30 social scientists and 50 undergraduate students responded to the Phase II Profile, a widely used honesty test, with separate instructions to (1) answer candidly and, after two weeks had elapsed, to (2) answer as if the test needed to be passed to obtain a desirable job. Both groups changed a substantial number of responses suggesting that the test may be susceptible to “faking good.”
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CattellR. B.EberH.TatsuokaM. (1970) Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing.
2.
KleinmuntzB. (1967) Personality measurement: an introduction. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
3.
LoganT. C.KoettelR. C.MooreR. W. (1986) Personality correlates of a test of honesty. Psychological Reports, 59, 1015–1018.
MooreR. W.StewartR. A. (1989) Evaluating employee integrity: moral and methodological problems. Employee Responsibilities and Rights, 2, 203–216.
6.
RyanA. M.SackettP. R. (1987) Pre-employment honesty testing: fakability, reactions of test takers, and company image. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1, 248–256.
7.
SackettP. R.BurrisL. R.CallahanC. (1989) Integrity testing for personnel selection: an update. Personnel Psychology, 42, 491–529.
8.
SackettP. R.HarrisM. M. (1984) Honesty testing for personnel selection: a review and critique. Personnel Psychology, 34, 221–243.
9.
VroomV. H. (1964) Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.