Less Evaluative Measures of Personality in Job Applicant Contexts: The Effect on Socially Desirable Responding and Criterion Validity.

Abstract

Researchers have long sought to mitigate the detrimental effects of socially desirable responding on personality assessments in high-stakes contexts. This study investigated the effect of reducing the social desirability of personality items on response distortion and criterion validity in a job applicant context. Using a 2 × 2 repeated measures design, participants (n = 584) completed standard (International Personality Item Pool) and less evaluative (Less Evaluative Five Factor Inventory) measures of Big Five personality in a low-stakes context and then several weeks later in a simulated job applicant context. Self-report criteria with objective answers, including university grades, were also obtained. In general, the less evaluative measure showed less response distortion than the standard measure on some metrics, but not on others. Declines in criterion validity in the applicant context were smaller for the less evaluative measure. In the applicant context, however, validities were similar across the two measures. Correlations across contexts for corresponding traits (e.g., low-stakes extraversion with high-stakes extraversion) were also similar for both measures. In summary, reducing socially desirable item content might slightly reduce the substantive content required to predict criteria in low-stakes contexts, but this effect appears to be partly offset by reduced response distortion for less evaluative measures in applicant contexts.