Recent investigations suggest that the five factors are highly susceptible to faking. Three studies are presented that address the effects of positive self-presentational set on the revised edition of the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). Study 1 involves a within-subjects design (N = 100) for the purposes of determining the effects of positive self-presentation on NEO PI-R domain and facet scales. Study 2 reports the development of two multivariate functions for the classification of fake-good protocols and provides results supporting the generalizability of these equations. Finally, Study 3 addresses the issue of specificity in a low base-rates sample (N = 254) and lends further evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity of these functions. These findings suggest that the NEO PI-R is clearly vulnerable to faking and support the contention that profiles derived under socially desirable conditions can be accurately identified.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaerR. A.WetterM. W.BerryD. T. R. (1992). Detection of underreporting of psychopathology on the MMPI: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 509–525
2.
BailleyS. E.RossS. R. (1996, May). The effects of simulated faking on the Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Poster session presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL
3.
BaloghD.MerrittR. D. (1996). Using diagnostic efficiency statistics to evaluate the concurrent validity of the perceptual aberration scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 321–336
4.
Ben-PorathY. S.WallerN. G. (1992a). Five big issues in clinical assessment: A rejoinder to Costa and McCrae. Psychological Assessment, 4, 23–25
5.
Ben-PorathY. S.WallerN. G. (1992b). “Normal” personality inventories in clinical assessment: General requirements and the potential for using the NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 14–19
6.
BlockJ. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215
7.
BorgattaF. (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Behavioral Science, 12, 8–17
8.
ButcherJ. N. (1994, August). Trends in personality assessment: What will the new century be like? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA
9.
ButcherJ. N.DahlstromW. G.GrahamJ. R.TellegenA.KaemmerB. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press
10.
CashelM. L.RogersR.SewellK.Martin-CanniciC. (1995). The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and the detection of defensiveness. Assessment, 2, 333–342
11.
ComreyA. L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 754–761
12.
CostaP. T.Jr.McCraeR. R. (1992a). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5–13
13.
CostaP. T.Jr.McCraeR. R. (1992b). Reply to Ben-Porath and Waller. Psychological Assessment, 4, 20–22
14.
CostaP. T.Jr.McCraeR. R. (1992c). Professional manual for the revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources
15.
CostaP. T.Jr.WidigerT. A. (1994). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
16.
CrownD.MarloweD. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354
17.
DigmanJ. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440
18.
DigmanJ. M.Takemoto-ChockN. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality: Reanalysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 149–170
19.
EysenckH. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5, or 3?—Criteria for a toxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773–790
20.
EysenckH. J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 667–673
21.
GoldbergL. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42
22.
GordonM. E.GrossR. H. (1978). A critique of methods for operationalizing the concept of fakeability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 771–782
23.
HoughL. M. (1992). The “big five” personality variables—construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155
24.
JohnO. P. (1990). The “big five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In PervinL. A. (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66–100). New York: Guilford
25.
LautenschlagerG. J. (1986). Within-subject measures for the assessment of individual differences in faking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 309–316
26.
McAdamsD. P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60, 329–361
27.
McCraeR. R. (1986). Well-being scales do not measure social desirability. Journal of Gerontology, 41, 390–392
28.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882–888
29.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr. (1991). The NEO Personality Inventory: Using the five-factor model in counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 367–376
30.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr.DahlstromW. G.BarefootJ. C.SieglerI. C.WilliamsR. B.Jr. (1989). A caution on the use of the MMPI K-correction in research on psychosomatic medicine. Psychosomatic Medicine, 51, 58–65
31.
McKinleyJ. C.HathawayS. R.MeehlP. E. (1948). The MMPI: VI. The K scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 12, 20–31
32.
MeehlP. E.HathawayS. R. (1946). The K factor as a suppressor variable in the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30, 525–564
NormanW. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574–583
PaulhusD. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609
37.
PaulhusD. L. (1986). Self-deception and impression management in test responses. In AngleitnerA.WigginsJ. S. (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaire (pp. 142–165). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag
38.
PaulhusD. L. (1990). Measurement and control of response bias. In RobinsonJ. P.ShaverP. R.WrightsmanL. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social-psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press
39.
PaulhusD. L.BruceM. N.TrapnellP. D. (1995). Effects of self-presentation strategies on personality profiles and their structure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 100–107
40.
RogersR. (1988). Researching dissimulation. In RogersR. (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (pp. 309–327). New York: Guilford
41.
ScandellD. J.WlazelekB. G. (1996). Self-presentation strategies on the NEO-Five Factor Inventory: Implications for detecting faking. Psychological Reports, 79, 1115–1121
42.
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
43.
ShedlerJ.MaymanM.ManisM. (1993). The illusion of mental health. American Psychologist, 48, 1117–1131
44.
SnowW. (1992, February). Implications of base rates for the diagnosis of malingering. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society, San Diego, CA
45.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins
