Detecting faking-good response style in personality questionnaires with four choice alternatives

Author:

Monaro MerylinORCID,Mazza Cristina,Colasanti Marco,Ferracuti Stefano,Orrù Graziella,di Domenico Alberto,Sartori Giuseppe,Roma Paolo

Abstract

AbstractDeliberate attempts to portray oneself in an unrealistic manner are commonly encountered in the administration of personality questionnaires. The main aim of the present study was to explore whether mouse tracking temporal indicators and machine learning models could improve the detection of subjects implementing a faking-good response style when answering personality inventories with four choice alternatives, with and without time pressure. A total of 120 volunteers were randomly assigned to one of four experimental groups and asked to respond to the Virtuous Responding (VR) validity scale of the PPI-R and the Positive Impression Management (PIM) validity scale of the PAI via a computer mouse. A mixed design was implemented, and predictive models were calculated. The results showed that, on the PIM scale, faking-good participants were significantly slower in responding than honest respondents. Relative to VR items, PIM items are shorter in length and feature no negations. Accordingly, the PIM scale was found to be more sensitive in distinguishing between honest and faking-good respondents, demonstrating high classification accuracy (80–83%).

Funder

Università degli Studi di Padova

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology,General Medicine

Reference79 articles.

1. Baer, R. A., & Miller, J. (2002). Underreporting of psychopathology on the MMPI-2: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Assessment, 14(1), 16–26.

2. Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008). Empirical correlates of the MMPI–2 restructured clinical (RC) scales in mental health, forensic, and nonclinical settings: An introduction. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(2), 119–121.

3. Bosco, A., et al. (2020). Detecting faking good in military enlistment procedure according to a new index for the MMPI-2. Italian Journal of Criminology, 14(2), 99–109.

4. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forest. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5–32.

5. Burla, F., et al. (2019). Use of the parents preference test in child custody evaluations: Preliminary development of conforming parenting index. Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 7(3), 1–17.

Cited by 9 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3