Response latencies are alive and well for identifying fakers on a self-report personality inventory: A reconsideration of van Hooft and Born (2012).
Van Hooft and Born (Journal of Applied Psychology 97:301-316, 2012) presented data challenging both the correctness of a congruence model of faking on personality test items and the relative merit (i.e., effect size) of response latencies for identifying fakers. We suggest that their analysis of response times was suboptimal, and that it followed neither from a congruence model of faking nor from published protocols on appropriately filtering the noise in personality test item answering times. Using new data and following recommended analytic procedures, we confirmed the relative utility of response times for identifying personality test fakers, and our obtained results, again, reinforce a congruence model of faking.
Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. holdenr@queensu.ca.|Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada. holdenr@queensu.ca.
Ronald R
RR
Holden
Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Christine E
CE
Lambert
D000293:Adolescent; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D008192:Deception; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008014:Lie Detection / Q000523:psychology*; D008297:Male; D008960:Models, Psychological; D010551:Personality; D010555:Personality Inventory; D010556:Personality Tests; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult
Congruence; Faking; Response favorability; Response latencies