Faking on self-report emotional intelligence and personality tests: Effects of faking opportunity, cognitive ability, and job type

We assessed the combined effects of cognitive ability, opportunity to fake, and trait job-relevance on faking self-report emotional intelligence and personality tests by having 150 undergraduates complete such tests honestly and then so as to appear ideal for one of three jobs: nurse practitioner, marketing manager, and computer programmer. Faking, as expected, was greater (a) in higher-g participants, (b) in those scoring lower under honest conditions (with greater opportunity to fake), and (c) on job-relevant traits. Predicted interactions accounted for additional unique variance in faking. Combining all three factors yielded a “perfect storm” standardized difference of around 2, more than double the overall .83 estimate. Implications for the study of faking are discussed.

► Faking on trait-EI and personality scales is examined in a simulated selection setting.
► Faking is 60% greater when faking opportunity is above average.
► Faking is 26% greater on job-relevant traits and 20% greater when g is above average.
► Combining conditions yields 3.6× the faking seen under low faking conditions.
► Prior faking estimates averaging across conditions understate the faking problem.