A Registered Report to Disentangle the Effects of Frame of Reference and Faking in the Personnel‐Selection Scenario Paradigm

What is it about?

In laboratory faking research, participants are often instructed to respond honestly (generic instructions [GIs], control condition) or to fake (personnel-selection scenario [PSS], faking condition). Considering the research on instruction-level contextualization, a PSS might not only motivate participants to fake but might also promote the adoption of a work frame of reference (FOR). Thus, differences in responses between faking and control conditions could partly result from FOR effects. (Full) item-level contextualization can also be used to promote the adoption of a work FOR, and the adoption through this route is stronger than through instruction manipulation. We combined the two approaches to disentangle FOR and faking, conducted a 4-wave longitudinal study with a 2 (instructions: GIs vs. PSS) × 2 (full item-level work contextualization absent vs. present) repeated-measures design (N = 309), and compared the effects of these conditions on three HEXACO-PI-R scales (Conscientiousness, Emotionality, Honesty-Humility). Irrespective of the investigated personality trait, the ANOVAs revealed significant main effects. As expected, compared with GIs, the PSS increased the adoption of a work FOR, and the effects were smaller than the effects of full item-level work contextualization present (vs. absent). Also, as expected, the PSS (vs. GIs) and full item-level work contextualization present (vs. absent) changed participants' scale mean scores. However, importantly, there were no interaction effects. Exploratory mediation analyses indicated direct rather than indirect (mediator: adoption of a work FOR) effects of instructions on participants' scale mean scores. In conclusion, the internal validity of faking research is not threatened by confounding FOR effects.

Featured Image

Photo by pine watt on Unsplash

Photo by pine watt on Unsplash

Why is it important?

1) Faking impacts decision-making (e.g., in application contexts), and self-report personality measures are particularly subject to faking. 2) Faking is often studied by comparing participants' scale mean scores under generic instructions (GIs) versus a personnel-selection scenario (PSS), and the latter might promote the adoption of a work frame of reference (FOR). 3) FOR and faking may thus be confounded when using a PSS—a conjecture that we tested by replicating this procedure while varying full item-level work contextualization and investigating faking independent of FOR effects. 4) The current study revealed that the mechanisms by which instructions (GIs vs. PSS) and full item-level work contextualization (absent vs. present) operate are independent. 5) Exploratory mediation analyses indicated direct rather than indirect (mediator: adoption of a work FOR) effects of instructions on participants' scale mean scores, and the current study thus demonstrates that the internal validity of faking research is not threatened by confounding FOR effects.