Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33452928›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2021

Detecting faking-good response style in personality questionnaires with four choice alternatives.

Merylin Monaro, Cristina Mazza, Marco Colasanti, Stefano Ferracuti, Graziella Orrù, Alberto di Domenico, Giuseppe Sartori, Paolo Roma

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Reassessing Fitness-to-Drive in Drinker Drivers: The Role of Cognition and Personality.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Merylin Monaro *Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy. merylin.monaro@unipd.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5598-691X
Cristina Mazza *Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, University "G.d'Annunzio", Chieti, Pescara, Italy.
Marco ColasantiDepartment of Human Neuroscience, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Stefano FerracutiDepartment of Human Neuroscience, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Graziella OrrùDepartment of Surgical, Medical, Molecular and Critical Area Pathology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Alberto di DomenicoDepartment of Psychological, Health and Territorial Sciences, University "G.d'Annunzio", Chieti, Pescara, Italy.
Giuseppe SartoriDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Paolo RomaDepartment of Human Neuroscience, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Sapienza University of Rome · ITUniversity of Chieti-Pescara · ITUniversity of Padua · ITUniversity of Pisa · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deliberate attempts to portray oneself in an unrealistic manner are commonly encountered in the administration of personality questionnaires. The main aim of the present study was to explore whether mouse tracking temporal indicators and machine learning models could improve the detection of subjects implementing a faking-good response style when answering personality inventories with four choice alternatives, with and without time pressure. A total of 120 volunteers were randomly assigned to one of four experimental groups and asked to respond to the Virtuous Responding (VR) validity scale of the PPI-R and the Positive Impression Management (PIM) validity scale of the PAI via a computer mouse. A mixed design was implemented, and predictive models were calculated. The results showed that, on the PIM scale, faking-good participants were significantly slower in responding than honest respondents. Relative to VR items, PIM items are shorter in length and feature no negations. Accordingly, the PIM scale was found to be more sensitive in distinguishing between honest and faking-good respondents, demonstrating high classification accuracy (80-83%).

Indexed as

DeceptionPersonalityHumansPersonality InventorySurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID33452928
PMCPMC8476468
OpenAlexW3122109488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.