Evaluating the Impact of Faking on the Criterion-Related Validity of Personality Assessments

Abstract

Personality assessments are commonly used in hiring, but concerns about faking have raised doubts about their effectiveness. Qualitative reviews show mixed and inconsistent impacts of faking on criterion-related validity. To address this, a series of meta-analyses were conducted using matched samples of honest and motivated respondents (i.e., instructed to fake, applicants). In 80 paired samples, the average difference in validity coefficients between honest and motivated samples across five-factor model traits ranged from 0.05 to 0.08 (largest for conscientiousness and emotional stability), with the validity ratio ranging from 64% to 72%. Validity was attenuated when candidates faked regardless of sample type, trait relevance, or the importance of impression management, though variation existed across criterion types. Both real applicant samples (k = 25) and instructed response conditions (k = 55) showed a reduction in validity across honest and motivated conditions, including when managerial ratings of job performance were the criterion. Thus, faking impacted the validity in operational samples. This suggests that practitioners should be cautious relying upon concurrent validation evidence (for personality inventories) and expect attenuated validity in operational applicant settings, particularly for conscientiousness and emotional stability scales. That said, it is important to highlight that personality assessments generally maintained useful validity even under-motivated conditions.