Effect of job applicant faking and cognitive ability on self-other agreement and criterion validity of personality assessments

This study examined the effect of job applicant faking on the validity of personality assessments, including self-other correlations, criterion validity, and cognitive ability correlates. By using a large sample, multiple other-raters, a repeated-measures design, and a realistic simulated job application, it sought to provide the most precise estimates to date of the effect of the applicant context on self-other correlations, as well as the influence of cognitive ability on faking. Undergraduate psychology students (n = 584) completed a measure of Big Five personality (i.e., International Personality Item Pool NEO) in both a low-stakes and a simulated job applicant context. Participants completed measures of intelligence (i.e., International Cognitive Ability Resource) and personality-relevant objective criteria (e.g., university grades), and had an average of 3 other raters rate their personality (n = 1831). Responses to the Big Five scales were more socially desirable in the applicant context (average d = 0.58), with notable decreases in reported Neuroticism and increases in Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Extraversion. Average self-other correlations declined by 24% from .59 in the low-stakes to .45 in the applicant context. Cognitive ability was positively correlated with magnitude of faking. In the applicant context, criterion validities declined minimally. Results suggest response distortion by job applicants results in modest reductions in the accuracy and criterion validity of personality assessments.

Automated summary

This study examined the effect of job applicant faking on the validity of personality assessments and found that response distortion by job applicants leads to modest reductions in the accuracy and criterion validity of personality assessments.