When candidates take a self-report assessment, also known as a preference test, they often want to present themselves in the best possible light. This natural tendency – which is known as socially desirable responding – occurs in many aspects of the hiring process, from resumes to interviews.
Sometimes, it’s unintentional, simply reflecting how candidates see themselves or what they believe are positive traits. Other times, it’s more deliberate. This is what we refer to as faking.
Faking occurs when candidates intentionally distort their responses to appear more favorable to potential employers. And although candidates can of course fake their responses, research shows that test results are still valuable even if they do. The perception that faking is widespread often overshadows the reality – faking doesn’t affect the usefulness of test results as much as we think, and concerns about the reliability of self-report measures are usually unnecessary.
At TestGorilla, we’ve designed our preference tests – like the Universal Skills Profiler (USP), Motivation, and Culture Add tests – to keep faking to a minimum. These tests offer valid, reliable, actionable insights into candidates’ motivations, values, and personalities, so you can gain sound insights about their fit for your roles and organizational culture.
This guide breaks down what faking is, how it might affect test results, and why our preference tests are built to deliver trustworthy, valid insights.
Table of contents
What are self-report tests?
Self-report tests, also known as preference tests, aren’t about judging what candidates know or can do. They’re about uncovering what drives candidates, what they value, and how they approach work.
Think of them as tools that shed light on personality traits, cultural alignment, and other behaviors that shape workplace success. Unlike skills or cognitive ability tests, which assess specific capabilities, preference tests help you answer questions like "Will this person thrive in a collaborative environment?” or “Does their natural work style align with the requirements of the role?”
Answers to these questions add valuable predictive power to your assessments, helping you better understand how someone will perform on the job and fit within your organization. Research has proven the value of these tests: Sackett et al. (2022) found that traits like personality and interests are meaningful predictors of job performance, making preference tests a perfect complement to skills and cognitive tests. [1] Together, they can give you a fuller picture of what a candidate brings to the table, and are a key part of multi-measure assessment.
For more on the validity of various hiring tools, check out our blogs:
Revisiting the validity of different hiring tools: New insights into what works best
Revisiting the validity of different hiring tools: New insights into what works best - Part 2
Faking defined
Faking happens when candidates intentionally skew their answers to present themselves in a better light. Here’s what that can look like:
Fraudulent faking: A candidate intentionally answers as the opposite of their true self – for example, an introvert claiming to love networking events.
Exaggeration: A moderately organized person inflates their responses to make themselves seem obsessively detail-oriented.
Reactive responding: A candidate who guesses a company values collaboration agrees with every teamwork-related statement, even if they prefer working solo.
Self-presentation: Someone aiming to be seen as a creative leader emphasizes unconventional solutions, even if their typical approach is more traditional.
People naturally try to present themselves in the best possible light during the hiring process. But it’s not just limited to tests. Impression management happens everywhere, from resumes to tests and interviews. In fact, research shows that interviews, especially unstructured ones, are more vulnerable to faking than tests . [2]
While no test or assessment is entirely immune to faking, well-designed tests incorporate features to minimize its impact.
Can candidates fake on preference tests?
Candidates can fake, and some do – but these tests still work.
Some may try to present themselves in the best possible light, and research shows that faking does occur in hiring contexts – in interviews, on resumes, and on personality tests. However, the impact of faking is often overstated, and well-designed assessments will still provide valuable insights into candidates.
Why doesn’t faking completely undermine preference tests?
Even though faking happens, it doesn’t render preference tests useless. There are a few key reasons why these assessments remain valuable:
Limited knowledge: Most candidates aren’t psychologists. They don’t have the know-how to guess which responses align with an ideal job profile.
Smart test design: Preference tests use features like smart item wording, thoughtful question design, and clear test instructions to minimize response manipulation.
A recent meta-analysis on faking in personality assessments found that while faking does reduce the validity of these tests, they still retain useful predictive power – with validity in "faked" conditions standing at about 68% of what it was in honest conditions. The most affected traits were conscientiousness and emotional stability, which are commonly associated with job success. [3]
This research shows that faking has an impact. However, it also shows that faking does not make preference tests useless. The study reinforces that personality tests still provide meaningful insights into candidate tendencies, particularly when they are used as part of a broader hiring strategy rather than as a standalone measure.
The takeaway? While faking is something to be aware of, well-designed preference tests still offer valuable and reliable insights – especially when combined with other hiring tools like skills tests, structured interviews, and work simulations.
The best insights on HR and recruitment, delivered to your inbox.
Biweekly updates. No spam. Unsubscribe any time.
The impact of faking on hiring decisions
Since faking does occur to some degree, it’s worth considering how it might affect hiring outcomes. While preference tests remain useful even when some faking happens, a significant distortion of responses can lead to challenges – particularly when hiring decisions rely too heavily on preference test results without considering additional data points.
If a candidate significantly fakes their responses, the potential risks include:
Misalignment in role fit: A candidate who exaggerates their enthusiasm for collaboration but prefers independent work may find themselves in a role that doesn’t align with their true working style. This misalignment can lead to dissatisfaction and lower long-term job performance.
Mismatch with organizational culture: Overstating alignment with company values could result in a poor cultural fit, potentially leading to difficulty integrating with the team and increased turnover.
Distorted insights: Faked responses may provide hiring managers with an inaccurate understanding of a candidate’s motivations and tendencies, which could impact decisions about where they would thrive within the organization and potentially hinder their performance.
Fortunately, preference tests still provide value
While these outcomes are possible, the good news is that these tests still retain predictive power – especially when used as part of a multi-measure approach to hiring.
Our preference tests are designed with safeguards to discourage candidates from easily identifying and manipulating ideal responses. Additionally, by using preference tests as part of a holistic hiring process – alongside interviews, skills assessments, and other tools –you can ensure a well-rounded evaluation that mitigates the risks of response distortion.
What to do if results look suspicious
If a candidate’s preference test results do raise eyebrows, don’t jump to conclusions about faking or socially desirable responses. Here’s how to approach this situation thoughtfully:
Understand that uncommon profiles are possible
Personality traits, such as those measured by the Big Five test, are typically distributed along a bell curve. This means most people score near the middle, but some will naturally fall at the extremes.
For example, you might see a candidate with very high scores on all traits or someone with consistently low scores across the board. While these profiles are rarer, they are not impossible and don’t necessarily indicate faking.
Investigate profiles further
Instead of dismissing results or assuming faking, consider additional factors that could impact a candidate’s responses:
Check their response time: Did the candidate complete the test unusually quickly compared to others? A rushed response could indicate a lack of thoughtful engagement.
Review their other test scores: If the candidate excelled in other assessments, their overall potential might still align with the role, even if their preference test results seem atypical.
Follow up with the candidate: During interviews, ask questions about their test-taking process:
Did they complete it in a calm, distraction-free environment?
Were there any situational factors (e.g., interruptions, fatigue) that might have affected their responses?
Ask behavior-based interview questions
Use the interview to explore and verify the key traits, behaviors, and motivations highlighted in their test results. For example:
Emotional stability: Tell me about a time when you faced a particularly stressful or unexpected challenge at work. How did you handle it, and what was the outcome?
Conscientiousness: Can you share an example of a project with a tight deadline or complex requirements? What steps did you take to ensure everything was delivered on time?
Extraversion: Can you share an experience where you needed to energize or bring enthusiasm to a team? What did you do, and how did the team respond?
These questions allow the candidate to substantiate their test results with real-world examples, facilitating a multi-measure approach to skills-based hiring.
4. Remember the nature of preference tests
Preference tests measure tendencies and inclinations rather than fixed traits, offering insights into how candidates typically behave, think, and feel, as well as what they are naturally drawn to or most comfortable with.
As an example: A candidate with high agreeableness may typically prefer maintaining social harmony. However, this does not mean that they can’t and won’t assert themselves when necessary. Acting contrary to their natural preferences or behavioral tendencies might simply require more energy and effort.
It’s important to remember that people often adapt their behavior to meet the demands of different roles and situations. However, the more aligned a candidate’s natural preferences, tendencies, and behaviors are with the requirements of a role, the greater the likelihood of sustained job satisfaction, performance, and motivation. When you recognize this balance between flexibility and alignment, preference tests become a valuable tool for understanding candidates in context.
How do TestGorilla’s preference tests limit response distortion?
TestGorilla’s existing preference tests are:
We’ve designed our preference tests to minimize the impact of faking and provide reliable insights into candidates’ authentic tendencies, values, and motivations.
Here’s how we do it:
1. No “right” or “wrong” answers
Unlike cognitive ability or role-specific skills tests, preference tests don’t have clear-cut correct answers. Instead, they measure how candidates align with specific traits, values, or behaviors that are relevant to the role or organization.
For instance, a motivation test may ask, “How important is it for you to see a project through from start to finish?” Some candidates may thrive on ownership, while others might excel in collaborative, project-based roles. Both responses are valid and align with different work environments, making it harder for candidates to fake a “perfect” answer.
2. Role-dependent tests
Preference tests are role-dependent, meaning the traits or values considered ideal are specific to the job or organization.
In tests like Culture Add or Motivation, the ideal profile is set by the employer based on their unique requirements. Candidate scores are calculated against this profile, but candidates themselves are unaware of the scoring criteria or what the “ideal” responses might be. This makes it more difficult for them to game the system by trying to guess what the employer wants to see.
3. Test and item design best practices
Our tests are carefully designed to reduce the likelihood of faking or socially desirable responding.
We use item design best practices (an item is a question within a test) to create questions that are challenging to manipulate while effectively measuring the intended traits, behaviors, or preferences. Each test undergoes rigorous psychometric validation, and we conduct ongoing test performance monitoring to identify and address potential issues, further minimizing the impact of faking on results.
4. Clear test instructions
Clear and thoughtfully designed instructions can make a big difference in reducing the likelihood of candidates faking their responses on preference tests. Research shows that reminding candidates to answer truthfully and emphasizing the importance of natural preferences can effectively reduce faking . [4]
At TestGorilla, our instructions encourage candidates to answer honestly. Candidates are required to sign an honesty agreement before beginning an assessment, reinforcing the expectation of truthful responses and reducing the likelihood of faking.
5. Percentile scoring
At TestGorilla, candidates are evaluated relative to a normative sample through percentile scoring. This approach highlights how candidates compare to others in similar contexts, ensuring outliers are assessed with proper context rather than dismissed outright.
While percentile scoring alone cannot directly detect faking or socially desirable responding, it helps minimize their impact by focusing on relative performance. For instance, if candidates attempt to manipulate responses, their percentile score reflects their standing compared to the broader population. This makes it less likely that faking will lead to disproportionately high rankings.
6. Multi-measure assessment
Preference test results are just one data point in the hiring process. To get a full picture of a candidate, we recommend a holistic, multi-measure approach, where you assess candidates on several factors rather than just one skill or competency.
To get a more complete picture of your candidates, you can use:
Interviews: Dive deeper into specific traits or preferences identified in test results.
Skills tests: Measure practical capabilities directly relevant to the role.
Work samples: See how candidates apply their skills and preferences in realistic scenarios.
By combining preference test results with additional data, you can ensure a well-rounded evaluation and reduce reliance on any single test.
4 reasons to trust our preference tests
When it comes to making confident hiring decisions, you need tools that you can count on. Our preference tests are designed to uncover candidates’ preferences, values, and motivations. They aim to provide accurate, actionable insights that can help you make smarter, more informed hiring decisions. Here’s why they’re a must-have in your hiring toolkit.
1. Rigorous test development and validation
TestGorilla’s preference tests are developed through a thorough process to ensure validity, fairness, and reliability:
Collaborative design: Our assessment team works closely with subject matter experts (SMEs) to create and structure each test.
Sound item design: Each test item is carefully written to align with the identified content areas, to help ensure clarity, relevance, and varying levels of difficulty. This approach enhances the validity and reliability of our tests, helping to deliver fair and comprehensive tests.
Independent review: Every test gets a second set of expert eyes. An independent SME reviews each assessment to ensure it’s technically sound, adheres to industry best practices, and meets the high standards we set for ourselves.
Continuous monitoring and improvement: We don’t stop once a test is published. Our tests are regularly updated to keep the content relevant and the questions valid and reliable.
This thorough development process guarantees that when you use TestGorilla’s preference tests, you’re getting insights you can trust to make confident, well-informed hiring decisions.
2. A range of tests for different purposes
At TestGorilla, we offer both proprietary preference tests – like the Universal Skills Profiler, Motivation, and Culture Add tests – and well-known frameworks such as DISC, Enneagram, and 16 Types. Each serves a different purpose.
Our in-house preference tests are specifically designed for hiring, providing job-relevant insights into workplace behavior and cultural fit. Other personality frameworks can be valuable for self-reflection and team-building, but they were not originally created as predictive hiring tools.
By offering both, we give you the flexibility to choose the right assessments for your needs—whether you’re making hiring decisions or supporting employee development.
3. Part of a holistic hiring process
Our preference tests aren’t meant to do it all—they’re intended to be used as one piece of a well-rounded hiring strategy. When combined with other tools like skills tests, work samples, and interviews, they give you a complete view of each candidate. Together, these tools create a comprehensive evaluation process that helps you make smarter decisions.
4. Clear insights into candidate fit
What makes preference tests so powerful? They give you insights that other tools just can’t capture. By revealing candidates’ natural preferences, tendencies, and motivations, they help you see beyond resumes and skills to understand how a candidate will thrive in your organization.
The following TestGorilla preference tests can help you gain greater insights into your candidates:
Universal Skills Profiler (USP): Use our competency-based assessment to evaluate 21 universal skills essential for workplace success.
Culture Add: Discover how candidates’ values and approaches will complement your team dynamics and organizational culture.
Motivation: Identify how well a candidate’s preferences align with the job, its benefits, and workplace elements, helping you determine who is most likely to be motivated and set up for long-term success.
These tests empower hiring managers to make more informed decisions by highlighting each candidate’s unique strengths and potential alignment with the job requirements and organizational culture.
Final thoughts
Thanks for reading this far. To recap: Faking might sound like a big concern when it comes to hiring assessments, but the reality is far less dramatic. While candidates can tweak their responses, research shows that most don’t – and when they try, our preference tests have been designed to minimize its impact.
When combined with other tools like skills tests, interviews, and work samples, our preference tests can give you a well-rounded view of each candidate, helping you find top candidates for your open roles. They are reliable, valid, and designed to make your hiring process smarter and more effective.
If you’re interested in integrating them into your hiring process, check out our existing preference tests by following the links below:
If you have more detailed questions about how to get started, book a demo with our team today.
Preference test faking FAQ
What is faking?
Faking occurs when candidates intentionally distort their answers on assessments to appear more favorable. This might include exaggerating strengths, downplaying weaknesses, or responding in ways they believe align with the job’s requirements.
How do TestGorilla’s preference tests limit faking?
TestGorilla’s preference tests are designed to minimize faking through thoughtful design and safeguards. These include:
No right or wrong answers: Questions are designed to measure tendencies and preferences, not absolutes, so candidates can’t easily guess the “ideal” response.
Role-specific profiles: Candidates don’t know the ideal profile employers are looking for, reducing their ability to game the system.
Careful test design and validation: We follow a carefully developed test development process and conduct ongoing psychometric monitoring after tests are published.
Honesty agreements: Candidates sign an agreement reinforcing the importance of truthful responses, setting the expectation for honesty from the start.
Why should I use TestGorilla’s preference tests for hiring?
TestGorilla’s preference tests offer unique insights into candidates that other tools can’t capture. They provide a clear understanding of motivations, values, traits, and behaviors that influence job success.
These tests are rigorously developed and validated, continuously monitored for reliability, and designed to be part of a holistic hiring process. By combining them with other hiring tools such as skills tests, interviews, and work samples, you can make informed, well-rounded hiring decisions, ensuring every new hire is the right fit for the role and your organization.
Sources
Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040–2071. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994
Barrick, M. R., Shaffer, J. A., & DeGrassi, S. W. (2009). What you see may not be what you get: Relationships among self-presentation tactics and ratings of interview and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1394–1411. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016532
Speer, A. B., Delacruz, A. Y., Chawota, T., Wegmeyer, L. J., Tenbrink, A. P., Gibson, C., & Frost, C. (2025). Evaluating the impact of faking on the criterion-related validity of personality assessments. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 33(1), e12518. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12518
Moon, B., Daljeet, K. N., O’Neill, T. A., Harwood, H., Awad, W., & Beletski, L. V. (2024). Comparing the efficacy of faking warning types in preemployment personality tests: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001224
You've scrolled this far
Why not try TestGorilla for free, and see what happens when you put skills first.
