people instructed to fake good or fake bad with the responses of other popu-
lations. Test makers find certain items distinguish between fakers and, forexample, genuine schizophrenics. People trying to look schizophrenic tend to
check these items, thinking they indicate a psychological disorder, but real
schizophrenics do not. When testers detect faking, they can either throw out
the results or adjust the scores to account for the faking tendency. However,
some psychologists challenge the usefulness of relying on these methods to
obtain accurate scores (Piedmont, McCrae, Riemann, & Angleitner, 2000).
Carelessness and Sabotage
Although the person administering a test usually approaches the testing veryseriously, this cannot always be said for the test taker. Participants in experi-
ments and newly admitted patients can get bored with long tests and not
bother to read the test items carefully. Sometimes they don ’t want to admit
to poor reading skills or their failure to fully understand the instructions. As
a result, responses may be selected randomly or after only very briefly skim-
ming the question. However, this problem is not limited to poorly educatedindividuals. Researchers in one study allowed university students taking a
standard personality test to indicate when they did not know the meaning of
a word (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, Steele, & Hair, 1998). The investigatorsfound that some test questions were not understood by as many as 32% of
the students.
Even worse, test takers sometimes report frivolous or intentionally incor-
rect information to sabotage a research project or diagnosis. I once found atest answer booklet that appeared normal at first, but at second glance dis-
covered that the test taker had spent the hour-long research session filling in
answer spaces to form obscene words. A similar lack of cooperation is not
uncommon among those who resent medical personnel or law enforcement
officials.
The best defense against this problem may be to explain instructions
thoroughly, stress the importance of the test, and maintain some kind of sur-veillance throughout the testing session. Beyond this, tests can be constructed
to detect carelessness. For example, some tests present items more than once.
The tester examines the repeated items to determine if the test taker is an-
swering consistently. A person who responds A one time and B the next
when answering two identical items might not be reading the item or might
be sabotaging the test.
Response Tendencies
Before reading this section, you may want to take the test presented on page 178.
This test is designed to measure a response tendency called social desirability —
the extent to which people present themselves in a favorable light. This isnot the same as faking, in which people answer test items in a manner
they know is inaccurate. People high in social desirability unintentionally
present themselves in a way that is slightly more favorable than the truth.
A look at the items on the scale illustrates the point. Few of us can say wehave never covered up our mistakes. Yet someone who tries to meet this176 CHAPTER 7 The Trait Approach