| Popis: |
This study’s main argument was that faking on personality tests is a function ofintelligence, personality (adaptive and maladaptive), and values. I expected that highly intelligentfakers would successfully fake the job-relevant traits for the job they were either already holding(incumbents) or have been applying for (applicants). I used archival data provided by HoganAssessment Systems, and respondents were either applicants (N=1073) or incumbents (N=793)within the managerial job family. All respondents had taken the Hogan Personality Inventory(HPI), the Hogan Development Survey (HDS), the Motives, Values, and Preferences Inventory(MVPI), and the Hogan Business Reasoning Inventory (HBRI). I used the method of mixedmodelitem response theory with covariates (MMI-IRT-C) and the statistical software LatentGold to estimate latent classes of respondents on the HPI items. To isolate the latent classes, Ientered HBRI’s raw scores and the assessment reason (applicants or incumbent) as covariatesand used the items of each HPI’s main scale as observed indicators of these classes. I extractedbetween two and four latent classes of respondents for each of the seven HPI main scales. Usingvarious indicators of faking such as significantly more applicants than incumbents within a latentclass, higher HPI scale scores for applicants, decreased internal reliabilities, and very lowdifficulty parameters, I identified and categorized three groups of respondents – honest, standardfaking, and a third group which I tentatively called deceptive faking. Although the deceptivefaking group represented the most intelligent respondents, their HPI main scale scores were notsignificantly different than honest respondents’ scores, whereas standard faking respondents’scores were significantly higher than honest respondents’ scores except for the Sociability scale.In terms of maladaptive personality, which was explored through the HDS, contrary tohypothesized, deceptive fakers were not more Machiavellian, more narcissistic, nor lesspsychopathic than honest respondents. In terms of personal values, which was explored throughthe MVPI, contrary to hypothesized, deceptive fakers were not more power-oriented, lesstraditional,or less-altruistic than honest respondents. However, deceptive fakers were seekingmore recognition than honest and standard faking respondents. The latter were the leastmanipulative and psychopathic, as well as most traditional and altruistic group of respondents,which brings into question if they have faked the HDS and MVPI tests as well. Intelligenceappears to not help test takers fake better, whereas exaggeration across all personality itemsappears to be successful faking strategy. Respondents’ personality or higher intelligence mightnot be the driving factors of faking. In contrast, respondents’ motivation and the test-takingsituation itself might be more consequential for faking. Personality researchers,psychometricians, and human resources practitioners are encouraged to use situationalconstraints, multidimensional personality inventories, biographical and other-report data to limitthe practice of faking. |
