Are observer ratings of applicants' personality also faked? Yes, but less than self-reports.

Although self-report personality tests are a comparatively cheap and easy-to-administer personnel selection tool, researchers have criticized them for not predicting enough criterion-related variance. Researchers have suggested using observer-ratings of personality (e.g., as part of a reference check from a supervisor) because observer-ratings have been reported to be more predictive. However, it is theoretically and empirically unclear whether supervisors also engage in faking (the intentional distortion of responses). Study 1 explored faking among managers who were first asked to imagine that a subordinate had to leave his/her job for private reasons and then to rate the personality of the subordinate. A week later, managers rated their subordinates honestly. A repeated-measures MANOVA indicated that managers did fake. Study 2 (among supervisors of working students) replicated the above findings but also showed that there is less faking in supervisor-ratings than in self-ratings. Furthermore, we found no evidence that the validity of personality scales for predicting academic performance depends on self- versus observer-ratings or on an applicant versus an honest condition. These two studies thus show that practitioners should not equate personality ratings obtained from observers in a selection context with honest personality ratings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]