Pergamon Person. indioid. LX/j: Vol. 24, No. 2. pp. 217-227. 1998 I:;: 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain PII: SO191-8869(97)00160-8 0191-8869/98 %19.00+0.00 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN THE ABILITY TO FAKE ON PERSONALITY MEASURES Jennifer L. Mersman and Kenneth S. Shultz* Department of Psychology, California State University, San Bernardino. 5500 University Parkway. San Bernardino, CA 92407. U.S.A. (Receired 5 April 1997) Summary-Industrial psychologists continue to chastise personality measures for their potential threats to predictive validity because of assumed fakability. While the extent of such threats to predictive validity continue to be debated, no researchers appear to have looked at the fakability construct as a possible individual difference variable in its own right. Therefore, in the present study 323 subjects completed a Big Five measure twice, at 1 week apart. Faking was measured by within-subject correlations between the honest and fake conditions. While it was hypothesized that the ability to fake good would be conceptually related to self-presentation, the results suggest that the ability to fake is an independent construct. The potential usefulness of several indices of faking are discussed. as are future directions for research in this area. $3 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved INTRODUCTION There has been much research to support that faking good on personality measures can happen; and there has been a recent debate on whether or not, and to what extent it threatens validity (Barrick & Mount, 1996; Douglas, McDaniel & Snell, 1996; Ones, Viswesvaran & Reiss, 1995). However, what has not been examined is how people differ in their tendency to fake good, and what factors can distinguish from those who possess this tendency and use it, from those who do not. Faking good is usually examined in terms of group differences, not as a within-S individual difference variable. Previous research has shown that faking can happen (as detected through group comparisons of honest and fake conditions); however, there is still no indication of why people can fake good. Research has shown that Ss are capable of distorting their scores on personality inventories when instructed to give as good an impression as possible (cf. Dicken, 1960; Hinrichsen et zyxwvutsrqponmlkjih al., 1975; Hough et al., 1990). Because there is much evidence to show that faking in personality assessment can occur, a primary concern is that the information obtained from personality measures is invalid if faked. In personnel selection, for example, distorted personality measures are viewed as false indicators of the traits that are supposed to predict job performance. As Hough et al. (1990) note, “Indeed, the possibility of response distortion is often cited as one of the main arguments against the use of personality measures to aid in selection decisions” (p. 581). One way in which this concern is addressed is by the detection of faked responses through social desirability scales. Socially desirable responding is probably the most extensively studied response bias, and refers to the tendency to respond in such a manner so as to make one’s self look good (Paulhus, 1991). Researchers have shown that responding in order to give a good impression (or faking good) is related to the social desirability of the test items (Dunnett, Koun & Barber, 1981). In studies that have examined the susceptibility of personality measures to faking, instructions to fake good include, “present yourself in the best possible light” (Dunnett ef al., 1981, p. 20); “give the most favorable possible impression of yourself’ (Dicken, 1960 p. 25); and “describe yourself in a way that will ensure that the Army selects you” (Hough et al., 1990, p. 586). All of these descriptions instruct the Ss to engage in what is known as impression management. In personality inventories, people who *To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Tel/voice mail: 909 880 5484; Fax: 909 880 7003; e-mail: kshultz(awiley.csusb.edu 217