A new book has just been released that has exposed the ways candidates can skew or 'fake' personality assessments when applying for new positions. In the new release, New Perspectives on Faking in Personality Assessments, the opinions of world experts are presented, with many different viewpoints on how results can be distorted by applicants.

The book is co-authored by University of Sydney researchers, and co-contributer Dr Carolyn MacCann, a lecturer in psychology, argued that falsifying responses in personality testing poses big problems for employers.

After considering what it means to "fake" a personality assessment, the authors consider why and how people try to second guess the 'correct' answer.

"Tests might ask questions such as 'Have you ever stolen anything, even a pin or a button?' or 'Do you ever litter?': the logic is that people who say they never steal or never litter are actually lying," Dr MacCann said.

MacCann said their research revealed that the truly ethical, kind and rule-abiding people are likely to get unfairly caught out by certain questions.

Yet, just as there is a danger of personality tests screening out highly appropriate candidates, they can also lead employers to select people who falsified their answers to secure a job, Dr MacCann said.

"Employers should use personality tests to screen out the most undesirable applicants. When they are used to select only the exceptional candidates it gives the 'fakers' a chance of displacing the desirable employees in the selection procedure," she said.

However, Martyn Rogers, managing director of the Rogers Group, which specialises in personality assessments and pre-employment screening, said that answers given on personality tests should not be used to screen out candidates.
Speaking to Human Capital, Rogers said, "My bottom line is that no testing about human behaviour should be taken on its own as a reason for either giving a candidate, or not giving a candidate a role. In any selection process, the selectors or interviewers should use as many screening tools as possible."

Rogers said that no part of the interview process is 100% accurate, and even when combined still do not provide 100% true indications of how a candidate would perform.

"Any test used in isolation is not ethically or economically correct," Rogers said, and added that Rogers Group personality profiles do not address questions as such, but gauge preferences in behaviour.

Dr MacCann recommended that one way to make tests less vulnerable to manipulation is to make it less obvious what the desirable or 'correct' response to a question may be. "Instead of asking applicants to respond to a statement such as 'I work hard', ask applicants to respond to the statement 'Sometimes I work too hard'."

Currently personality testing is commonly used in filling 40% of graduate positions, and a greater number percentage for management and executive selection.

Source: Human Capital Magazine