Egoistic and moralistic bias in real-life inventory responses

Personality and Individual Differences

Volumn 45, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 307-311

  Honkaniemi, Laura ^a   Feldt, Taru ^b  

^a FINNISH INSTITUTE OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

Author keywords

Egoistic; Faking; Moralistic; Personnel assessment; PRF; Socially desirable responding

Indexed keywords

EID: 45649083922     PISSN: 01918869     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.018     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Barrick M.R., and Mount M.K. Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology 81 3 (1996) 261-272
2. Birkeland S.A., Manson T.M., Kisamore J.L., Brannick M.T., and Smith M.A. A meta-analytic investigation of job applicant faking on personality measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 14 4 (2006) 317-335
3. Butcher J.N., Atlis M.M., and Fang L. Effect of altered instructions on the MMPI-2 profiles of college students who are not motivated to distort their responses. Journal of Personality Assessment 75 3 (2000) 492-501
4. Costa P.T., and McCrae R.R. From catalogue to classification: Murray's needs and the five-factor theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55 2 (1988) 258-265
5. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual: Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, Florida.
6. Cronbach L.J. Essentials of psychological testing (1990), HarperCollins, New York
7. Ellingson J.E., Sackett P.R., and Connelly B.S. Personality assessment across selection and development contexts: Insights into response distortion. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 2 (2007) 386-395
8. Ellingson J.E., Sackett P.R., and Hough L.M. Social desirability corrections in personality measurement: Issues of applicant comparison and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology 84 2 (1999) 155-166
9. Goffin R.D., and Christiansen N.D. Correcting personality tests for faking: A review of popular personality tests and an initial survey of researchers. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 11 1-2 (2003) 340-344
10. Griffin B., Hesketh B., and Grayson D. Applicants faking good: Evidence of item bias in the NEO PI-R. Personality and Individual Differences 36 7 (2004) 1545-1558
11. Hough L.M., Eaton N.K., Dunnette M.D., Kamp J.D., and McCloy R.A. Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology 75 5 (1990) 581-595
12. Jackson D.N. Personality research form, manual (1999), Sigma Assessment Systems, Port Huron
13. Kluger A.N., and Colella A. Beyond the mean bias: The effect of warning against faking on biodata item variances. Personnel Psychology 46 (1993) 763-780
14. Konstabel K., Aavik T., and Allik J. Social desirability and consensual validity of personality traits. European Journal of Personality 20 (2006) 549-566
15. Marshall M.B., de Fruyt F., Rolland J.-P., and Bagby R.M. Socially desirable responding and the factorial stability of the NEO PI-R. Psychological Assessment 17 3 (2005) 379-384
16. McFarland L.A. Warning against faking on a personality test: Effects on applicant reactions and personality test scores. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 11 4 (2003) 265-276
17. McFarland L.A., and Ryan A.M. Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology 85 5 (2000) 812-821
18. Niitamo P. PRF Personality Research Form, käsikirja (1997), Psykologien Kustannus Oy, Helsinki
19. Ones D.S., and Viswesvaran C. The effects of social desirability and faking on personality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance 11 2-3 (1998) 245-269
20. Ones D.S., Viswesvaran C., and Reiss A.D. Role of social desirability in personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology 81 6 (1996) 660-679
21. Paulhus D.L. Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46 3 (1984) 598-609
22. Paulhus D.L. Measurement and control of response bias. In: Robinson J.P., Shaver P.R., and Wrightsman L.S. (Eds). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (1991), Academic Press, San Diego, CA
23. Paulhus D.L. Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct (2002), Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey
24. Paulhus D.L., and John O.P. Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality 66 6 (1998) 1025-1060
25. Pauls C.A., and Crost N.W. Effects of faking on self-deception and impression management. Personality and Individual Differences 37 6 (2004) 1137-1151
26. Pauls C.A., and Stemmler G. Substance and bias in social desirability responding. Personality and Individual Differences 35 2 (2003) 263-275
27. Piedmont R.L., McCrae R.R., Riemann R., and Angleitner A. On the invalidity of validity scales: Evidence from self-report and observer ratings in volunteer samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 3 (2000) 582-593
28. Reid-Seiser H.L., and Fritzsche B.A. The usefulness of the NEO-PI-R positive presentation management scale for detecting response distortion in employment contexts. Personality and Individual Differences 31 (2001) 639-650
29. Rosse J.G., Stecher M.D., Miller J.L., and Levin R.A. The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology 83 4 (1998) 634-644
30. Schmit M.J., and Ryan A.M. Test-taking dispositions: A missing link?. Journal of Applied Psychology 77 5 (1992) 629-637
31. Viswesvaran C., and Ones D.S. Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement 59 2 (1999) 197-210