Perceived fairness of personality tests: the effect of format, order, and Neuroticism

OPTIONAL
Robert Loy, Katherine Klein, Anita Pai, & Matthew Prewett LOGO HERE

Department of Psychology, Central Michigan University

Introduction Procedure Discussion

• Applicant reactions can affect an applicant’s perception of the
organization’s ethics and attractiveness (Smither et al., 1993)
Personality Tests
• Personality tests are commonly perceived as less fair than other
selection assessments such as cognitive ability tests and
interviews (Hausknecht et al., 2004)
• Forced-choice personality tests are perceived more negatively
than single stimulus tests despite advantages in validity (Dalal et al.,
2019)
Hypothesis 1: Participants will rate the Likert-type assessment
more favorably than the forced-choice assessment.
• A contrast effect suggests that the first task’s level of difficulty is
used as a standard of comparison for the second task (Shen, Jiang, &
Adaval, 2010)
• 2 x 2 x 2 mixed design measuring participants applicant reactions
• Within Subjects Variable
• Test Format (Likert-type vs. forced-choice)
• Between-Subjects Variables
• Test Order
○ Likert-type first
○ Forced-choice first
• Job Description
○ Job description: participants given a Senior director job
position and instructed to take the assessment as they
were applying for that position
○ No description: no job description given
● Each participant completed the Fairness Reactions Measure
(Steiner & Gilliland, 1996) immediately after each assessment
Test Format
• The Likert-type assessment received higher fairness reaction
scores than the forced-choice assessment
• Although forced-choice assessments may be useful in selection
contexts (Christiansen et al., 2005), they reduce applicant’s fairness
perceptions
Test Order
• A contrast effect occurs in personality testing where an easier
assessment is perceived more fair after the difficult assessment is
given first
Job Description
• Individuals receiving a job description did not have a significant
effect on their applicant reactions to the personality assessment

Hypothesis 2: Participants will rate the forced-choice assessment Results Neuroticism

less favorably if they have taken the Likert-type assessment first.
Job Descriptions
• Job-relatedness is the extent to which the applicant believes the
assessment is measuring information that is relevant to the job or
to the extent to which applicants believe that the assessment
could predict job performance (Gilliand, 1993)
Hypothesis 3: There will be an interaction between test format
and job description, specifically participants receiving a job
description will rate the forced-choice assessment more favorably
than the Likert-type assessment.
Neuoriticism
• Neuroticism, the tendency to worry and be easily frustrated
(McCrae & Costa, 1987), is a consistent predictor of applicant
reactions and fairness perceptions (Truxillo, Bauer, & Campion, 2006).
• RQ1: Will Neuroticism will have an effect on the fairness
reactions of participants?
Method
Sample: N = 184 psychology undergraduates
• 244 initial participants; 60 (24.6%) excluded based on
• Sample characteristics:
• 73.8% female; 81.5% Caucasian
• Mean age: 19.71 years old
TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2008
• Likert-type: Individuals who are higher on Neuroticism reported
lower fairness reactions to the Likert-type personality assessment
than individuals who score lower on Neuroticism
• Forced-choice: Individuals who are lower on Neuroticism
reported lower fairness reactions to the forced-choice assessment
than individuals who score higher on Neuroticism
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practical Implications:
• If other factors are constant between two difficult assessments,
give the more difficult assessment first
• Carefully consider the expected gain in validity against applicant
reaction. Specifically, if using a forced-choice assessment, make
sure that format is justified (e.g., preventing faking).
Limitations:
Hypothesis 1 – Supported Hypothesis 2 – Supported (Figure 1) • The undergraduate student sample lacks external generalizability
F(1, 179) = 34.93 F(1, 179) = 13.91 to applicant samples applying for jobs
p < .001; Wilk's Λ = 0.837 p < .001; Wilk's Λ = 0.928 • The job description did not realistically represent an applicant
scenario
Hypothesis 3 – Unsupported; F(5, 179) = .13, p = .91; Future Research:
Wilk's Λ = 1.000 • Examine reported effects in applicant samples
• Replication of the Neuroticism effects
Research Question 1: Neuroticism had an effect on fairness
reactions according to test type. Contact Information
F(5, 179) = 12.71; p = < .001; Wilk's Λ = 0.934 Robert Loy – loy1rw@cmich.edu Katherine Klein – klein1k@cmich.edu
Anita Pai – pai1a@cmich.edu Matthew Prewett – prewe1ms@cmich.edu

www.PosterPresentations.com