Do response time limitations counteract the effect of faking on personality inventory validity?

Different models of lying on personality scales make discrepant predictions on the association between faking and item response time. The current research investigated response time restriction as a method for reducing the influence of faking on personality scale validity. In 3 assessment simulations involving 540 university undergraduates responding to 2 common, psychometrically strong personality inventories, no evidence emerged to indicate that limiting respondents' answering time can attenuate the effects of faking on validity. Results were interpreted as failing to support a simple model of personality test item response dissimulation that predicts that lying takes time. Findings were consistent with models implying that lying involves primitive cognitive processing or that lying may be associated with complex processing that includes both primitive responding and cognitive overrides.

[1]  Louis M. Hsu,et al.  Faking Detection Validity and Incremental Validity of Response Latencies to MMPI Subtle and Obvious Items , 1989 .

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

[3]  Douglas N. Jackson,et al.  Personality Research Form , 1969 .

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

[5]  R. Holden,et al.  Structured psychopathological test item characteristics and validity , 1990 .

[6]  Stephen D. Johnson,et al.  Internal validity studies of a telephone preemployment measure. , 1989 .

[7]  D. Funder.  Global Traits: A Neo-Allportian Approach to Personality , 1991 .

[8]  H. O'Neil,et al.  Complete automation of the MMPI and a study of its response latencies. , 1972, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[9]  E. Helmes,et al.  Response styles and faking on the basic personality inventory. , 1986, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[10]  A. Anastasi.  Psychological testing, 6th ed. , 1988 .

[11]  Douglas N. Jackson,et al.  Personality, Vocational Interest, and Cognitive Predictors of Managerial Job Performance and Satisfaction , 1990 .

[12]  R. Holden,et al.  A model of personality test item response dissimulation. , 1992 .

[13]  Ronald R. Holden,et al.  INCREMENTAL VALIDITY OF RESPONSE LATENCIES FOR DETECTING FAKERS ON A PERSONALITY TEST , 1995 .

[14]  D. Jackson,et al.  The Impact of Faking on Employment Tests: Does Forced Choice Offer a Solution? , 2000 .

[15]  Joseph G. Rosse,et al.  The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. , 1998 .

[16]  R. Holden,et al.  Reducing MMPI-2 defensiveness: the effect of specialized instructions on retest validity in a job applicant sample. , 1997, Journal of personality assessment.

[17]  Richard H. Dana,et al.  Handbook of Cross-Cultural and Multicultural Personality Assessment , 2000 .

[18]  D. Jackson,et al.  Structured personality test item characteristics and validity , 1985 .

[19]  D. Jackson.  Personality research form manual , 1974 .

[20]  Ronald R. Holden,et al.  Assessing psychopathology using structured test-item response latencies , 1991 .

[21]  D. R. Saunders.  Moderator Variables in Prediction , 1956 .

[22]  R. Corsini,et al.  Psychology for Law Enforcement Officers , 1956 .

[23]  S. Hathaway,et al.  A Multiphasic Personality Schedule (Minnesota) : I. Construction of the Schedule , 1940 .

[24]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying. , 1978 .

[25]  D G Brunetti,et al.  Instructed faking and MMPI-2 response latencies: the potential for assessing response validity. , 1998, Journal of clinical psychology.

[26]  D. Jackson,et al.  Idiographic measurement strategies for personality and prediction: Some unredeemed promissory notes , 1985 .

[27]  D. Jackson,et al.  Disguise and the Structured Self-Report Assessment of Psychopathology: I. An Analogue Investigation. , 1985 .

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

[29]  J. O'Gorman,et al.  Effects of faking set on validity of the NEO-FFI , 1997 .

[30]  Albert A. Harrison,et al.  Cues to Deception in an Interview Situation. , 1978 .

[31]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  A power primer. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[32]  Daryl G. Kroner,et al.  Relative efficacy of differential response latencies for detecting faking on a self-report measure of psychopathology. , 1992 .

[33]  D. Paulhus.  Two-component models of socially desirable responding. , 1984 .

[34]  James W. Pennebaker,et al.  The Handbook of Mental Control , 1992 .

[35]  Paul T. Costa,et al.  From catalog to classification: Murray's needs and the five-factor model. , 1988 .

[36]  D. Paulhus,et al.  Effects of Self-Presentation Strategies on Personality Profiles and their Structure , 1995 .

[37]  Hugo Münsterberg,et al.  On the Witness Stand , 1908 .

[38]  Niels G. Waller,et al.  "Normal" Personality Inventories in Clinical Assessment: General Requirements and the Potential for Using the NEO Personality Inventory , 1992 .

[39]  M. Nowakowska.  A model of answering to a questionnaire item , 1970 .

[40]  R. Holden.  Response latency detection of fakers on personnel tests. , 1995 .

[41]  SOCIAL DESIRABILITY, ITEM-RESPONSE TIME, AND ITEM SIGNIFICANCE. , 1964, Journal of consulting psychology.

[42]  Douglas N. Jackson,et al.  Personality structure across cultures: A multimethod evaluation. , 1992 .