Faking in Self-Report Personality Scales: A Qualitative Analysis and Taxonomy of the Behaviors That Constitute Faking Strategies

IF 2.6 4区 管理学 Q3 MANAGEMENT
Jessica Röhner, Astrid Schütz, Matthias Ziegler
{"title":"Faking in Self-Report Personality Scales: A Qualitative Analysis and Taxonomy of the Behaviors That Constitute Faking Strategies","authors":"Jessica Röhner,&nbsp;Astrid Schütz,&nbsp;Matthias Ziegler","doi":"10.1111/ijsa.12513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Faking in self-report personality scales (SRPSs) is not sufficiently understood. This limits its detection and prevention. Here, we introduce a taxonomy of faking behaviors that constitute faking strategies in SRPSs, reflecting the stages (comprehension, retrieval, judgment, and response) of the general response process model (GRPM). We reanalyzed data from two studies investigating the faking of high and low scores on Extraversion (E) and Need for Cognition (NFC) scales (Data Set 1; <i>N</i> = 305) or on an E scale (Data Set 2; <i>N</i> = 251). Participants were asked to explain exactly what they did to fake, and their responses (<i>N</i> = 533) were examined via a qualitative content analysis. The resulting taxonomy included 22 global and 13 specific behaviors that (in combination) constitute faking strategies in SRPSs. We organized the behaviors into four clusters along the stages of the GRPM. The behaviors held irrespective of the construct (E or NFC), and with two exceptions, also irrespective of the data set (Data Sets 1 or 2). Eight exceptions concerning faking direction (high or low) indicate direction-specific differences in faking behaviors. Respondents reported using not only different faking behaviors (e.g., role-playing, behaviors to avoid being detected) but also multiple combinations thereof. The suggested taxonomy is necessarily limited to the specified context, and, thus, additional faking behaviors are possible. To fully understand faking, further research in other contexts should be conducted to complement the taxonomy. Still, the complexity shown here explains why adequate detection and prevention of faking in SRPSs is so challenging.</p>","PeriodicalId":51465,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Selection and Assessment","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijsa.12513","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Selection and Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijsa.12513","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Faking in self-report personality scales (SRPSs) is not sufficiently understood. This limits its detection and prevention. Here, we introduce a taxonomy of faking behaviors that constitute faking strategies in SRPSs, reflecting the stages (comprehension, retrieval, judgment, and response) of the general response process model (GRPM). We reanalyzed data from two studies investigating the faking of high and low scores on Extraversion (E) and Need for Cognition (NFC) scales (Data Set 1; N = 305) or on an E scale (Data Set 2; N = 251). Participants were asked to explain exactly what they did to fake, and their responses (N = 533) were examined via a qualitative content analysis. The resulting taxonomy included 22 global and 13 specific behaviors that (in combination) constitute faking strategies in SRPSs. We organized the behaviors into four clusters along the stages of the GRPM. The behaviors held irrespective of the construct (E or NFC), and with two exceptions, also irrespective of the data set (Data Sets 1 or 2). Eight exceptions concerning faking direction (high or low) indicate direction-specific differences in faking behaviors. Respondents reported using not only different faking behaviors (e.g., role-playing, behaviors to avoid being detected) but also multiple combinations thereof. The suggested taxonomy is necessarily limited to the specified context, and, thus, additional faking behaviors are possible. To fully understand faking, further research in other contexts should be conducted to complement the taxonomy. Still, the complexity shown here explains why adequate detection and prevention of faking in SRPSs is so challenging.

Abstract Image

自我报告人格量表中的伪装:构成伪装策略的行为的定性分析和分类
自我报告型人格量表(SRPSs)中的虚假还没有得到充分的理解。这限制了它的检测和预防。在此,我们介绍了在srps中构成假装策略的假装行为分类,反映了一般反应过程模型(GRPM)的阶段(理解、检索、判断和反应)。我们重新分析了两项调查外倾性(E)和认知需要(NFC)量表高分和低分伪造的研究数据(数据集1;N = 305)或E级(数据集2;n = 251)。参与者被要求准确解释他们做了什么,他们的回答(N = 533)通过定性内容分析进行检验。最终的分类包括22种全局行为和13种特定行为,这些行为(结合起来)构成了srps中的伪造策略。我们沿着GRPM的各个阶段将这些行为分为四类。这些行为与结构(E或NFC)无关,也与数据集(数据集1或2)无关。与伪造方向(高或低)有关的8个例外表明伪造行为的方向特异性差异。受访者报告说,他们不仅使用不同的伪装行为(例如,角色扮演、避免被发现的行为),而且还使用多种伪装行为的组合。建议的分类法必须限制在指定的上下文中,因此可能会有额外的伪造行为。为了充分了解假体,需要在其他背景下进行进一步的研究,以补充该分类。尽管如此,这里显示的复杂性解释了为什么充分检测和预防SRPSs造假是如此具有挑战性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
31.80%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Selection and Assessment publishes original articles related to all aspects of personnel selection, staffing, and assessment in organizations. Using an effective combination of academic research with professional-led best practice, IJSA aims to develop new knowledge and understanding in these important areas of work psychology and contemporary workforce management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信