Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

The Relationship Between Faking and Response Latencies

A Meta-Analysis

Published Online:October 07, 2016https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000361

Abstract

Abstract. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to analyze the relationship between faking and response latencies (RL). Research studies included in online databases, as well as papers identified in previous reviews, were considered for selection. Inclusion criteria for the studies were (a) to have an experimental faking condition, (b) to measure RL using a computer, and (c) to provide data for calculating the d Cohen effect sizes. Overall effects were significant in the case of honest versus fake good condition (d = 0.20, Z = 3.05, p < .05), and in the case of honest versus fake bad condition (d = 0.39, Z = 2.21, p < .05). Subgroup analyses indicated moderator effects of item type, with larger effects computed on RL of positively keyed items, as compared with RL of negatively keyed items.

References References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the study.

  • Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J. & Rothstein, H. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (version 2) [Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J. & Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Brunetti, D. G., Schlottmann, R. S., Scott, A. B., Mihura, J. L. & Hollrah, J. L. (1998). Instructed faking and MMPI-2 response latencies: The potential for assessing response validity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 143–153. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199802)54:2<143:AID-JCLP3>3.0.CO;2-T First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K. & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dunn, T. G., Lushene, R. E. & O’Neil, H. F. (1972). Complete automation of the MMPI and a study of its response latencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 381–387. doi: 10.1037/h0033855 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Eakin, D. E. (2004). Detection of feigned posttraumatic stress disorder: A multimodal assessment strategy (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No 3154807). First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • *Esser, C. & Schneider, J. F. (1998). Differentielle Reaktionslatenzzeiten beim Bearbeiten von Persönlichkeitsfragebogen als möglicher Indikator für Verfälschungstendenzen [Differential response latencies as a possible indicator for detecting faking on personality test items]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 19, 246–257. doi:http://www.psyjournals.com/content/120245 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Fluckinger, C. D., McDaniel, M. A. & Whetzel, D. L. (2008). Review of faking in personnel selection. In M. MandalEd., In search of the right personnel (pp. 90–109). New Delhi, India: McMillian. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • *Gore, B. A. (2000). Reducing and detecting faking on a computer-administered biodata questionnaire (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 9954139). First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hedges, L. V. & Pigott, T. D. (2001). The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 6, 203–217. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.6.3.203 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Holden, R. R. (1995). Response latency detection of fakers on personnel tests. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 27, 343–355. doi: 10.1037/0008-400X.27.3.343 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Holden, R. R. (1998). Detecting fakers on a personnel test: Response latencies versus a standard validity scale. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 387–398. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1998-10358-014 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • *Holden, R. R. & Hibbs, N. (1995). Incremental validity of response latencies for detecting fakers on a personality test. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 362–372. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.1995.1021 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Holden, R. R. & Kroner, D. G. (1992). Relative efficacy of differential response latencies for detecting faking on a self-report measure of psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 4, 170–173. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.4.2.170 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Holden, R. R. & Lambert, C. E. (2015). Response latencies are alive and well for identifying fakers on a self-report personality inventory: A reconsideration of van Hooft and Born (2012). Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1436–1442. doi: 10.3758/s13428-014-0524-5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Holden, R. R., Kroner, D. G., Fekken, G. C. & Popham, S. M. (1992). A model of personality test item response dissimulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 272–279. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.272 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Holtgraves, T. (2004). Social desirability and self-reports: Testing models of socially desirable responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 161–172. doi: 10.1177/0146167203259930 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Hsu, L. M., Santelli, J. & Hsu, L. R. (1989). Faking detection validity and incremental validity of response latencies to MMPI subtle and obvious items. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 278–295. doi: 10.1207/ s15327752jpa5302_6 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Konradt, U., Syperek, S. & Hertel, G. (2011). Testing on the Internet: Faking a web-based self-administered personality measure. Journal of Business and Media Psychology, 2, 1–10. www.journal-bmp.de First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • *Parmac, M., Galic, Z. & Jerneic, Z. (2009). Vrijeme latencije kao indikator iskrivljavanja odgovora na upitnicima ličnosti [Response latency as an indicator of personality test item response dissimulation]. Suvremena Psihologija, 12, 43–61. doi: http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/122956 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • *Robie, C., Curtin, P. J., Foster, T. C., Phillips, H. L., Zbylut, M. & Tetrick, L. E. (2000). The effects of coaching on the utility of response latencies in detecting fakers on a personality measure. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des Sciences du comportement, 32, 226–233. doi: 10.1037/h0087119 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Shoss, M. K. & Strube, M. J. (2011). How do you fake a personality test? An investigation of cognitive models of impression-managed responding. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 163–171. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp. 2011.05.003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tetrick, L. E. (1989). An exploratory investigation of response latency in computerized administrations of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1281–1287. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(89)90240-7 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Van Hooft, E. A. J. & Born, M. P. (2012). Intentional response distortion on personality tests: Using eye-tracking to understand response processes when faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 301–316. doi: 10.1037/a0025711 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Vasilopoulos, N. L., Reilly, R. R. & Leaman, J. A. (2000). The influence of job familiarity and impression management on self-report measure scale scores and response latencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 50–64. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.50 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Viswesvaran, C. & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197–210. doi: 10.1177/00131649921969802 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ziegler, M. (2011). Applicant faking: A look into the black box. The Industrial and Organizational Psychologist, 49, 29–36. http://www.siop.org/tip/july11/06ziegler.aspx First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ziegler, M., MacCann, C. & Roberts, R. D. (2011). Faking: Knowns, unknowns, and points of contention. In M. ZieglerC. MacCannR. D. RobertsEds., New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 3–16). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar