The use of personality tests for purposes of personality assessment is often criticized on the grounds that such tests can
be manipulated by the person taking them. As a result of this
widespread view, the use of personality tests in HR has become less popular. Yet test experts and users agree that
personality tests and questionnaires can make an important
contribution to decision-making in HR and can improve the
strike rate.
Regardless of whether personality questionnaires are used for
subjective self-description or objective self-assessment, they
are an important HT tool – provided that they are used correctly and evaluated responsibly. The following background
information and expert opinions are bound to be helpful –
especially for skeptics – in deciding for or against personality
assessment.
Most people have a need for positive self-esteem. As a result,
the self-descriptions elicited in self-assessment are ones that
protect the individual’s self-esteem. This is not necessarily the
result of a deliberate process: in order to boost their selfesteem, people are often selective – they focus on factors that
are good for their self-esteem and ignore less flattering aspects (Rentzsch & Schütz, 2009).
The test situation itself can also hinder realistic appraisal of
one’s personality and influence the way individuals portray
themselves: people try to give the person they are dealing
with a particular and deliberately evoked image of themselves
– usually a favorable one (Rentzsch & Schütz, 2009). If this
image conforms with social norms, psychologists describe it
as being influenced by social desirability. Flattering selfdescription and faking in the form of giving socially desirable
responses come under the heading of “faking good”. Faking
good is particularly relevant in recruitment situations: creating
Personality questionnaires can provide insight into various aspects of personality and in combination with other
tests can yield an all-round picture of an individual’s
personality.
Fotocredit: Shutterstock
a favorable impression can increase the likelihood of landing
the desired job (Rentzsch & Schütz, 2009).
By contrast, deliberately poor performance in the form of
“faking bad” is far less common (Rentzsch & Schütz, 2009); it
usually occurs in situations in which it is expected to yield
benefits, such as eligibility for early retirement or compensation payments.
In general, faking good occurs only in personality questionnaires and not in ability tests, since in a test such as a logical
reasoning test it is impossible to portray oneself as better than
one actually is (Rentzsch & Schütz, 2009). Despite the fact
that they can be manipulated, personality tests are a useful
tool in human resources work.
It is usually assumed that people who complete questionnaires and personality tests deliberately distort their answers
and attempt to portray themselves in a flattering light. However, studies suggest that the truth is more complex and that
socially competent people are in fact motivated to portray
themselves as accurately as possible (Laux & Renner, 2002).
According to a meta-analysis by Birkeland, Manson, Kisamore, Brannick and Smith (2006), faking good occurs far
less frequently in real-life application situations than has been
assumed – in contrast to simulated application situations in
which respondents are specifically instructed to portray themselves in as good a light as possible. The extent to which
people distort their responses also depends on the personality
dimension being measured, the type of job and the type of
test.
In the assessment context there are various ways of dealing
with the tendency to portray oneself in a favorable light and
give socially desirable answers. It has already been mentioned that discrepancies between self-descriptions and descriptions by others can arise from efforts to protect one’s selfesteem and from deliberate or unconscious distortion in the
form of faking good. However, if all the candidates in a test
situation deliberately present a favorably distorted image, the
result is merely a shift in mean scores. A key issue is that the
differences between different candidates’ results are still informative (Marcus, 2003). In other words, each person in the
test situation portrays himself as somewhat better than he
does under neutral conditions – but the differences between
the individual candidates remain unchanged. Moreover, criterion validity1 in real-life application situations is unaffected by
the tendency to give socially desirable answers, because the
correlation between test result and job performance remains
the same (Marcus, 2003).
Pauls and Crost (2005) go so far as to regard social desirability as a positive variable in recruitment. They explored the
correlation between socially desirable answers on the one
hand and intelligence and other abilities on the other. The
results showed that respondents are able to adapt to different
recruitment situations and vary their tendency to give socially
desirable answers accordingly. The study also found a correlation between an individual’s tendency to give socially desirable answers and performance on an intelligence test. Thus
the tendency to give socially desirable answers should not
necessarily be regarded as jeopardizing the validity of personality tests; instead, it can be seen as an aspect of social
and cognitive competence. It demonstrates the respondent’s
ability to adapt to the requirements of the recruitment situation
1
Criterion validity describes the extent to which a test result can
predict a particular external criterion, such as job performance;
from a practical perspective it is thus the most important of a test’s
psychometric properties.
and is therefore an expression of social intelligence (Pauls &
Crost, 2005).
It is even possible to focus on the positive aspect of the tendency to give socially desirable answers and to make use of it
in recruitment. With this in mind, Marcus (2003) calculates an
“ideal employee coefficient” which describes how good an
individual is at identifying the profile that a company wants
and conforming to it in a recruitment situation. This coefficient
is calculated from the correlation between an applicant’s test
results and the hypothetical profile of an ideal employee
drawn up by the company. It was also found that people who
are better at evaluating the requirements of the recruitment
situation also receive better scores when appraised by managers (Marcus, 2003).
Faking-good strategies are usually used in direct assessment
tests, since the purpose of such tests is easy for respondents
to spot. An alternative that can reduce the distortion of test
results is the use of indirect tests. Indirect tests can also
measure factors that are not cognitively accessible to respondents themselves. In addition, indirect tests are not
transparent and it is therefore very difficult for respondents to
identify how the test operates, what its intention is and how
the results will be interpreted.
Objective personality tests are one type of indirect test. They
measure a person’s behavior in a standardized situation without requiring individuals to assess themselves. These tests
are constructed like ability tests even though they measure
personality characteristics. This means that they are not
transparent for respondents and the likelihood of faked or
distorted results is therefore greatly reduced.
An example of an objective test is the objective personality
battery Attitudes to Work (AHA). The AHA test, in which respondents are required to work simple tasks, measures impulsiveness/reflexivity as well as aspiration level, performance
motivation and frustration tolerance.
Other objective tests are the Resilience Assessment Test
Battery (BACO), which measures various aspects of stress
tolerance, and the Risk Choice objective personality test
(RISIKO). The Vienna Risk-taking Test Traffic (WRBTV) can
be used in recruitment situations in which traffic psychology
When used
appropriately,
tests can be
an important
source of
information
and guidance
in human
resources.
Fotocredit:
Shutterstock
issues are relevant.
Semi-projective tests, such as the Multi-motive Grid (MMG)
are another type of indirect test. The MMG measures motives
related to performance, control, social acceptance and motivation management.
Birkeland, S. A., Manson,T. M., Kisamore, J. L., Brannick, M.
T.& Smith, M. A. (2006). A metaanalytic investigation of job applicant faking on personality measures. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 14, 317-335.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life.
New York: Doubleday.
Despite criticism of personality assessment tests, the use of
personality questionnaires and objective personality tests in
recruitment provides important, relevant and useful information. When used in combination with other tools, such as
ability tests and structured interviews, they provide a quick
and reliable means of obtaining an overall picture of a candidate’s suitability (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). This assumes, of
course, that high-quality, scientifically validated psychological
tests are used and that they are responsibly scored and interpreted.
Guttman, G. & Bauer, H. (2013). Risikowahlverhalten v24.
Mödling: SCHUHFRIED GmbH.
Hergovich, A., Bognar, B. Arendasy, M. & Sommer, M. (2011).
Wiener Risikobereitschaftstest Verkehr v23. Mödling:
SCHUHFRIED GmbH.
Kubinger, K. D. & Ebenhöh, J. (2011). Arbeitshaltungen v27.
Mödling: SCHUHFRIED GmbH.
Laux, L. & Renner, K.-H. (2002). Self-Monitoring und Authentizität: Die verkannten Selbstdarsteller. Zeitschrift für Differenzielle
und Diagnostische Psychologie, 23 (2), 129-148.
Marcus, B. (2003). Persönlichkeitstests in der Personalauswahl: Sind „sozial erwünschte“ Antworten wirklich nicht
wünschenswert? Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 211, 138-148.
Ortner, T. M.,Kubinger, K. D., Schrott, A., Radinger, R. &
Litzenberger, M. (2011). Belastbarkeits-Assessment v23.
Mödling: SCHUHFRIED GmbH.
Pauls, C. A. & Crost, N. W. (2005). Cognitive ability and
self-reported efficacy of self-presentation predict faking on
personality measures. Journal of Individual Differences, 26,
194-206.
Rentzsch, K. & Schütz, A. (2009). Psychologische Diagnostik.
Grundlagen und Anwendungsperspektiven. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Schmalt, H.- D., Sokolowski, K., Langens, T. (2011). MultiMotiv-Gitter für Anschluss, Leistung und Macht v24. Mödling:
SCHUHFRIED GmbH.
Schmidt, F.L. & Hunter, J. H. (1998). The validity and utility of
selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and
theoretical implications of 85 years research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (2), 262-274.
An example of an objective test: the objective personality battery Attitudes to Work (AHA). AHA measures impulsiveness/reflexivity as well as aspiration level, performance
motivation and frustration tolerance.
Fotocredit: SCHUHFRIED