Using Blatant Extreme Responding for Detecting Faking in High-stakes Selection: Construct validity, relationship with general mental ability, and subgroup differences

Although there has been a steady growth in research and use of self-report measures of personality in the last 20 years, faking in personality testing remains as a major concern. Blatant extreme responding (BER), which includes endorsing desirable extreme responses (i.e., 1 and 5s), has recently been identified as a potential faking detection technique. In a large-scale (N=358,033), high-stakes selection context, we investigate the construct validity of BER, the extent to which BER relates to general mental ability, and the extent to which BER differs across jobs, gender, and ethnic groups. We find that BER reflects applicant faking by showing that BER relates to a more established measure of faking, an unlikely virtue (UV) scale, and that applicants score higher than incumbents on BER. BER is (slightly) positively related to general mental ability whereas UV is negatively related to it. Applicants for managerial positions score slightly higher on BER than applicants for nonmanagerial positions. In addition, there was no gender or racial differences on BER. The implications of these findings for detecting faking in personnel selection are delineated.