With the increasing popularity of noncognitive inventories in personnel selection, organizations typically wish to be able to tell when a job applicant purposefully manufactures a favorable impression. Past faking research has primarily focused on how to reduce faking via instrument design, warnings, and statistical corrections for faking. This article took a new approach by examining the effects of faking (experimentally manipulated and contextually driven) on response processes. We modified a recently introduced item response theory tree modeling procedure, the three-process model, to identify faking in two studies. Study 1 examined self-reported vocational interest assessment responses using an induced faking experimental design. Study 2 examined self-reported personality assessment responses when some people were in a high-stakes situation (i.e., selection). Across the two studies, individuals instructed or expected to fake were found to engage in more extreme responding. By identifying the underlying differences between fakers and honest respondents, the new approach improves our understanding of faking. Percentage cutoffs based on extreme responding produced a faker classification precision of 85% on average.
ArmstrongP. I.AllisonW.RoundsJ. (2008). Development and initial validation of brief public domain RIASEC marker scales. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(2), 287–299.
2.
AustinE. J.DearyI. J.EganV. (2006). Individual differences in response scale use: Mixed Rasch modelling of responses to NEO-FFI items. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1235–1245.
3.
BachmanJ. G.O’MalleyP. M. (1984). Yea-saying, nay-saying, and going to extremes: Black-White differences in response styles. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48(2), 491–509.
4.
BarrickM. R.MountM. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.
5.
BarrickM. R.MountM. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 261–272.
6.
BenschD.MaaßU.GreiffS.HorstmannK. T.ZieglerM. (2019). The nature of faking: A homogeneous and predictable construct?Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 532–544.
7.
BirkelandS. A.MansonT. M.KisamoreJ. L.BrannickM. T.SmithM. A. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of job applicant faking on personality measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(4), 317–335.
8.
BöckenholtU. (2013). Modeling multiple response processes in judgment and choice. Psychological Methods, 17, 665–678.
BussD. M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1214–1221.
11.
CaoM. (2016). Examining the fakability of forced-choice individual differences measures[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
12.
CaoM.DrasgowF. (2019). Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-choice personality measures in high-stakes situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(11), 1347–1368.
13.
CaoM.DrasgowF.ChoS. (2015). Developing ideal intermediate personality items for the ideal point model. Organizational Research Methods, 18(2), 252–275.
14.
CaoM.SongQ. C.DrasgowF.RoundsJ. (2014). Testing cross-cultural measurement equivalence of an ideal-point-based vocational interest scale. In SawhneyG.CigularovK. P.(Co-chairs), Measurement Equivalence of Personality Measures Across Different Methods and Cultures. Symposium presented at the 29th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI.
15.
CarterN. T.DalalD. K. (2010). An ideal point account of the JDI Work satisfaction scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(7), 743–748.
16.
CarterN. T.DalalD. K.GuanL.LoPilatoA. C.WithrowS. A. (2017). Item response theory scoring and the detection of curvilinear relationships. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 191–203.
17.
ChernyshenkoO. S.StarkS.DrasgowF.RobertsB. W. (2007). Constructing personality scales under the assumptions of an ideal point response process: Toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures. Psychological Assessment, 19(1), 88–106.
18.
ChoS.DrasgowF.CaoM. (2015). An investigation of emotional intelligence measures using item response theory. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1241–1252.
19.
ChristiansenN. D.GoffinR. D.JohnstonN. G.RothsteinM. G. (1994). Correcting the 16PF for faking: Effects on criterion-related validity and individual hiring decisions. Personnel Psychology, 47(4), 847–860.
20.
De BoeckP.PartchevI. (2012). IRTrees: Tree-based item response models of the GLMM family. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(1), 1–28.
21.
De VriesR. E.ZettlerI.HilbigB. E. (2014). Rethinking trait conceptions of social desirability scales: Impression management as an expression of honesty-humility. Assessment, 21(3), 286–299.
22.
DilchertS.OnesD. S.ViswesvaranC.DellerJ. (2006). Response distortion in personality measurement: Born to deceive, yet capable of providing valid self-assessments?Psychology Science, 48(3), 209–225.
23.
DiTrapaniJ.JeonM.De BoeckP.PartchevI. (2016). Attempting to differentiate fast and slow intelligence: Using generalized item response trees to examine the role of speed on intelligence tests. Intelligence, 56, 82–92.
24.
DonovanJ. J.DwightS. A.HurtzG. M. (2003). An assessment of the prevalence, severity, and verifiability of entry-level applicant faking using the randomized response technique. Human Performance, 16(1), 81–106.
25.
DrasgowF.ChernyshenkoO. S.StarkS. (2010). 75 years after Likert: Thurstone was right!. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(4), 465–476.
26.
DrasgowF.HulinC. L. (1990). Item response theory. In DunnetteM. D.HoughL. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 577–636). Consulting Psychologists Press.
27.
EllingsonJ. E.SackettP. R.ConnellyB. S. (2007). Personality assessment across selection and development contexts: Insights into response distortion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 386–395.
28.
EmmonsR. A.DienerE. D.LarsenR. J. (1986). Choice and avoidance of everyday situations and affect congruence: Two models of reciprocal interactionism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 815–826.
29.
FosterG. C.MinH.ZickarM. J. (2017). Review of item response theory practices in organizational research: Lessons learned and paths forward. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 465–486.
30.
FujimotoK. A. (2019). The Bayesian multilevel trifactor item response theory model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79(3), 462–494.
31.
GarryR. (1953). Individual differences in ability to fake vocational interests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(1), 33–37.
32.
GehmanW. S. (1957). A study of ability to fake scores on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for men. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 17(1), 65–70.
33.
GillisJ.RogersR.DickesS. (1990). The detection of faking bad response styles on the MMPI. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 22, 408–416.
34.
GlasC. A.PimentelJ. L. (2008). Modeling nonignorable missing data in speeded tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(6), 907–922.
35.
GoughH. G. (1950). The F minus K dissimulation index for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 14, 408–413.
36.
GrayC. W. (1959). Detection of faking in vocational interest measurement[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Minnesota.
37.
GriffithR. L.ChmielowskiT.YoshitaY. (2007). Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicant faking behavior. Personnel Review, 36(3), 341–355.
38.
GriffithR. L.McDanielM. (2006). The nature of deception and applicant faking behavior. In GriffithR. L.PetersonM. H. (Eds.), A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 1–19). Information Age.
39.
HensherD.RoseJ.GreeneW. (2015). Applied choice analysis. Cambridge University Press.
HoldenR. R. (2007). Socially desirable responding does moderate personality scale validity both in experimental and in nonexperimental contexts. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 39(3), 184–201.
42.
HolmanR.GlasC. A. (2005). Modelling non-ignorable missing-data mechanisms with item response theory models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 58(1), 1–17.
43.
HoughL. M.EatonN. K.DunnetteM. D.KampJ. D.McCloyR. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 581–595.
44.
HoughL. M.OswaldF. L. (2008). Personality testing and industrial–organizational psychology: Reflections, progress, and prospects. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(3), 272–290.
45.
JeonM.De BoeckP. (2016). A generalized item response tree model for psychological assessments. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 1070–1085.
46.
JeongY. R.ChristiansenN. D.RobieC.KungM. C.KinneyT. B. (2017). Comparing applicants and incumbents: Effects of response distortion on mean scores and validity of personality measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 25(3), 311–315.
47.
KangS. M.WallerN. G. (2005). Moderated multiple regression, spurious interaction effects, and IRT. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29(2), 87–105.
48.
KurtzJ. E.BuppL. L.HenkC. M. (2015). Novel approaches to adjusting for positive response distortion with the Personality Assessment Inventory. In KumarU (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of personality assessment (pp. 374–386). John Wiley.
49.
LaHuisD. M.BlackmoreC. E.Bryant-LeesK. B.DelgadoK. (2019). Applying item response trees to personality data in the selection context. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 1007–1018.
50.
LangJ. W. B.LievensF.De FruytF.ZettlerI.TackettJ. L. (2019). Assessing meaningful within-person variability in Likert-scale rated personality descriptions: An IRT tree approach. Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 474–487.
51.
LangJ. W. B.TayL. (2021). The science and practice of item response theory in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 8(1), 311–338.
52.
LanyonR. I. (1993). Development of scales to assess specific deception strategies in the Psychological Screening Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 5, 324–329.
53.
LawS. J.BourdageJ.O’NeillT. A. (2016). To fake or not to fake: Antecedents to interview faking, warning instructions, and its impact on applicant reactions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1771.
54.
LievensF.LangJ. W. B.De FruytF.CorstjensJ.Van de VijverM.BledowR. (2018). The predictive power of people’s intraindividual variability across situations: Implementing whole trait theory in assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(7), 753–771.
55.
LongstaffH. P. (1948). Fakability of the Strong Interest Blank and the Kuder Preference Record. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(4), 360–369.
56.
McFaddenD. (2001). Economic choices. American Economic Review, 91(3), 351–378.
57.
McFarlandL. A.RyanA. M.EllisA. (2002). Item placement on a personality measure: Effects on faking behavior and test measurement properties. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78(2), 348–369.
58.
MorgesonF. P.CampionM. A.DipboyeR. L.HollenbeckJ. R.MurphyK.SchmittN. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 683–729.
59.
MüllerS.MoshagenM. (2019). True virtue, self-presentation, or both? A behavioral test of impression management and overclaiming. Psychological Assessment, 31(2), 181–191.
NyeC. D.JooS. H.ZhangB.StarkS. (2020). Advancing and evaluating IRT model data fit indices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 23(3), 457–486.
62.
NyeC. D.SuR.RoundsJ.DrasgowF. (2012). Vocational interests and performance: A quantitative summary of over 60 years of research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 384–403.
63.
NyeC. D.SuR.RoundsJ.DrasgowF. (2017). Interest congruence and performance: Revisiting recent meta-analytic findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 138–151.
64.
O’NeillT. A.LeeN. M.RadanJ.LawS. J.LewisR. J.CarswellJ. J. (2013). The impact of “non-targeted traits” on personality test faking, hiring, and workplace deviance. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(2), 162–168.
65.
OnesD. S.ViswesvaranC.SchmidtF. L. (2003). Personality and absenteeism: A meta-analysis of integrity tests. European Journal of Personality, 17(1), 19–38.
66.
OswaldF. L.HoughL. M. (2008). Personality testing and industrial–organizational psychology: A productive exchange and some future directions. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(3), 323–332.
67.
PaceV. L.BormanW. C. (2006). The use of warning to discourage faking on noncognitive inventories. In SvyantekD.GriffithR. L.PetersonM. H. (Eds.), A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 283–301). Information Age.
68.
PartchevI.De BoeckP. (2012). Can fast and slow intelligence be differentiated?Intelligence, 40(1), 23–32.
69.
PaulhusD. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In BraunH. I.JacksonD. N.WileyD. E. (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–69). Lawrence Erlbaum.
70.
PlieningerH. (2020). Developing and applying IR-tree models: Guidelines, caveats, and an extension to multiple groups. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120911096
71.
PlieningerH.MeiserT. (2014). Validity of multiprocess IRT models for separating content and response styles. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(5), 875–899.
72.
PloyhartR.SchmittN.TippinsN. (2017). Solving the supreme problem: 100 years of selection and recruitment at the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 291–304.
73.
RobertsJ. S.DonoghueJ. R.LaughlinJ. E. (2000). A general item response theory model for unfolding unidimensional polytomous responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(1), 3–32.
74.
SackettP.LievensF.Van IddekingeC.KuncelN. (2017). Individual differences and their measurement: A review of 100 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 254–273.
75.
ScherbaumC. A.SabetJ.KernM. J.AgnelloP. (2013). Examining faking on personality inventories using unfolding item response theory models. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 207–216.
76.
SchmitM. J.RyanA. M. (1993). The Big Five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 966–974.
77.
StarkS.ChernyshenkoO. S.DrasgowF.WilliamsB. A. (2006). Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: Should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring?Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 25–39.
78.
SteinbergL.MonahanK. C. (2007). Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1531–1543.
79.
StephensonR. R. (1962). Dimensions of educational-vocational test interpretation technique. American Psychologist, 17(6), 337–338.
80.
SunT.FraleyR. C.DrasgowF. (2020). Matches made with information: Fitting measurement models to adult attachment data. Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120971847
81.
SunT.ZhangB.PhanW. M. J.DrasgowF.RobertsB. W. (2019). “Meh!”: Examining midpoint endorsement habitude (MEH) in survey research. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2019(1), 16421.
82.
TayL.DrasgowF.RoundsJ.WilliamsB. A. (2009). Fitting measurement models to vocational interest data: Are dominance models ideal?Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1287–1304.
83.
UzielL. (2014). Impression management (“lie”) scales are associated with interpersonally oriented self-control, not other-deception. Journal of Personality, 82(3), 200–212.
84.
Van Der ArkL. A. (2001). Relationships and properties of polytomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(3), 273–282.
85.
Van IddekingeC. H.PutkaD. J.CampbellJ. P. (2011). Reconsidering vocational interests for personnel selection: The validity of an interest-based selection test in relation to job knowledge, job performance, and continuance intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 13–33.
86.
ViswesvaranC.OnesD. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(2), 197–210.
87.
WangW. C.WuS. L. (2011). The random-effect generalized rating scale model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 48(4), 441–456.
88.
WrightS. B.MatlenB. J.BaymC. L.FerrerE.BungeS. A. (2008). Neural correlates of fluid reasoning in children and adults. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 1(8), 1–8.
89.
ZettlerI.LangJ. W.HülshegerU. R.HilbigB. E. (2016). Dissociating indifferent, directional, and extreme responding in personality data: Applying the three-process model to self-and observer reports. Journal of Personality, 84(4), 461–472.
90.
ZhangB. (2020). Disentangling substantive responses from faking: Statistical and practical performance of the Bayesian Retrieve-Edit-Select model[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
91.
ZhangB.CaoM.TayL.LuoJ.DrasgowF. (2020). Examining the item response process to personality measures in high-stakes situations: Issues of measurement validity and predictive validity. Personnel Psychology, 73(2), 305–332.
92.
ZhangB.SunT.DrasgowF.ChernyshenkoS.NyeC. D.StarkS.WhiteL. (2020). Though forced, still valid: Psychometric equivalence of forced-choice and single-statement measures. Organizational Research Methods, 23(3), 569–590.
93.
ZickarM. J.DrasgowF. (1996). Detecting faking on a personality instrument using appropriateness measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 71–87.
94.
ZickarM. J.GibbyR. E.RobieC. (2004). Uncovering faking samples in applicant, incumbent, and experimental data sets: An application of mixed-model item response theory. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 168–190.
95.
ZickarM. J.RobieC. (1999). Modeling faking good on personality items: An item-level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 551–563.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
