The Relation of Machiavellianism, Personality and Gender to the Accuracy of Zero-Acquaintance Raters Ability to Detect ‘Honest’ verses ‘Fake-Good’ Personality Responses in a Structured Employment Interview.
Item statusRestricted Access
McNaughton, Peter Jt
MetadataShow full item record
This study examined interviewees’ ability to successfully display a ‘fake-good’ personality in a mock structured job interview. Interviewees completed ‘honest’ and ‘fake good’ personality measures prior to the interviews and were asked to display their ‘fake good’ personality in the one-on-one interview. These interviews were videoed, these videos were then viewed by zero-acquaintanc raters who attempted to accurately judge there personality. Raters’ were blind to the fact that the interviewees were attempting to display a ‘fake’ personality. Raters’ ratings were significantly closer to applicants ‘honest’ personality than their ‘fake-good’ personality (r=.97). Raters also completed self-reported Big Five and Machiavellian measures. The most accurate raters, judged by how close they came to interviewees’ ‘honest’ personality were found to have significantly higher Agreeableness (r=.51) and Openness (r=.40) and lower in Emotional Stability (r=.26) than the least accurate raters. Contrary to predictions the most accurate raters had significantly lower Mach scores than the least accurate interviewers (r=.26). There was not gender difference in rater accuracy. These findings along with their implications for applied psychology are discussed.