience appears to be very domain-specific, given that the SANE effect is seen in scientists from other fields (Hopkins et al, 2019), and appears to require at least an undergraduate degree in a relevant major.…”

“…Initial screening was conducted by one author (PJM). Exclusion decisions after screening were made jointly between authors based on the following characteristics: Population: We include only laypeople as study participants, because expertise protects against the SANE effect (Diekmann et al, 2015;Hopkins et al, 2019;Weisberg et al, 2008;cf. Bulut et al, 2022).…”

People’s explanatory preferences for scientific phenomena

“…Participants tended to accurately judge the bad explanations as less satisfying than the good ones, but they also judged that explanations containing irrelevant neuroscience language were more satisfying, particularly the bad ones (Weisberg, Keil, Goodstein, Rawson, & Gray, 2008 ). Although neuroscience information is not seductive in all circumstances (Diekmann, König, & Alles, 2015 ; Scurich & Shniderman, 2014 ), this effect has been replicated both directly (Fernandez-Duque, Evans, Christian, & Hodges, 2015 ; Weisberg, Taylor, & Hopkins, 2015 ) and conceptually (Rhodes, Rodriguez, & Shah, 2014 ). Additionally, similar effects have been found in other domains.…”