Faking good and bad on self-reports versus informant-reports of Dark Triad personality

IF 2.6 4区 管理学 Q3 MANAGEMENT International Journal of Selection and Assessment Pub Date : 2024-03-04 DOI:10.1111/ijsa.12465
Sarah A. Walker, Carolyn MacCann
{"title":"Faking good and bad on self-reports versus informant-reports of Dark Triad personality","authors":"Sarah A. Walker,&nbsp;Carolyn MacCann","doi":"10.1111/ijsa.12465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Research consistently demonstrates that people can distort their responses on self-report personality tests. Informant-reports (where a knowledgeable informant rates a target's personality) can be used as an alternative to self-ratings. However, there has been little research on the extent to which informants can distort their responses on personality tests (or their motives for response distortion). The current study examines the effects of experimentally induced response distortion on self- and informant-reports of the Dark Triad. The participants (<i>N</i> = 834 undergraduates) completed Dark Triad measures in a 2 × 3 between-person design crossing format (self- vs. informant-report [imagined friend]) with instruction condition (answer honestly, look good, or look bad). “Look good” effects were significant for both self-reports (<i>d</i> = −1.22 to 1.42) and informant-reports (<i>d</i> = −1.35 to 0.62). “Look bad” effects were also significant for both self-reports (<i>d</i> = −0.56 to 3.58) and informant-reports (<i>d</i> = −0.55 to 3.70). The Five Factor Machiavellianism Inventory results were opposite to hypotheses, but Dirty Dozen Machiavellianism results were as expected. We conclude that people can distort Dark Triad scores for themselves (self-report) and on behalf of someone else (informant-report). We discuss the relevance of our findings for self- and informant-report assessment in applied contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":51465,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Selection and Assessment","volume":"32 3","pages":"329-342"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijsa.12465","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Selection and Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijsa.12465","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research consistently demonstrates that people can distort their responses on self-report personality tests. Informant-reports (where a knowledgeable informant rates a target's personality) can be used as an alternative to self-ratings. However, there has been little research on the extent to which informants can distort their responses on personality tests (or their motives for response distortion). The current study examines the effects of experimentally induced response distortion on self- and informant-reports of the Dark Triad. The participants (N = 834 undergraduates) completed Dark Triad measures in a 2 × 3 between-person design crossing format (self- vs. informant-report [imagined friend]) with instruction condition (answer honestly, look good, or look bad). “Look good” effects were significant for both self-reports (d = −1.22 to 1.42) and informant-reports (d = −1.35 to 0.62). “Look bad” effects were also significant for both self-reports (d = −0.56 to 3.58) and informant-reports (d = −0.55 to 3.70). The Five Factor Machiavellianism Inventory results were opposite to hypotheses, but Dirty Dozen Machiavellianism results were as expected. We conclude that people can distort Dark Triad scores for themselves (self-report) and on behalf of someone else (informant-report). We discuss the relevance of our findings for self- and informant-report assessment in applied contexts.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
黑暗三合会人格自我报告与线人报告中的伪善与伪恶
研究一致表明,人们在自我报告人格测试中的回答可能会失真。告密者报告(由了解情况的告密者对测试对象的人格进行评分)可以作为自我评分的替代方法。然而,关于告密者在人格测验中会在多大程度上歪曲自己的回答(或他们歪曲回答的动机)的研究却很少。本研究探讨了实验诱导的反应失真对自我和线人报告的 "黑暗三合会 "的影响。受试者(834 名本科生)以 2 × 3 人际设计交叉形式(自我报告与线人报告[想象中的朋友])完成了 "黑暗三联征 "测量,并设定了指导条件(诚实回答、表现良好或表现不良)。自我报告(d = -1.22 至 1.42)和线人报告(d = -1.35 至 0.62)的 "看起来不错 "效应都很显著。自我报告(d = -0.56 至 3.58)和线人报告(d = -0.55 至 3.70)中的 "看起来不好 "效应也很明显。五因素马基雅维利主义量表的结果与假设相反,但 "肮脏一打 "马基雅维利主义的结果符合预期。我们的结论是,人们可以为自己(自我报告)或代表他人(线人报告)歪曲 "黑暗三要素 "得分。我们讨论了我们的研究结果与应用环境中自我和线人报告评估的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
31.80%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Selection and Assessment publishes original articles related to all aspects of personnel selection, staffing, and assessment in organizations. Using an effective combination of academic research with professional-led best practice, IJSA aims to develop new knowledge and understanding in these important areas of work psychology and contemporary workforce management.
期刊最新文献
Attitudes Toward Cybervetting in Germany: Impact on Organizational Attractiveness Depends on Social Media Platform Why Participant Perceptions of Assessment Center Exercises Matter: Justice, Motivation, Self-Efficacy, and Performance Are Games Always Fun and Fair? A Comparison of Reactions to Different Game-Based Assessments Comparing Proctored and Unproctored Cognitive Ability Testing in High-Stakes Personnel Selection A Meta-Analysis of Accent Bias in Employee Interviews: The Effects of Gender and Accent Stereotypes, Interview Modality, and Other Moderating Features
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1