Does Acquisitive Self-Presentation in Personality Self-Ratings Enhance Validity? Evidence from Two Experimental Field Studies

The aim of the present research was to demonstrate that acquisitive self-presentation in personality scales is not a barrier to their criterion-related validities in human resource contexts, but rather a means to improve them. A pilot study (Study 1) with 96 job incumbents provided preliminary positive evidence. In Study 2, in the experimental group (n=99), the instructions asked job incumbents to work on a Big-Five personality inventory (BFI-K) as if they took part in a personnel selection procedure for a personally very attractive position. In the control group (n=93) of Study 2, job incumbents were asked to answer the inventory items honestly. As expected, the correlation between the self-ratings of the motive to get along (i.e., which comprises emotional stability, conscientiousness, and agreeableness) and contextual performance assessments was significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group in Study 2. Additionally, the correlation between the self-ratings of the motive to get ahead (i.e., which comprises extraversion and openness to experience) and task performance and leadership assessments was significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group in Study 2. It is proposed that responding to a personality inventory in a human resource decision situation should be conceptualized as a workplace simulation.

[1]  Bernd Marcus.  ‘Faking’ from the Applicant's Perspective: A Theory of Self-Presentation in Personnel Selection Settings , 2009 .

[2]  Gerald R. Ferris,et al.  Personality, political skill, and job performance , 2008 .

[3]  Robert P. Tett,et al.  Personality tests at the crossroads: A response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt (2007). , 2007 .

[4]  Neal Schmitt,et al.  ARE WE GETTING FOOLED AGAIN? COMING TO TERMS WITH LIMITATIONS IN THE USE OF PERSONALITY TESTS FOR PERSONNEL SELECTION , 2007 .

[5]  T. Judge,et al.  IN SUPPORT OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT IN ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS , 2007 .

[6]  R. L. Dipboye,et al.  RECONSIDERING THE USE OF PERSONALITY TESTS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION CONTEXTS , 2007 .

[7]  Joyce Hogan,et al.  Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[8]  Robert A. Zinko,et al.  Toward a Theory of Reputation in Organizations , 2007 .

[9]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[10]  Chockalingam Viswesvaran,et al.  Response distortion in personality measurement: born to deceive, yet capable of providing valid self-assessments? , 2006 .

[11]  Beatrice Rammstedt,et al.  Kurzversion des Big Five Inventory (BFI-K): , 2005 .

[12]  Robert Hogan,et al.  In Defense of Personality Measurement: New Wine for Old Whiners , 2005 .

[13]  L. Witt,et al.  Social skill as moderator of the conscientiousness-performance relationship: convergent results across four studies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[14]  N. Schmitt,et al.  Personnel Selection and Employee Performance , 2003 .

[15]  M. Bolino,et al.  Counternormative impression management, likeability, and performance ratings: the use of intimidation in an organizational setting , 2003 .

[16]  Brent Holland,et al.  Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: a socioanalytic perspective. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[17]  G R Ferris,et al.  Interaction of social skill and general mental ability on job performance and salary. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[18]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next? , 2001 .

[19]  Chockalingam Viswesvaran,et al.  Meta-Analyses of Fakability Estimates: Implications for Personality Measurement , 1999 .

[20]  Robert Hogan,et al.  A Socioanalytic Perspective on Job Performance , 1998 .

[21]  L. Hough.  Effects of Intentional Distortion in Personality Measurement and evaluation of Suggested Palliatives , 1998 .

[22]  John W. Fleenor,et al.  Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. , 1998 .

[23]  D. Ones,et al.  The Effects of Social Desirability and Faking on Personality and Integrity Assessment for Personnel Selection , 1998 .

[24]  J. M. Digman.  Higher-order factors of the Big Five. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[25]  Chockalingam Viswesvaran,et al.  Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. , 1996 .

[26]  John L. Holland,et al.  Exploring careers with a typology: What we have learned and some new directions. , 1996 .

[27]  S. Closs.  On the factoring and interpretation of ipsative data , 1996 .

[28]  M. Schmit,et al.  Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. , 1995 .

[29]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. , 1993 .

[30]  Newell K. Eaton,et al.  Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities , 1990 .

[31]  R. Hogan,et al.  The meaning of personality test scores. , 1988 .

[32]  J. L. Holland,et al.  Making vocational choices : a theory of vocational personalities and work environments , 1984 .

[33]  John A. Johnson.  The "Self-Disclosure" and "Self-Presentation" Views of Item Response Dynamics and Personality Scale Validity , 1981 .

[34]  P. Costa,et al.  NEO inventories for the NEO Personality Inventory-3 (NEO-PI-3), NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3), NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R) : professional manual , 2010 .

[35]  D. Ones,et al.  Response distortion in personality measurement , 2006 .

[36]  Chockalingam Viswesvaran,et al.  Assessment of Individual Job Performance: A Review of the past Century and a Look Ahead , 2001 .

[37]  J. Bortz,et al.  Einführung in die Inferenzstatistik , 1998 .

[38]  J. S. Wiggins,et al.  The five-factor model of personality : theoretical perspectives , 1996 .

[39]  R. Hogan.  A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. , 1996 .

[40]  W. Borman,et al.  Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of Contextual Performance , 1993 .

[41]  Jacob Cohen.  QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN PSYCHOLOGY A Power Primer , 1992 .

[42]  L. R. Goldberg.  THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARKERS FOR THE BIG-FIVE FACTOR STRUCTURE , 1992 .

[43]  D. Paulhus.  Measurement and control of response bias. , 1991 .

[44]  F. Ostendorf,et al.  Sprache und Persönlichkeitsstruktur: zur Validität des Fünf-Faktoren-Modells der Persönlichkeit , 1990 .

[45]  R Hogan,et al.  A socioanalytic theory of personality. , 1983, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.