Although Costa and McCrae have indicated that respondents can strategically self-present on the NEO-Five Factor, Inventory when instructed to do so, little research has examined the situational factors related to the motivation to self-present. This study examined feedback expectancy concerning test performance as one variable that might have relevance to strategic self-presentation on the NEO-Five Factor Inventory. Participants (N = 108) completed the inventory under one of three feedback expectancy conditions: public feedback, private feedback, or a control condition. Multiple analyses of variance indicated no significant differences on the inventory's domain scores among conditions, suggesting that feedback expectancy was not related to performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarrickM. R., & MountM. K. (1991) The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
2.
Ben-PorathY. S., & WallerN. G. (1992) “Normal” personality inventories in clinical assessment: general requirements and potential for using the NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 14–19.
3.
CostaP. T.Jr., & McCraeR. R. (1992) Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO-Five Factor Inventory professional manual, Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
4.
CostaP. T.Jr., McCraeR. R., & HollandJ. L. (1984) Personality and vocational interests in an adult sample. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 390–400.
5.
ExnerJ. E. (1973) The self-focus sentence completion: a study of egocentricity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 37, 437–455.
6.
FurnhamA. F. (1986) Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and individual Differences, 11, 711–716.
7.
FurnhamA. F. (1997) Knowing and faking one's Five-Factor personality scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 229–243.
8.
GoldbergL. R. (1993) The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.
9.
HassR. G. (1984) Perspective taking and self-awareness: drawing an E on your forehead. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 788–798.
10.
MarshallG. N., WortmanC. B., VickersR. R., KusulasJ. W., & HervigL. K. (1994) The five-factor model of personality as a framework for personality-health research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 278–286.
11.
McCraeR. R. (1991) The five-factor model and its assessment in clinical settings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 399–414.
12.
MeloyJ. R. (1992) Revisiting the Rorschach of Sirhan Sirhan. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 548–570.
13.
MillerT. R. (1991) The psychotherapeutic utility of the five-factor model of personality: a clinician's experience. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 415–433.
14.
NicholsD. S., & GreeneR. L. (1997) Dimensions of deception in personality assessment: the example of the MMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 251–266.
15.
PaulhusD. L. (1984) Two component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.
16.
PaulhusD. L., BruceN. M., & TrapnellP. D. (1995) Effects of self-presentational strategies on personality profiles and their structure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 100–108.
17.
RossS. R., BailleyS. E., & MillisS. R. (1997) Positive self-presentation effects and the detection of defensiveness on the NEO PI-R. Assessment, 4, 395–408.
18.
RosseJ. G., StecherM. D., MillerJ. L., & LevinR. A. (1998) The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 634–644.
19.
ScandellD. J., & WlazelekB. (1996) The effects of self-presentational strategies on the NEO: implications for detecting faking. Psychological Reports, 79, 1115–1121.
20.
ScandellD. J., & WlazelrkB. (1999) The relationship between self-perceived personality and impression management on the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 147–154.
21.
SchinkaJ. A., KinderB. N., & KremerT. (1997) Research validity scales for the NEO-PI-R: development and initial validation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 127–138.
22.
SnyderM. (1974) The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526–537.
23.
SnyderM., & GangestadS. (1986) On the nature of self-monitoring: matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 125–139.
24.
TokarD. M., & SwansonJ. L. (1995) Evaluation of the correspondence between Holland's vocational personality typology and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 89–108.
25.
ToppingsG. D., & O'GormanJ. G. (1997) Effects of faking set on validity of the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 117–124.
