Cognitive ability and self-reported efficacy of self-presentation predict faking on personality measures

Journal of Individual Differences

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 194-206

  Pauls, Cornelia A ^a   Crost, Nicolas W ^a  

^a PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cognitive ability; Efficacy of positive self presentation; Faking instructions; Impression management; Personality questionnaires; Self deceptive enhancement

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847750305     PISSN: 16140001     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1614-0001.26.4.194     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Ackerman P.L., Heggestad E.D. Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin 1997, 121:219-245.
2. Alliger G.M., Lilienfeld S.O., Mitchell K.E. The susceptibility of overt and covert integrity tests to coaching and faking. Psychological Science 1996, 7:32-39.
3. Austin E.J., Deary I.J., Whiteman M.C., Fowkes F.G.R., Pedersen N.L., Rabbitt P., Bent N., McInnes L. Relationships between ability and personality: Does intelligence contribute positively to personal and social adjustment?. Personality and Individual Differences 2002, 32:1391-1411.
4. Austin E.J., Hofer S.M., Deary I.J., Eber H.W. Interactions between intelligence and personality: Results from two large samples. Personality and Individual Differences 2000, 29:405-427.
5. Ballenger J.F., Caldwell-Andrews A., Baer R.A. Effects of positive impression management on the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised in a clinical population. Psychological Assessment 2001, 13:254-260.
6. Barrick M.R., Mount M.K., Judge T.A. Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2001, 9:9-30.
7. Borkenau P., Ostendorf F. NEO-Fünf-Faktoren Inventar (NEO-FFI). [NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)] 1993, Hogrefe, Göttingen.
8. Caldwell-Andrews A., Baer R.A., Berry D.T.R. Effects of response sets on NEO-PI-R scores and their relations to external criteria. Journal of Personality Assessment 2000, 74:472-488.
9. Collins J.M., Gleaves D.H. Race, job applicants, and the Five-Factor Model of Personality: Implications for Black psychology, industrial/organizational psychology, and the Five-Factor Theory. Journal of Applied Psychology 1998, 83:531-544.
10. Costa P.T., McCrae R.R. NEO-PI-R professional manual: Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) 1992, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
11. Crowne D.P. The experimental study of personality 1979, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
12. Dunlap W.P., Cortina J.M., Vaslow J.B., Burke M.J. Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods 1996, 1:170-177.
13. Ellingson J.E., Sackett P.R., Hough L.M. Social desirability corrections in personality measurement: Issues of applicant comparison and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology 1999, 84:155-166.
14. Elliot A.G.P. Some implications of lie scale scores in real-life selection. Journal of Occupational Psychology 1981, 54:9-16.
15. Furnham A. Faking personality questionnaires: Fabricating different profiles for different purposes. Current Psychology: Research and Reviews 1990, 9:46-55.
16. Griffin B., Keseth B., Grayson D. Applicants faking good: Evidence of item bias in the NEO PI-R. Personality and Individual Differences 2004, 36:1545-1558.
17. Hogan R., Shelton D. A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human Performance 1998, 11:129-144.
18. Hogan R., Hogan J., Roberts B.W. Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist 1996, 51:469-477.
19. Hough L.M., Eaton N.K., Dunnette M.D., Kamp J.D., McCloy R.A. Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion of those validities [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology 1990, 79:252-259.
20. Jäger A.D., Althoff K. Der Wilde-Intelligenz-Test (WIT). Ein Strukturdiagnostikum. [The Wilde-Intelligence Test (WIT). Assessment of the structure of intelligence] 1994, Hogrefe, Herausgegeben von der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Personalwesen e.V. Göttingen.
21. Kroger R.O., Turnbull W. Invalidity of validity scales: The case of the MMPI. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1975, 43:48-55.
22. Mahar D., Cologon J., Duck J. Response strategies when faking personality questionnaires in a vocational selection setting. Personality and Individual Differences 1995, 18:605-609.
23. Marcus B. Persönlichkeitstests in der Personalauswahl: Sind " sozial erwünschte" Antworten wirklich nicht wünschenswert. [Personality testing in personnel selection: Is " socially desirable" responding really not desirable]?. Zeitschrift für Psychologie 2003, 211:138-148.
24. McFarland L.A., Ryan A.M. Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology 2000, 85:812-821.
25. Mersman J.L., Shultz K.S. Individual differences in the ability to fake on personality measures. Personality and Individual Differences 1998, 24:217-227.
26. Mielke R. Ein Fragebogen zur Wirksamkeit der Selbstdarstellung. [Efficacy of self-presentation questionnaire]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 1990, 21:162-170.
27. Montag I., Levin J. The five-factor personality model in applied settings. European Journal of Personality 1994, 8:1-11.
28. Paulhus D.L. Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1984, 46:598-609.
29. Paulhus D.L. Measurement and control of response bias. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. Measures of social psychological attitudes 1991, 1:17-59. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver (Eds.).
30. Paulhus D.L. Paulhus Deception Scales: Manual of the Balanced Inventory of Social Desirable Responding (BIDR-7) 1998, Multi-Health Systems, Buffalo/Toronto.
31. Paulhus D.L. Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement 2002, 49-69. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. H.I. Braun, D.N. Jackson (Eds.).
32. Paulhus D.L., John O.P. Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality 1998, 66:1025-1060.
33. Pauls C.A., Crost N.W. Effects of different instructional sets on the construct validity of the NEO-PI-R. Personality and Individual Differences 2005, 39:297-308.
34. Pauls C.A., Crost N.W. Effects of faking on self-deception and impression management scales. Personality and Individual Differences 2004, 37:1137-1151.
35. Pauls C.A., Stemmler G. Substance and bias in social desirability responding. Personality and Individual Differences 2003, 35:263-275.
36. Rosse J.G., Stecher M.D., Miller J.L., Levin R.A. The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology 1998, 83:634-644.
37. Ruch F.L., Ruch W.W. The K factor as a (validity) suppressor variable in predicting success in selling. Journal of Applied Psychology 1967, 51:201-204.
38. Sackeim H.A., Gur R.C. Self-deception, self-confrontation, and consciousness. Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research 1978, 2:139-197. Plenum, New York. G.E. Schwartz, D. Shapiro (Eds.).
39. Schmit M.J., Ryan A.M. The Big Five in organizational selection: Factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology 1993, 78:699-974.
40. Smith D.B., Ellingson J.E. Substance versus style: A new look at social desirability in motivating contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology 2002, 87:211-219.
41. Smith D.B., Hanges P.J., Dickson M.W. Personnel selection and the five-factor model: Reexamining the effects of applicant's frame of reference. Journal of Applied Psychology 2001, 86:304-315.
42. Stark S., Chernyshenko O.S., Chan K.Y., Lee W.C., Drasgow F. Effects of the testing situation on item responding: Cause for concern. Journal of Applied Psychology 2001, 86:943-953.
43. Stöber J., Dette D.E., Musch J. Comparing continuous and dichotomous scoring of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Journal of Personality Assessment 2002, 78:370-389.
44. Topping G.D., O'Gorman J.G. Effects of faking set on validity of the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual Differences 1997, 23:117-124.
45. Viswesvaran C., Ones D.S. Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1999, 59:197-210.
46. Zickar M.J., Robie C. Modeling faking good on personality items: An item-level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 1999, 84:551-563.