Gamified Personality Assessment Reduces Faking and Careless Responding

Abstract

Game-like personality assessment was developed to be a quick and engaging method of measuring personality in a way that may minimize careless responding and impression management (faking). Thus far developments in game-like personality assessment have focused on iterative improvements in validity. This study is the first test of differences in both careless responding and faking between game-like and traditional personality assessment. Across two experiments participants completed both types of personality assessments; initially and again 1 to 4 weeks later with instructions to make themselves appear as desirable as possible (experiment 1), and with careless responding identification items in each measure (experiment 2). Results support the hypothesis that game-like assessment reduces both careless responding and faking compared to traditional Likert type personality assessment.

Keywords

gamified personality assessment faking careless responding gamification personality assessment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barrick

M. R.

Mount

M. K.

(1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Bowling

N. A.

Huang

J. L.

Bragg

C. B.

Khazon

Liu

Blackmore

C. E.

(2016). Who cares and who is careless? Insufficient effort responding as a reflection of respondent personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(2), 218–229.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1988). From catalog to classification: Murray’s needs and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258–265.

DeSimone

J. A.

DeSimone

A. J.

Harms

P. D.

Wood

(2018), The differential impacts of two forms of insufficient effort responding. Applied Psychology, 67, 309–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12117

Dilchert

Ones

D. S.

Viswesvaran

Deller

(2006). Response distortion in personality measurement: Born to deceive, yet capable of providing valid self-assessments. Psychology Science, 48, 209–225.

Ellingson

J. E.

Sackett

P. R.

Hough

L. M.

(1999). Social desirability corrections in personality measurement: Issues of applicant comparison and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 155–166.

Goffin

R. D.

Christiansen

N. D.

(2003). Correcting personality tests for faking: A review of popular personality tests and an initial survey of researchers. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(4), 340–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2003.00256.x

Goldberg

L. R.

Johnson

J. A.

Eber

H. W.

Hogan

Ashton

M. C.

Cloninger

C. R.

Gough

H. C.

(2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.

Griffith

R. L.

Chmielowski

Yoshita

(2007). Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicant faking behavior. Personnel Review, 36(3), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710731310

10.

Harman

J. L.

Brown

(2022). Illustrating a narrative: A test of game elements in game-like personality assessment. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 30(1), 157–166. http://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12374

11.

Harman

J. L.

Purl

(2022). Advances in Gamified personality assessment. Trends in Psychology, 32, 1445–1459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-022-00162

12.

Huang

J. L.

Liu

Bowling

N. A.

(2015). Insufficient effort responding: Examining an insidious confound in survey data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 828–845. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038510

13.

Hurtz

G. M.

Donovan

J. J.

(2000). Personality and job performance. The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.

14.

McCord

J. L.

Harman

J. L.

Purl

(2019). Game-like personality testing: An emerging mode of personality assessment. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 143, 95–102.

15.

Meade

A. W.

Bartholomew

C. S.

(2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455.

16.

Motowidlo

S. J.

Beier

M. E.

(2010). Differentiating specific job knowledge from implicit trait policies in procedural knowledge measured by a situation judgment test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 321–333.

17.

Motowidlo

S. J.

Hooper

A. C.

Jackson

H. L.

(2006). Implicit policies about relations between personality traits and behavioral effectiveness in situational judgment items. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 749–761.

18.

Mueller-Hanson

Heggestad

E. D.

Thornton

G. C.

III . (2003). Faking and selection: Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 348–355.

19.

Piedmont

R. L.

McCrae

R. R.

Riemann

Angleitner

(2000). On the invalidity of validity scales: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 582–593. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.582

20.

Stewart

G. L.

Darnold

T. C.

Zimmerman

R. D.

Parks

Dustin

S. L.

(2010). Exploring how response distortion of personality measures affects individuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 622–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.035

21.

Ward

M. K.

Meade

A. W.

(2018). Applying social psychology to prevent careless responding during online surveys. Applied Psychology, 67, 231–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12118

22.

Ziegler

MacCann

Roberts

R. D.

(2011). New perspectives on faking in personality assessment. Oxford University Press.