THE ROLE OF OCCUPATION-SPECIFIC DESIRABILITY 1N THE FAKING OF B. L 8,. ITEMS Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY iRViNG M. LANE 1968 TH ESIS L {R R A R Y IVllCh 15111 State ‘ University I c—v ,7- —r E: BINBING av 3" . HMS 8 SUNS' XS ABSTRACT THE ROLE OF OCCUPATION-SPECIFIC DESIRABILITY IN THE FAKING OF B. I. B. ITEMS by Irving M. Lane The present study focused on occupation-specific desir- ability. Occupation-Specific desirability refers to the idea on the part of job applicants that they can identify the specific qualities an employer is looking for. Job applicants, therefore, are tempted to fake their answers to biographical questions in order to make it appear that they possess what they guess are employer-desired qualities. Occupation-specific desirability was selected for study because in previous research (Larsen and Swarthout, 1967) college students, when asked to assume that they were job applicants, gave occupation-specific desirability as the single most important factor tempting them to fake B. I. B. items. The present study proceeded along the following lines: 1. The relative importance of occupation-Specific desir- ability in the faking of B. I. B. items was assessed. Irving M. Lane 2. The extent to which B. I. B. item characteristics were associated with subjects selecting answers with higher occupation-Specific desirability than their honest an- swers was determined. 3. Stemming from 1 and 2 above, a guideline was developed for item writers interested in reducing the amount of faking on B. I. B. 's. The B. I. B. used in the present study was previously developed by Larsen and Swarthout for research purposes. Their B. I. B. was constructed so that the items covered a wide range of both fakeability and objectionability. In the present study, each item choice on the B. I. B. was rated on a 9-point scale for occupation- specific desirability by approximately 75 introductory psychology students. The mean occupation-specific desirability rating of each item choice in the B. I. B. was determined, and these mean ratings were the independent variable in the present study. Data previously collected by Larsen and Swarthout were used in the present study. They administered their B. I. B. to 140 seniors majoring in either business or engineering under two sets of instructions: (a) answer honestly, (b) answer as if applying for a job. The differences in responses under the two sets of instructions were the dependent variable in the present study. Irving M. Lane The results follow: 1. Occupation-specific desirability was of statistical sig- nificance in the faking of B. I. B. items across both subjects and items. However, occupation-specific desirability accounted for only about 20 percent of the total variance in the faking of B. I. B. items. 2. Subjects selected answers with higher occupation- specific desirability than their honest answers to a similar extent across practically all B. I. B. item cate- gories. 3. Results 1 and 2 above led to the development of a guide- line for item writers interested in reducing the amount of faking on B. I. B. ' 5: construct two-choice, forced- choice B. I. B. items with the choices on those items having roughly equal occupation-specific desirability values. Preliminary evidence was presented to demon- strate that item writers following the guideline could expect to reduce the amount of faking on B. I. B. ' 8. Approved; W 4?. WM Date: ”Ax—7 / 7, /" b8 Thesis Committee: F. R. Wickert, Chairman C. Hanley J. H. Wakeley THE ROLE OF OCCUPATION-SPECIFIC DESIRABILITY IN THE FAKING OF B. I. B. ITEMS By Irving M. ' Lane A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1968 47437 35/ / A?" v.5 '" éd” To my wife, Myrna ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincerest appreciation to the members of my thesis committee, Dr. F. R. Wickert, Chairman, Dr. C. Hanley and Dr. J. H. Wakeley for their technical help in preparing this manuscript and for their interest and enthusiasm. I would like to thank R. H. Larsen and D. M. Swarthout for the use of their data. I would also like to thank Drs. W. Stellwagen and E. H. Jacobson for permitting me to carry out part of the thesis during one of their class periods. I would also like to thank G. M. Gillmore and W. G. Berger, who provided statistical consulting. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Fakeability .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Social Desirability . . . . . . . . . . 14 3. Occupation-Specific Desirability . . . . 18 B. Purpose of the Present Study . . . . . . . 19 11. METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A. Larsen and Swarthout' 5 Research . . . . . 21 1. Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2. Main Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 iv Chapter Administration . Operational Definitions Results B. The Present Research 1. Pilot Study . Subjects Instrument. . . . . . Administration and Informal Interview Results Conclusion . 2. Main Study . Subjects Instrument . Administration . Operational Definitions Results III. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS A. An Assessment of the Importance of Occupation-Specific Desirability in the Faking of B. I. B. Items Analysis 1--Assessment of the importance of occupation—Specific desirability across subjects . Analysis 2--Assessment of the importance of occupation-specific desirability across items . Analysis 3--Assessment of the proportion of the total faking variance accounted for by occupation-specific desir- ability . Page 28 28 31 32 32 32 32 33 34 34 35 35 35 39 41 42 43 43 45 46 47 Chapter B. Item Characteristics Associated with Subject Selecting Answers with Higher Occupation-Specific Desir- ability Than Their Honest Answers 1. Content Category . 2. ReSponse-Choice Type C. A Guideline for Item Writers Interested in Reducing the Amount of Faking on B. I. B. ' s . IV . CONCLUSION REFERENCES . APPENDICES vi Page 49 5O 51 52 56 58 61 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of the three analyses to assess the importance of occupation-specific desirability in the faking of B. I. B. items . 2. Levels of significance of 't' tests for comparisons between item content cate- gories on the mean proportion of faked responses that were changed to choices with higher occupation- specific desirability 3. Relationship between the difference in occupation-Specific desirability value of the choices in the Larsen and Swarthout two-choice forced-choice items and the number of subjects faking that item in their study vii Page 49 50 54 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page I. Larsen and Swarthout' s Recruiting Letter . . . . 61 II. M. S. U. Research Biographical Information Blank (Larsen and Swarthout' s B. I. B.) . . . 63 III. Occupational Desirability Rating Forms . . . . . 125 viii 1. INT RODU CTION Biographical inventory blanks (B. I. B. ' s) are widely and often successfully used in industry for assessing job applicants. However, as is all too well-known, such questionnaires are suscep- tible to faking. At the present time, the field of personnel psychology tends to limit itself to the construction of B. I. B. 's that have suffi- cient validity without worrying too much about fakeability. Bio- graphical items are selected over a wide range of content, tried out and retained if they meet certain validity standards. There has been little attempt to try to understand what makes one biographical item valid and another biographical item invalid. One of the many possible factors that may be responsible for some biographical items being valid and others invalid is that some items are more susceptible to faking than other items. The present study focused on one particular reason that tempts job applicants to fake biographical items in employment situ- ations. This reason has to do with the job applicants' idea that they can identify the specific qualities an employer is looking for. Job applicants are, therefore, tempted to fake their answers to bio- graphical questions in order to make it appear that they possess what they guess are employer-desired qualities. The reason investigated was selected because in a previous study (Larsen and Swarthout, 1967) college students asked to assume that they were job applicants gave it as the single most important factor tempting them to fake B. I. B. items in employment situations. The present study proceeded along the following lines: 1. . The extent to which the faking of B. I. B. items was associated with subjects choosing what they considered to be employer-desired answers instead of honest an- swers on a broad sample of items was determined. 2. Those items in the item sample which the largest num- ber of subjects selected what they guessed were employer-desired answers and not the honest answers were identified and then classified. 3. Some guidelines were developed for item writers interested in minimizing faking on B. I. B. ' s. The present study is seen as an additional building block in the area of understanding faking behavior on B. I. B. 's. The understanding of faking on B. I. B. ' s may be a necessary prerequi- site if B. I. B. ' s are to be improved beyond the limits that present methods, lacking this understanding, can provide. It is possible that biographical items that are not valid at the present time may be rewritten so that they will become valid when more is learned about faking. Somewhat valid biographical items may also be susceptible to faking. A rewording of these items in relation to what is learned about faking could, as before, raise their validity. A. Review of the Literature 1 . Fakeability A considerable amount of research has been concerned with the area of personality inventory fakeability. There have been three types of studies in the area of test fakeability. These three types were: 1. Those studies concerned with determining the extent subjects could fake if they were instructed to fake; 2. Those studies concerned with determining the extent subjects responded differently to a personality inventory if they took a personality inventory under guidance con- ditions compared with simulated job applicant conditions; 3. Those studies concerned with the extent to which job applicants reSponded differently to a personality inven- tory from what job incumbents did. The research in each of these three categories is described and criticized. Then, the conclusions that can be drawn from the research in the area of personality inventory fakeability are summarized. Most of the research in the area of test fakeability has been concerned with determining the extent subjects could fake a personality inventory if instructed to fake. Longstaff and J urgensen (1953) investigated the fakeability of the J urgensen Classification Inventory (JCI). The JCI is a forced-choice personality inventory used for selection purposes in industry. Forced-choice tests are designed to reduce the possibility of faking since the subject must choose what he considers either the best items from a group repre- senting only "good" traits or the worst items from a set representing only "bad" traits. In the Longstaff and Jurgensen study each student took the JCI under three sets of instructions: 1) honest, 2) fake over- all good, 3) fake high self confidence. They found that students very significantly increased their scores in self confidence when they attempted to do so. Increases in overall scores were neither statis- tically nor practically significant. Braun (1962) administered the Gordon Personal Inventory, a forced-choice instrument, to students under the regular instruc- tions and then a day or two later with instructions to answer so as to appear as the best candidate for an executive position in top manage- ment. The results indicated that the score changes produced by the faking instructions were substantial. The average student raised his score from the 44th percentile to the 96th percentile. Braun (1963) administered the Survey on Interpersonal Values (SIV) to students first under normal instructions and then under either instructions to fake good or fake bad for an executive position in top management. None of the product-moment correla- tions between the scores for the first and second administrations were significantly different from zero. In addition, Braun found that subjects were able to change some of their SIV scores when directed to try to do so. Braun (1965) again administered the Gordon Personal Profile, a forced-choice instrument, to college students using the same two sets of instructions as he used in his 1962 study described above. When college students answered the GPP so as to appear as the best possible candidate for an executive position in top manage- ment they had significantly higher scores than the norms stated in the test manual on three of the four scales of the GPP. Therefore, Braun concluded that if relatively bright students falsify their responses on the GPP, they can increase their scores appreciably. Whyte (1956) claimed that the Bernreuter Personality Inventory was susceptible to systematic bias if Whyte' s rules on cheating on personality inventories were followed. Shaw (1962) using a counterbalanced design administered the Bernreuter Personality Inventory to a group of college students under two conditions: 1) hon- est, and 2) following Whyte' s rules. The results indicated that when students followed Whyte' s rules their scores indicated they were sig- nificantly more extroverted and more sociable than when they did not follow Whyte' s rules. However, personnel supervisors did not choose the dishonest profiles significantly more frequently than the honest profiles. The above studies indicate that when college students are given specific instructions to fake, they may change their responses significantly. In addition, in all of these studies the students increased their scores on the personality inventory or at least on certain scales of the personality inventory being investi- gated. Left unanswered by these studies is the question of whether job applicants fake and, if job applicants do fake, the extent of such faking. Another group of studies has been concerned with deter- mining the extent subjects respond differently on a personality inventory if they take the inventory under guidance conditions as compared with simulated job applicant conditions. Rusmore (1956) administered the Gordon Personal Pro- file, supposedly relatively nonfakeable since the items were forced-choice, to a group of college students. First the students were instructed to answer the GPP as if they were applying for a job they really wanted. Then, the students were asked to take the GPP again and to assume that the personality inventory was being given by the counseling bureau and was to be used for vocational guidance purposes. The results indicated that in the simulated selection situation on two of the five scales the students raised their scores significantly on the scoring key given in the test manual. However, Rusmore concluded that the difference of eight percentile points, while being of statistical significance, was not of practical signifi- cance. Using Rusmore' s procedure Hedberg (1962) investigated the Survey of Interpersonal Values. Hedberg claimed that his results were not clear-cut. He found no significant differences on any of the six scales between the two sets of instructions. However, nine- teen percent of the subjects changed their scores to a considerable extent under the two different administrative sets. The changes in the scores that did occur were not consistently in one direction or the other. Gordon and Stapleton (1956) administered the Gordon Personal Profile to juniors and seniors in a high school as part of a vocational guidance program. Three months later, at the end of the school year, the GPP was re-administered to those students apply- ing for jobs. They were told it was an employment inventory. Students not wishing jobs were given the GPP again and told it was a guidance test. Gordon and Stapleton pointed out that their procedure would tend to elicit a minimum of faking since the students knew that the other blank they previously completed was on file. Also, the students were not actual job candidates but rather were indicating desires for a particular type of work. Therefore, their motivation to falsify may have been reduced. However, significant differences were nevertheless found. The employment group had significantly higher scores on the scoring key given in the test manual on the responsibility and emotional stability scales than did the guidance group. The guidance group had a significantly higher score on the sociability scale than did the employment group. Wesman (1952) administered the Bernreuter Personality Inventory to college students. First the students were instructed to answer as if they were applying for a position as a salesman in a large industrial organization. The next week the students were instructed to answer as if they were applying for the position of a librarian in a small town. The students scored significantly higher on the self confidence scale when taking the inventory as though they were sales applicants . This group of studies indicates that personality question- naires are faked when the subjects are told to respond to the test as if they were applying for a job and the test is a part of the selection procedure. In this group of studies, an attempt was made to simu- late actual employment conditions. The subjects were left free to decide if they would falsify their reSponses. However, these studies are deficient for several reasons. For one, it is very doubtful that the same motivation to fake is obtained with students acting as job applicants. Also, in most of these studies the subjects were college students. It is of doubtful value to generalize from a sample composed entirely of college stu- dents to a sample which can be composed of many people who have not attended college and are different in many ways from college students. Finally, this group of studies does not answer the most crucial question, which is whether job applicants fake and, if job applicants do fake, the extent of such faking. A third group of studies has been concerned with the extent that job applicants reSpond differently to a test from what job incumbents did. Bass (1957) administered the Gordon Personal Profile (GPP) to sales employees of a national food distributor as part of a research program. He then administered the GPP to sales applicants 10 as part of their selection program. The two groups were similar in intelligence and education level. However, the sales employees were quite a bit older (mean difference 7. 6 years). Bass found sig- nificant differences between the employees and the applicants on all scales of the GPP. Kirchner (1962) administered the Edwards Personality Preference Schedule (EPPS) to retail and industrial sales applicants and also to retail and industrial salesmen. He found a significant difference between retail sales applicants and retail salesmen on four of the 15 scales. There were no significant differences between industrial sales applicants and industrial salesmen. Kirchner sug- gested that persons more oriented toward selling in terms of interest and personality (retail sales applicants) are more likely to distort answers to the EPPS. Dunnette i511. (1962) studied the Adjective Checklist in the framework of a fairly elaborate experimental design. The Adjec- tive Checklist was administered twice in counterbalanced order to salesmen. One set of instructions told the salesmen to respond as if they were giving an honest self-appraisal. The other set of instruc- tions told the salesmen to reSpond as if they were applicants trying to beat the test. The Adjective Checklist was also administered to some sales applicants as part of their total selection battery. These 11 same sales applicants then retook the inventory under the same instructions used for the salesmen. Another group of sales appli- cants took the inventory under fake instructions only. The results indicated that under direction to fake both salesmen and sales appli- cants showed marked changes in their responses and in their scores on the various scales of the Adjective Checklist. Previous experi- ence with the Checklist seemed to make faking even more extreme. Also, sales applicants taking the Adjective Checklist as part of a selection test battery did not show the marked degree of distortion evidenced by those sales applicants who were directed to fake their replies. Dunnette et a1. concluded that probably one of seven appli- cants seriously slants his replies in an employment selection situa- tion. Green (1951) administered the Kuder Preference Record, Guilford' s Inventory of Factors STDCR and the Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN to Juvenile Board Patrolrnen. These men were on permanent tenure and were told the test was for research purposes. These three inventories were also administered as an integral part of their selection program to applicants for transfer to the Juvenile Board. Two tests less subject to faking, a mental ability test and a test of practical judgment, were adminis- tered to both groups. Both groups did very similarly on these two 12 relatively nonfakeable tests. The mean age of men in the two groups was similar. Applicants average 3. 1 years younger than the patrol- men. Green admitted that the similarity of scores on the two relatively nonfakeable tests and the similarity of ages did not prove the two groups were identical, but he felt that they were reasonably matched. The results of the study indicated that the Kuder Prefer- ence Record and the Guilford Inventory of Factors STDCR were suc- cessfully faked. The Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN was not successfully faked except for one scale. Green offered no explanation as to why the Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN was less susceptible to faking than either the Kuder Prefer- ence Record or the Guilford Inventory of Factors STDCR. Green concluded that the applicants for a position may be expected to avail themselves of the opportunity to answer self-report scales in the manner they think will put them in the most favorable light. The previously cited group of studies indicates that job applicants respond differently to employment inventories from what job incumbents do. It appears that job applicants do fake on person- ality inventories. While it can be argued that job applicants and job incumbents are from two different populations and, therefore, reSponse differences may be due to the population difference, the trend in all the studies previously cited is that employment inven- tories can be and are faked. 13 Heron (1965) performed what is probably the best experi- ment on faking of personality inventories. Two hundred male appli- cants for the job of bus conductor took an inventory designed by Heron as part of the regular selection procedure. This inventory was comprised of items from the MMPI, Maudsley, etc. A different group of two hundred male applicants took the inventory after they had been told they were accepted for the job. The hired applicants were told the inventory was for medical research carried out inde- pendently of the public transport. The results indicated that the applicants faking the inventory for selection purposes significantly improved their emotional maladjustment score. The conclusion previously drawn that job applicants do fake employment inventories was confirmed once again. While the previously cited studies indicated that job applicants faked personality inventories used for employment pur- poses, they have not indicated what the reasons were that tempted job applicants to fake on tests. If these reasons were known, per- haps items could be constructed so as to minimize faking, when faking has been shown to be harmful to validity. Larsen and Swarthout (1967), in a pilot study asked 30 college seniors majoring in business or engineering, typical of applicants for many college graduate level entrance jobs in industry, 14 to list the factors that would tempt them to fake specific biographical items in a selection situation. The six reasons most frequently given by the students were utilized by Larsen and Swarthout for the main part of their study. In the main part of the study, Larsen and Swarthout asked 140 seniors majoring in business or engineering to check which of the six reasons would most tempt them to fake specific items in a selection situation. The reason most frequently checked by the students was, ”It is probably possible to tell what the employer is looking for, and in order to get the job I will answer in such a way as to appear favorable in the eyes of the employer. " This reason received more than half of the total number of checks. It is felt that further study of this one reason, labeled in this thesis "occupation-specific desirability" is worthwhile since understanding it may have the best chance of providing some insight into the area of faking of the B. I. B. items. The literature on social desirability will now be reviewed since that area is the most similar to the concept of occupation- specific desirability. 2 . Social Desirability Considerable research has been performed in the area of social desirability. Much of the research in the area of social 15 desirability has been concerned with confirming the following hypo- thesis: The probability of endorsement of personality items is an increasing function of the scaled social desirability of the items. The experimental procedures followed in all the studies investigating this hypothesis have been very similar. In all the studies two mea— sures were determined independently. One measure that was deter- mined was the social desirability of the statements to be used. The subjects in this part of the study were instructed to "indicate your own judgments of the desirability or undesirability of the traits which will be given to you by the examiner . . . . Remember that you are to judge the traits in terms of whether you consider them desirable or undesirable in others. Be sure to make a judgment about each item. " (Edwards, 1957a). The subjects were instructed to rate the social desirability of the statements using a 9-point scale. The mean rating for each item on the 9-point social desir- ability scale was then calculated. The other measure that was determined was the prob- ability of endorsement of the statements that were previously rated for social desirability. The probability of endorsement was deter- mined by having a different group of subjects indicate whether the personality statements are true about themselves. The probability of endorsement of an item was the percentage of the subjects answer- ing true to the statements (Hanley, 1956). 16 The results of the research on social desirability were remarkably consistent. Edwards (1953) constructed 140 personality statements based on Murray's discussion of needs. Edwards found that the probability of endorsement of these statements by pre- medical students was linearly related to the social desirability value of the items. The product-moment correlation between the two variables was found to be . 87. Edwards (1957b) administered the Interpersonal Check- list (ICL) to college students. The college students were told not to put their names on their test booklets. The probability of endorse- ment of an item was plotted against the previously determined social desirability scale value for the item. Edwards stated that the plot was linear and the product—moment correlation between the two variables was . 83. He concluded that the assurance of anonymity does not eliminate nor drastically change the nature of the relation- ship previously found between probability of endorsement and social desirability scale value. Edwards (1966) had college students describe themselves in terms of 2, 824 statements by answering each one "true" or "false" as it pertained to themselves. The correlation between probability of a "true" response and the social desirability value of these items was found to be . 89. 17 Hanley (1956) selected about forty percent of the items in the Depression (D) scale and the Schizophrenia (Sc) scale of the MMPI. The probability of endorsement of these items was obtained by counting the pertinent responses of college students who had taken the MMPI in an earlier study. Hanley found that the relationship between the previously determined social desirability of these items and the probability of endorsement was .82 for D scale items and . 89 for Sc scale items. Cruse (1965) administered 1647 items to college students in the form of a personality inventory. He obtained a typically high correlation of . 90 between the social desirability scale values of the items and the frequency with which college students endorsed the statements. Starry (1966) has recently extended the research on social desirability to include B. I. B. ' s. He constructed two 100- item objective life history questionnaires from previously validated biographical inventories. He stated that each item-alternative com- bination of the 200 items was judged on the Edwards nine-point social desirability scale by advanced psychology students. Under- graduate students answered the questionnaire as if the questionnaire was being used as a basis for acceptance or rejection at a graduate school they desired to attend. Then 10-14 weeks later the same 18 students retook the biographical questionnaire with normal instruc- tions to reSpond conscientiously and accurately. The results indicated a relatively low yet still significant product-moment cor- relation of .45 between social desirability and faking. Larsen and Swarthout (1967) asked college seniors to indicate what reason would most tempt them to fake B. I. B. items in a selection situation. The choice, "'a certain answer is more socially desirable, apart from any personal quality needed to get the job, and I will fake in order to present myself as a socially valued and acceptable person, " was selected only about 16 percent of the time as the reason that would most tempt them to fake. The research previously cited suggests that social desir- ability may not be as important a factor in B. I. B. ' s as it was in per- sonality inventories. As previously indicated, Larsen and Swarthout (1967) found that occupation-specific desirability was overwhelmingly selected by college students as the reason that would most tempt them to fake B. I. B. items in a selection setting. Occupation-specific desirability rather than social desirability would appear to be the more significant factor to study in the faking of B. I. B. 's 3 . Occupation- Specific Desirability It will be recalled that Larsen and Swarthout (1967) found that the reason approximately 50 percent of the college students 19 indicated would most tempt them to fake B. I. B. items in a selection situation was, "It is probably possible to tell what the employer is looking for, and in order to get the job I will answer in such a way as to appear favorable in the eyes of the employer. " This reason has now been named occupation-specific desirability. Edwards (1957a) admitted the existence of occupation- specific desirability although he did not name the concept. He stated that if people were asked to judge the social desirability of statements for a particular occupation, one would not expect the statements to retain consistency in their social desirability ratings across differ- ent occupations. Larsen and Swarthout (1967 ) found that their subjects indicated that they would be most tempted to fake B. I. B. items because they felt they could identify the employer—desired answers. Larsen and Swarthout did not determine the extent to which their subjects actually did fake in the manner they said they would be most tempted to and they did not determine the extent of such faking if it actually did occur. B. Purpose of the Present Study The present study intended to explore the area of occupation-specific desirability more completely than has been done 20 before by answering some crucial questions on occupation-specific desirability that the Larsen and Swarthout study did not extend to. One purpose of the present study was to assess in greater depth the importance of occupation-specific desirability in the faking of B. I. B. items. Those items on which subjects most tended to give occupation-specific desirable responses and not the honest responses were identified and then classified. The informa- tion obtained in the present study was used to set guidelines for item writers interested in minimizing faking on B. I. B. ' s II. METHOD The present study was an extension of a previous study conducted by Larsen and Swarthout (1967). Some of the data used in the present study were previously collected by Larsen and Swarthout. The present study can be more clearly understood if a description of the Larsen and Swarthout study is provided first. The description provided of the Larsen and Swarthout study was taken directly from the methods section of their thesis. A. Larsen and Swarthout' 8 Research 1. Pilot Study Subjects The subjects included thirty seniors majoring in either business or engineering at Michigan State University. The subjects were recruited by form letter (see Appendix I). They were then contacted by telephone and an appointment arranged for an individ- ual interview . 21 22 Instrument One hundred and five biographical information items were drawn from a pool consisting of items validated for sales selection, items of doubtful validity for sales selection, items validated for engineer selection and MMPI items. An attempt was made to select the items so as to be representative of Owens' groups (Glennon, Albright and Owens) on the assumption that they had surveyed many items and had included an almost complete range of B.I.B. items. Interview Each subject was interviewed for approximately one hour during which time about 30 items were presented to him. Each item had been typed on a 3 X 5 card, and the subject was asked to answer the item and give his reactions to it. Although the interview was fairly unstructured, information was elicited from each subject in the following areas: 1) the extent to which the item was fakeable and why, and 2) general reactions to the item. Results Mean fakeability ratings were obtained for each of the 105 items. The items were then ranked in terms of their mean fakeability . 23 Sixty—five of the 105 items were selected for inclusion in the main study. The criteria used in the selection of the items were: 1) all items validated in other research for sales selection were included; 2) each of the other item sources was represented, i. e. , items of doubtful validity for sales selection, items validated for engineer selection and MMPI items; 3) items were selected so as to represent a wide range of objectionability and fakeability and 4) items were selected so as to be representative of the groups devised by Owens (Glennon, Albright and Owens). The reasons given by subjects for thinking an item. fake- able were content analyzed. Five categories of reasons for thinking an item fakeable emerged. These reasons were later used in the main study questionnaire. 2. Main Study Subjects The subjects used in this study were 91 seniors in the College of Business and 49 seniors in the College of Engineering enrolled at Michigan State University during the spring term of 1966. Graduating seniors were used as subjects because they were potential applicants for jobs in large organizations so that taking B. I. B. ' s was real and relevant to them. A letter generally inviting 24 participation in the project and explaining the value of their partici- pating in the project (see Appendix I) was sent to all 600 business and 300 engineering seniors at Michigan State University and was followed by telephone calls. While selection of subjects was probably not random, about the same percentage (12) of students from each of the two colleges volunteered to serve as subjects in the study. The conditions under which the study was carried out did not permit a check on the representativeness of the sample. Instrument (See Appendix II.) There were two forms of the measur- ing instrument. In Form I, subjects were first asked whether they intended to go into sales-oriented jobs or not. If they were not, they were asked to indicate the type of job they were planning to apply for after graduation. Both sales-oriented and nonsales-oriented groups of subjects were instructed to answer all 65 items. The instructions for the subjects indicating an interest in a sales-oriented job were as follows: You have indicated that you are interested in going into a sales-oriented job when you complete your college career. You are to answer the questions in the following group under these assumptions: 25 1. You are about to or have just graduated from college. 2. You are applying for a sales-oriented job in some com- pany. 3. The following questions are presented to you as part of a sales job application procedure. You should, therefore, answer the questions in the fol- lowing group as though you were applying for a sales-oriented job. The instructions for the subjects interested in nonsales work were: You are to answer the following groups of questions under these assumptions: 1. You are about to or have just graduated from college. 2. You are applying for the nonsales job you have indicated above. 3. The following questions are presented to you as part of the application procedure for the job you mentioned above. You should, therefore, answer the questions in the fol- lowing group as though you were applying for the job you mentioned above. The responses were recorded on IBM answer sheets. In the second section of Form I, all subjects were instructed to answer the 65 items again under the following instruc- tions (honest orvocational guidance set): 26 Answer the following questions under these assumptions: 1. You are about to or have just graduated from college. 2. You desire to gain important information about yourself and an opportunity to do so has arisen. You have arranged to take advantage of this opportunity. 3. The following questions are part of a service you have requested in which you can only benefit from giving answers that, in your opinion, most reflect the way you really are. 4. The results will be kept strictly confidential within the service. They will be released only to you. You will be the only person who can benefit from the information. You should, therefore, answer thefollowing questions as honestly as you can. Again the responses were recorded on IBM answer sheets. The final section consisted of having the subjects rate the extent to which they would be tempted to fake specific biographi- cal items. The subjects were also asked to indicate up to three reasons for those items they rated as being tempted to fake. The complete instructions are given below. For this last group of questions, you are asked to evalu- ate each one of the questions in still a different way. You are to 27 evaluate each one of the questions with respect to the extent to which you are tempted to fake the question. Rate every question according to the extent to which you would be tempted to fake it. By this is meant, to what extent are you likely to answer the question in a less than honest manner if the question was a part of a job application procedure that you were required to go through to get a specific job upon graduation from college? Assume you are applying for the same job as before. The rating you are to use for each item is as follows. You are to place an X on the line above the descriptive phrase that indicates how you feel about that question, e. g. ZS. definitely probably probably definitely will not fake will not fake will fake will fake (1) (2) (3) (4) Next listed below are several reasons that students like yourself have given for being tempted to fake questions. For each question that you would definitely or probably fake, that is, those you would rate (3) or (4), place an X on the line corresponding to the appropriate reason(s). You may check up to three reasons for any one question. Also indicate which reason you feel is the most impor- tant in tempting you to fake the question by circling the X you placed 28 on the line for the most important reason. If there are other appli- cable reasons that are not given, specify those reasons in the space provided. Again, the responses were recorded in the test booklet. Form II was the same as Form I except that the first two sections were interchanged, i. e. subjects answered the items with the honesty instructions first and the job applicant instructions second. This was done to determine order of presentation of instructions effects . Administration The questionnaire was administered to the subjects in small groups during the Spring Term of 1966. One of the experi- menters was present to answer questions, but almost none were asked. It usually took the subjects one and a half hours to complete the questionnaire . Operational Definitions 1. Behavioral faking. Behavioral faking is the change in responses between administrations of the test under honesty and job applicant conditions. 2. Reasons for faking. The reasons for faking were derived from the reasons selected and/or listed by the subjects 29 for each item. a. Total reason score is the number of subjects indi- cating that a given reason was one that induced them to be tempted to fake an item. b. Most important reason score is the number of sub- jects indicating that a given reason was the most important reason for being tempted to fake an item. Item categories: Content. -- As a first approximation, five psychology graduate students independently went through the collection of items and developed overlapping item content categories for the 65 items. The two experimenters (Larsen and Swarthout) and their advisor then derived seven item content groups from those provided by the graduate students. The seven item content groups are listed below. 1. Past Behavior--the item asks about experience or action in the past. 2. Present Behavior--the item asks about situational behavior characteristic of the subject at the present time. 3. Evaluation or Rating of Self--self—evaluation, present or future, where the response choices differ in degree. 4. Description of self (personality) where the response choices differ in nature, but not degree. 30 5. Report of feeling of subject where no overt behavior is involved. 6. Opinions, attitudes and values. 7. Family relationships. The experimenters independently placed items in these categories and then reconciled their differences. The categories are mutually exclusive except that there is some overlap (4 items) between past behavior, category 1, and family relationships, cate- gory 7. This overlap was agreed upon by the experimenters who considered items dealing with family relationships, even though asking for past behavior, were sufficiently distinctive to warrant a separate item category. The reader should then remember, that the past behavior category of items contains 4 family relationship items, and the family relationship items contain 4 past behavior items. Item categories: Response-choice type. -- Items were grouped according to the type of response alternative or options. The three groups were: 1. Continua--usually four or five response-choices dealing with a common attitude, characteristic or behavior, and differing in degree--quantitatively different responses. An example of this type of item is given below. 31 How sensitive are you to criticism of your work? 1. Very sensitive 2. Somewhat sensitive 3. About average 4. Not very sensitive 5. Not at all sensitive 2. Forced choice--two or more response-choices dealing with qualitative differences, essentially unrelated attitudes, characteristics of behavior. An example of this type of item is given below. Consider the words listed below. Which of them is most important to you? 1 Money 2. People 3. Ideas 4 Things 3. True—false--two response-choices in which responses are specifically limited to true or false. An example of this type of item is given below. Once in a while I feel hate toward members of my family whom I usually love. 1. True 2 . False Results The results of the Larsen and Swarthout study that are of importance to the present study have been discussed in the Intro- duction section of the present study. 32 B. The Present Research The work of the present study can be divided into two phases. First a pilot study was conducted to set the stage for the "main study. " The pilot study was conducted to answer two crucial questions. First, it was necessary to determine if the instructions that were to be provided for the subjects in the main part of the study were sufficiently clear so that they could be easily understood and readily followed. Also, it was necessary to determine if the subjects could easily finish the task in a 50-minute class period or if they would have to rush to complete it in the 50-minute period. The main study was then performed using the same procedure as was used in the pilot study except that a larger number of subjects participated. 1. Pilot Study Subjects The subjects were 66 students taking a Psychology, sophomore elective course called the Psychology of Business and Personnel. Instrument The questionnaire used in the pilot study was the same as was employed in the main study. It was more appropriate to describe the questionnaire there. 33 Administration and Informal Interview The questionnaire was administered during a regular class period to the students taking Psychology of Business and Per- sonnel. Permission to distribute the questionnaire during class time was obtained from the instructor of the class who had previ- ously announced that the class period would be devoted to answering a research questionnaire. When the class period began, the stu- dents were orally informed by the experimenter of the purpose of the study. The students were also told what the relevance and importance of the study was for themselves. The oral instructions were intended to help clarify what the students were asked to do and to motivate them. An individual report of the results was promised to each student. The oral instructions that were told to the students were also used in the main study, and they are given there. After the brief oral instructions were completed, the experimenter, his advisor, and two assistants distributed the questionnaire. The stu- dents then proceeded to complete the questionnaire. When a student completed the questionnaire he handed it to the experimenter. About 'half of the students, before they left the lecture hall, were asked by the experimenter if they found that the instructions were easy to understand and follow. Results Conclusion 34 Two main results were obtained in the pilot study. It was determined that the questionnaire could easily be completed in a 50-minute class period. The longest any student took to answer the questionnaire was 35 minutes. The average time to complete the questionnaire was about 25 minutes. The informal interviewing indicated that the students felt that the instructions were very clear and could easily be followed. The IBM answer sheets for the students were scored. Only three of the 66 students made any errors in marking the answer sheets. Three students marked two answers for one question. Their responses, for the one question, were eliminated from consideration but all their other responses were retained. It was concluded that the same procedure employed in the pilot study could satisfactorily be retained and used in the main study. 35 2. Main Study Subjects The subjects were 454 students taking an introductory course in Psychology at Michigan State University. Instrument (see Appendix III) There were six forms of the measuring instrument, QM, QN, QO, RM, RN, and R0. The students receiving forms QM, QN, or QO (the Q forms) received the following instructions: Imagine yourself, as best you can, as about to graduate from college and applying for a sales-oriented job in industry which you would like to get very much. Some statements follow which you might make during the course of an employment interview. You are to rate these state- ments individually with reSpect to how you think they would impress your interviewer. A nine-point rating scale is used. A diagram of it fol- lows. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 statement statement statement will make will not will make a very make much a very unfavorable difference favorable impression one way or impression the other 36 Low ratings are given to statements that would make you appear unfavorable. High ratings are given to statements that would make you appear favorable. An example: 1. I would not work for your company if it was the only one in the world. If you told this to your interviewer it would probably give him a very unfavorable impression of you. You would, therefore, give this item a low rating, most probably a rating of 1. You are to record your ratings on the IBM sheet provided for you. On this sheet use only the small numbers 1 through 9 to record your ratings. Disregard the 0 and the Space between 4 and 5. An illustration follows to show you how you are to enter the ratings that you make. In the illustration a rating of 1 is given to the statement. It will be perfectly obvious, once you get started making ratings, that the items are presented in related clusters. One clue will be that at fairly regular intervals there is a space between items. The statements that you are being asked to rate come from choices in a multiple-choice questionnaire. Frequently these choices are a matter of degree of the same general theme. It is 37 expected that your ratings will be influenced by the clustering of the statements. Naturally, what you consider a more acceptable degree of some personal quality or some personal behavior you will rate more acceptable than what you consider a less acceptable degree of that quality or behavior. When it is appropriate, then, let the relativity of the statements within a cluster affect the ratings you make on each of the choices within that cluster. The students receiving forms RM, RN, or R0 (the R forms) received almost the same instructions as those receiving one of the three Q forms. The only difference between the R forms instructions and the Q forms instructions was the first sentence of the instructions. The first sentence of the three R forms instruc- tions was as follows: Imagine yourself, as best you can, as about to graduate from college and applying for a nonsales-oriented job in industry such as a technical, managerial, or accounting one which you would like to get very much. Therefore, the only difference between the different instructions (Q and R) was that the Q forms instructed the students to imagine that they were applying for a sales—oriented job in indus- try, while the R forms instructed the students to imagine that they were applying for a nonsales-oriented job in industry. 38 The B. I. B. that Larsen and Swarthout used was so long that it had to be divided into three parts (M, N, and O) so that it could be used in the present study. Students receiving forms QM and RM received the first third of the items on the B. I. B. that Larsen and Swarthout used. Students receiving forms QN or RN received the second third of the items on the B. I. B. that Larsen and Swarthout used. Students receiving forms QO or R0 received the final third of the items on the B. I. B. that Larsen and Swarthout used. The items that were used in the present study were trans- formations of the B. I. B. items that Larsen and Swarthout used. The transformation that was performed on each B. I. B. item was to combine that item' s stem with each possible choice that was avail- able as an answer to that item. Two examples of B. I. B. items that Larsen and Swarthout used and their transformations are given below. One item that appeared in the B. I. B. that Larsen and Swarthout used follows. How old were you when you were first married? Less than 18 years old 18 to 22 years old 23 to 28 years old 29 or over Never married 01$me 39 The transformed forms of this item appear below. 1. UQOON I was less than 18 years old when I was first mar- ried. I was 18 to 22 years old when I was first married. I was 23 to 28 years old when I was first married. I was 29 or over when I was first married. I was never married. Another item that appeared in the B. I. B. that Larsen and Swarthout used was: Which is more descriptive of you? 1. 2. Industrious Generous The transformed forms of this item appear below. 1. 2. Industrious is more descriptive of me than generous. Generous is more descriptive of me than industrious. It was necessary to place the choices available to answer the B. I. B. items in the transformed form, illustrated in the above two examples, in order for the choices to be in the proper form (statement form) to be rated for occupation-specific desirability. Administration The questionnaire was administered during a regular class period to students taking an introductory course in Psychology. Permission to distribute the questionnaire during class time was obtained from the instructor of the class. When the students entered 40 the lecture hall, they were handed an IBM pencil. After the class was seated, the experimenter gave a brief oral introduction con- cerning the experiment to the students. Since the oral introduction was not read, an exact reproduction of it cannot be given. However, a very close approximation of the oral introduction follows. Biographical questionnaires are widely and often success- fully used in industry for assessing job applicants. However, such questionnaires are susceptible to faking. A project conducted just last year with M. S.U. students found, not unexpectedly, that students would fake answers to make it appear that they possessed the quali- ties they guessed the employer was looking for. Left unanswered by the previous study, however, was how a student felt he would appear to a potential employer or employ- ment interviewer if he selected a particular choice to answer what were mainly multiple-choice questions. You are to rate each of the choices from the biographical questionnaire used in last year' s study. Your ratings collectively will help us analyze faking tenden- cies. Biographical questionnaires made up of better designed choices and items could benefit the job applicant since they could increase the likelihood that he would be judged on the basis of his actual qualities . 41 An IBM pencil has already been handed to you. There are different rating forms because the original questionnaire was so long it would take more than a class period to rate. Please work fast yet carefully and try to finish rating all the item-choices in the booklet you are given. Thank you for your cooperation. The oral introduction was intended to help clarify what the students were asked to do and to motivate them. After an oral introduction was completed four graduate students distributed the questionnaire. Operational Definitions 1. Behavioral faking. Behavioral faking was the change in reSponses between administrations of the B. I. B. under honesty and job applicant conditions. Behavioral faking was the dependent variable in the present study. 2. Occupation-specific desirability. The occupation- specific desirability of any possible choice that was available as an answer to a B. I.B. item was the mean rating of that choice for a particular occupation (sales or nonsales) on the Edwards nine-point scale. Occupation-specific desirability was the independent variable in the present study. 42 Results The results of the present study are discussed in the next chapter. III. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS The results fell into the following three broad cate- gories: 1. an assessment of the importance of occupation-specific desirability in the faking of B. I. B. items; 2. a determination of the extent to which B. I. B. item characteristics were associated with subjects selecting answers with higher occupation-specific desirability than their honest answers; 3. stemming from 2 above, a guideline for item writers interested in reducing the amount of faking on B. I. B. '8. These three broad categories (1, 2, 3) are discussed in the sections A, B, and C below, respectively. A. An Assessment of the Importance of Occupation-Specific Desirability in the Faking of B. I. B. Items Each of the 280 stem-choices in the B. I. B. that Larsen and Swarthout used was rated by approximately 75 subjects for occupation-specific desirability for both college graduate level sales 43 44 and nonsales jobs in industry. Then, the mean occupation-specific desirability rating of each of the 280 stem choices was calculated for both college graduate level sales and nonsales jobs in industry. The mean occupation-Specific desirability rating of each stem-choice for a college graduate level sales job in industry was compared by means of a 't' test with the mean occupation-specific desirability rating of that stem-choice for a college graduate level nonsales job in industry. Two hundred and eighty 't' tests were performed. None of the 280 't' tests was significant at the .05 level with 74 degrees of freedom. Therefore, the stem-choices of the B. I. B. used in the Larsen and Swarthout study did not have sig- nificantly different occupation-specific desirability ratings for college graduate level sales and nonsales jobs. After it was found that the stem-choices did not have significantly different occupation- specific desirability ratings for the two job groupings that Larsen and Swarthout used, their data were combined into one group for use in the present study. Combining the Larsen and Swarthout data into one group for use in the present study is consistent with the procedure they followed. They found no significant differences between the responses of the students interested in sales or nonsales jobs on any variable they investigated. Therefore, they eventually combined their data, originally separated into sales and nonsales groupings, into one group. 45 In the present study, to assess the importance of occupation-specific desirability in the faking of B. I. B. items, three analyses were performed: 1. A 't' test to assess the importance of occupation- specific desirability as a factor in the faking of B. I. B. items across all subjects who faked at least one response in the Larsen and Swarthout study. Another 't' test to assess the importance of occupation- specific desirability as a factor in the faking of B. I. B. items across all the items in the Larsen and Swarthout B.I.B. A single index, a correlation coefficient, to assess the proportion of the total faking variance in the B. I. B. that was accounted for by occupation-specific desir- ability. Analysis 1--Assessment of the importance of occupation- specific desirability across subjects. One hundred and twenty—four of the 140 total of subjects faked at least one response in the Larsen and Swarthout study. For each of these 124 subjects the proportion of his faked responses that were changed to choices with higher mean occupation-specific desir- ability ratings was determined. Then, the mean proportion across 46 the 124 subjects was calculated. The mean proportion obtained was . 66. The obtained proportion of . 66 indicated that on the average each subject who faked at least one response faked 66 percent of his responses to choices with higher mean occupation-specific desir- ability ratings. Theoretically, if the variable of occupation-specific desirability was not associated with the faking of B. I. B. items, on the average, each subject who faked at least one response should have faked only 50 percent of his reSponses to a choice with a higher mean occupation-specific desirability rating. A 't' test was then performed between the two proportions, . 66 (obtained proportion) and . 50 (theoretical proportion). The obtained 't' test value was 11. 43. The 't' value needed for significance at the .01 level with 123 degrees of freedom is 2. 617. Therefore, it was concluded that the variable of occupation-Specific desirability was of statistically significant importance across subjects who faked at least one response in the Larsen and Swarthout study. Analysis 2--Assessment of the importance of occupation- specific desirability across items. There were 65 items in the Larsen and Swarthout B. I. B. For each of these 65 items the proportion of faked responses on that item that was changed to choices with higher mean occupation- specific desirability ratings was determined. The mean proportion 47 obtained was . 66. The obtained proportion of . 66 indicated that on the average for each item 66 percent of the faked responses were changed to choices with higher mean occupation-Specific desirability ratings. Theoretically, if the variable of occupation-specific desir- ability was not associated with the faking of B. I. B. items, on the average for each item, 50 percent of the faked responses should have been changed to choices with higher mean occupation-Specific desirability ratings. A 't' test was then performed between the two proportions, . 66 (obtained proportion) and . 50 (theoretical propor- tion). The obtained 't' test value was 7. 27. The 't' value needed for significance at the . 01 level with 64 degrees of freedom is 2.66. Therefore, it was concluded that the variable of occupation-specific desirability was of statistically significant importance in the faking of responses across items in the Larsen and Swarthout B. I. B. Analysis 3--Assessment of the proportion of the total faking variance accounted for by occupation-specific desirability. The correlation determined was between: 1. the proportion of subjects who after selecting choice (i) under honest instructions then selected choice (j) under job applicant instructions, and 2. the difference in the mean occupation-specific desir- ability between choices (i) and (j). 48 When this correlation was determined over all 65 items, the value obtained was . 44. A correlation of . 44 indicated that approximately 20 percent of the total faking variance was accounted for by occupation-specific desirability. The value 20 percent was obtained by squaring the obtained correlation coefficient of .44. Theoretically, if the variable of occupation-specific desirability was not associated with the faking of B. I. B. items, the obtained correlation should have been . 00. A 't' test was then per- formed between the two correlations, . 44 (obtained correlation) and . 00 (theoretical correlation). The obtained 't' test value was 10. 57. The 't' test value needed for significance at the . 01 level with 501 degrees of freedom is 2. 576. Therefore, it was concluded that the variable of occupation-specific desirability was of statistically sig- nificant importance as a determiner of total faking variance. Table 1, presented below, summarizes the three analy- ses that have been discussed. The three analyses summarized in Table 1 demonstrate that occupation-Specific desirability is of statistical significance in the faking of B. I. B. items. However, occupation-Specific desir- ability accounts for only 20 percent of the total variance in the faking of the B. I. B. items. Eighty percent of the total variance is unac- counted for. There are other factors that would have to be examined if faking on B. I. B. items is to be more completely understood. 49 TABLE 1. -- Summary of the three analyses to assess the importance of occupation-Specific desirability in the faking of B. I. B. items Analyses Statistic ' t ' value d. f. Analysis 1 Importance of occupation-specific Difference desirability across subjects .16 11.43** 123 Analysis 2 Importance of occupation—specific Difference desirability across items .16 7.27** 65 Analysis 3 Proportion of the total faking variance r _ 44 10 57** 501 accounted for by ' ' occupation-specific desirability >"ol‘p < .01 B. Item Characteristics Associated with Subjects Selecting Answers with Higher Occupation-Specific Desirabilitf Than Their Honest Answers Two item characteristics, earlier developed by Larsen and Swarthout, were examined to determine the extent to which, if any, they were associated with subjects selecting answers with higher occupation-specific desirability than their honest answers. 50 These two item characteristics were: 1) content category (described in the method section), and 2) response-choice type (described in the method section). 1 . Content Category For each item in a content category the proportion of faked responses on which subjects selected answers with higher occupation-specific desirability than their honest answers was determined. Then, the mean proportion was determined for each content category. ' T ' tests were then run between all possible pairs of mean proportions. The results are summarized in the Table below. TABLE 2. -- Levels of significance of 't' tests for comparisons be- tween item content categories on the mean proportion of faked responses that were changed to choices with higher occupation— specific desirability Content Categories Content 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Categories .05 .05 «105019me 51 The results, summarized in Table 2, have indicated that on six content categories the subjects faked approximately the same proportion of their responses to choices with higher occupation- specific desirability. On content category 4, description of self (personality), where the response choices differ in nature but not degree, the subjects faked a substantially smaller proportion of their responses to choices with higher occupation-specific desir- ability. The experimenter has no explanation other than chance dif- ferences to account for the difference between content category 4 and the other 6 content categories. 2. Response-Choice Type For each item in a reSponse-choice type the proportion of faked responses on which subjects selected answers with higher Occupation-Specific desirability than their honest answers was deter- IIIined. Then the mean proportion was determined for each response- ' T ' tests were then run between all possible pairs of c3hOIi<2e type. mean proportions. None of the 't ' tests were significant at the . 05 leVel which indicated that on the three response-choice types sub- jects faked a similar proportion of their responses to choices with hi gher occupation-specific desirability. The evidence presented suggests strongly that subjects 3916 cted answers with higher occupation-specific desirability than 52 their honest answers to a similar extent across most B. I. B. item categories, content or response type. C. A Guideline for Item Writers Interested in Reducing the Amount of Faking on B. I. B. ' 8 Since 67 percent of the faked responses in the Larsen and Swarthout study were to choices with higher occupation-specific desirability, it appeared to the experimenter that the tendency for B.I. B. items to be faked could be reduced by constructing items having choices with roughly equal occupation—specific desirability values. If a B. I. B. item writer matched the item choices on occupation-specific desirability, he would be using a procedure Comparable to the one Edwards employed in constructing the EPPS. In the EPPS, " . . . the statements are paired on the basis of their social desirability scale values. The statements appearing in the inventory, for example, were first scaled for social desirability and then paired in terms of their scale values. For each pair of statements the subject is asked to choose that member of the pair that he believes is the more descriptive of himself. The more nearly equivalent we can make the social desirability scale values of the pairs of statements, the more difficult we hope to make the choice of the subject in terms of social desirability alone. " (Edwards, 1957a, pp. 59-60) 53 The procedure of matching all the choices to a B. I. B. item on occupation-specific desirability has one major difficulty. Most B. I. B. items are composed of either four or five choices, and the probability of finding that many related choices with roughly equal occupation-specific desirability value is very small. A solu- tion to the problem would be to use only two-choice B. I. B. items. It would be considerably easier to find two related choices with roughly equal occupation-specific desirability values than to find five related choices with roughly equal occupation-specific desir- ability values. Some experimental evidence will now be cited to demon- strate that the procedure of constructing B. I. B. items with two choices that have roughly equal occupation-specific desirability values can be expected to reduce the amount of faking on B. I. B. ' 8. There were three items on the Larsen and Swarthout B. I. B. that were two-choice forced-choice. They were items 14, 54, 58, and they are presented below. 14. Which of the following is most characteristic of you? 1. A man of ideas 2. A man of action 54. Which is most descriptive of you? 1 . Industrious 2. Generous 54 58. Which of the following is most characteristic of you? 1 . Understanding 2. Directing Table 3, presented below, reveals an interesting fact concerning the three items. TABLE 3. -- Relationship between the difference in occupation- specific desirability value of the choices in the Larsen and Swarthout two-choice forced-choice items and the number of sub- jects faking that item in their study Difference in occupation- Number of Percentage Item specific desirability subjects of subjects Number value of the two choices faking faking on that item the item* the item 54 2 . 22 39 2 8 14 1 . 57 19 14 58 . 37 14 10 *140 subjects were given the B.I. B. Table 3 suggests that the smaller the difference in the occupation-specific desirability value of the two choices in an item, the less faking occurred on that item. Only fourteen subjects, ten percent of those faking on the B. I. B. , faked their response on item 58. On only six of the 65 items in the Larsen and Swarthout B. I. B. did fewer subjects fake their response. Perhaps, if B. I. B. items were 55 constructed with two choices having a still smaller difference in occupation-Specific desirability value than did the two choices in item 58, fewer than ten percent of the peOple answering those items would fake their reSponses. IV . C ONC LU SION It will be recalled that the present study was conducted to assess the importance of occupation-specific desirability in the faking of B. I. B. items and to develop some guidelines for item writers interested in minimizing faking on a B. I. B. Occupation- specific desirability was focused on because in previous B. I. B. research (Larsen and Swarthout, 1967), college seniors indicated it was the reason that would most tempt them to fake B. I. B. items in employment situations. The results of the present study have indicated that occupation-Specific desirability was statistically significant in the faking of B. I. B. items. These results strongly suggest that item writers concerned with reducing the amount of faking on B. I. B. items cannot ignore the occupation-specific desirability values of the item choices. The results of the present study led to developing a guideline for item writers interested in reducing the amount of faking on B. I. B. 's; construct two-choice, forced-choice B. I. B. items with the choices on those items having roughly equal 56 57 occupation-specific desirability values. Selected results of this study contain evidence that demonstrates that item writers follow- ing the guideline could expect to reduce the amount of faking on B. I. B. ' s. However, the evidence presented was far from conclu- sive. Further research is needed to assess the degree to which the guideline could actually, in practice, reduce the amount of fak- ing on B.I.B. 's REFERENCES Bass, B. M. Faking by sales applicants of a forced-choice per- sonality inventory. J. appl. Psychol., 1957, E, 403- 404. Braun, J. R. Effects of a top management faking set on the Gordon Personal Inventory. Psychol. Rep., 1962, 1_0, 611-614. Braun, J. R. Effects of positive and negative faking sets on the Survey of Interpersonal Values. Psychol. Rep. , 1963, 1_3_, 171-173. Braun, J. R. Effects of specific instructions to fake in Gordon Personal Profile scores. Psychol. Rep., 1965, 1_7, 847-850. Cruse, D. B. Social desirability scale values of personal concepts. J. appl. Psychol., 1965, 49, 342-344. Dunnette, M. D. , et al. A study of faking behavior on a forced- choice self-description checklist. Person. Psychol. , 1962, E, 13-24. Edwards, A. L. The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. J. appl. Psychol. , 1953, 31, 90-93. Edwards, A. L. The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1957a. Edwards, A. L. Social desirability and probability of endorsement of items in the Interpersonal Check List. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957b, 55, 394-396. 58 59 Edwards, A. L. Relationship between probability of endorsement and social desirability scale value for a set of 2, 824 personality statements. J. appl. Psychol. , 1966, 50, 238-239. '- Glennon, J. R. , Albright, L. E. , and Owens, W. A. A catalog of life history items. American Psychological Association, Division 14. Gordon, L. V. , and Stapleton, E. S. Fakeability ofa forced-choice personality test under realistic high school employment conditions. J. appl. Psychol., 1956, 3, 258-262. Green, R. F. Does a selection situation induce testees to bias their answers on interest and temperament tests. Educ. Psychol. Measmt. , 1951, 2, 503-515. Hanley, C. Social desirability and responses to items from three MMPI scales: D, Sc and K. J. appl. Psychol., 1956, 42, 324-328. Hedberg, R. More on forced-choice test fakeability. J. appl. Psychol., 1962, 46,125-127. Heron, A. The effects of real life motivation on questionnaire response. J. appl. Psychol., 1956, 42, 65-68. Kirchner, W. K. "Real-life" faking on the Edwards Personal Pref- erence Schedule by sales applicants. J. appl. Psychol. , 1962, 46, 128-130. Larsen, R. , and Swarthout, D. Objectionability and fakeability of biographical information blank forms. Unpublished masters thesis, Michigan State University, 1967. Longstaff, H. P., and Jurgensen, C. E. Fakeability of the Jurgensen Classification Inventory. J. appl. Psychol., 1953, 3_7, 86-89. Rusmore, J. T. Fakeability of the Gordon Personal Profile. J. appl. Psychol., 1956, 4_0, 175-177. 60 Shaw, M. E. The effectiveness of Whyte' s rules: "How to check on personality tests." J. appl. Psychol., 1962, 46, 21-25. Starry, A. R. The stability issue in biographical prediction. Studies in Higher Education, 1966, No. 93, 19-28. Wesman, A. G. Faking personality test scores in a simulated employment situation. J. appl. Psychol., 1952, 30, 112-113. Whyte, W. H., Jr. The organization man. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1950. APPENDIX I LARSEN AND SWARTHOUT' S RECRUITING LETTER 62 April 8, 1 966 Do you worry about getting the promotion you' ll deserve in that new job of yours? Do you worry about getting a good job at all? Do you wonder if some of those test items asking for personal information that companies use are really fair? Gentlemen, and ladies, of course, the chance of a lifetime is at your doorstep! You can help design personnel selection procedures that in the future may make or break your career. In brief, you are being asked to give your opinion about the fairness of test items, criticize them, and be either hostile or enthusiastic toward them with no fear of reprisal. In addition, you can gain experience with these questions which could be of great value in getting the job or promotion you deserve. Here' 8 the payoff! What you think, along with the thoughts of others like yourself, will be made available to influential personnel people in industry through reports and conferences. In fact, the project is being done at their request and through their support. And best of all, this opportunity is absolutely free and will take only a little over an hour of your time. The place is Olds Hall, conveniently located near the library in the center of campus. The possible days and times are listed below. Tues. April 12 7-9 p.m. 202 Olds Wed. April 13 2-4 p. m. 207 Olds Thurs. April 14 2-4 p.m. 301 Olds Fri. April 15 12-2 p.m. 203 Olds Sat. April 16 12-2 p.m. 202 Olds You may come at any of the above times. If you have any questions or cannot come at any of the above times, please contact Dick Larsen 332-8486 or Dave Swarthout 482-7670 graduate students in the Department of Psychology. (This project is under the general direction of Dr. F. R. Wickert, Phone 355—1775, 209 Olds Hall.) APPENDIX II M. s. U. RESEARCH BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION BLANK (LARSEN AND SWARTHOUT' S B. I. B.) -1- M.S.U. Research Biographical Information Blank Introduction You can help yourself as well as many others in the years ahead by participating in this research project. It has as its purpose the improvement of an important and widely used device, the biographi- cal information inventory. The particular inventory you are asked to fill out today is made up of a number of questions which are divided into several groups, each group having a different set of specific instructions. Read each question carefully and answer it according to the specific instructions for the group in which the question is placed. Directions: You will.find a few questions about your father, mother, or family. Most participants in this study will have no problem defining family and family members; there are some who will. The rest of this paragraph is designed to clarify these matters for those who may have some difficulty. You are to answer all such questions with reference to the person who most fully acted as your mother or father, or group that most fully acted as your family. This person or persons may be either your own father, mother or family, a foster parent or family, a relative or his family, a guardian or his family, or any one else and his family as apprOpriate. You are to mark your answers on the separate answer sheets provided for each group of questions. You should be careful to use the correct answer sheet for each group of questions. Please answer every question. Be sure your marks on the answer sheet are heavy and black, and in the apprOpriate place. Erase completely any answer you wish to change. Please write your name and major in the spaces provided at the bottom of this page. we need your name and major so that we can keep track of who participated and then not try to get in touch with the same peOple again. All information given will be kept strictly confidential and will be used for experimental purposes only. Now, if there are no questions, turn the page and continue. Name Major coz— Which of the following two broad types of jobs are you most interested in going into when you complete your college work? / 7 (l) Sales-or-customer-oriented job--sales engineer, sales manager, equipment sales, etc. / 7 (2) A non sales job--technical, management, accounting, etc. If you answered No. 1, turn to page 3. If you answered No. 2, turn to page h. -3— You have indicated that you are interested in going into a sales-oriented job when you complete your college career. You are to answer the questions in the following group under these assumptions: (1) You are about to or have just graduated from college. (2) You are applying for a sales-oriented job in some company. (3) The following questions are presented to you as part of a sales job application procedure. You should therefore answer the questions in the following group as though you are applying for a sales-oriented job. Go ahead now and answer the questions on page A. (2 pages ahead) Use the answer sheet printed in green. \n -n- . Research Biographical Information Blank During your adolescence, how much 7. time did you generally spend with your father in mutual activities per week? 1. Less than 1 hour per week 2. 1 to 3 hours 3. h to 7 hours b. 8 to 16 hours 5. Over 16 hours per week flow old were you when you first 8. 'spent an entire month away from your family? 1. Under 12 2. 12 to 15 3. 16 to 18 h. 19 or older 5. Never have How much freedom did your mother 9. give you during your childhood and adolescence? 1. Not very much 2. A fair amount 3. Practically all I wanted 6. All I wanted 5. Wore than I wanted “hich of the following tended to 10. be the most distressing to you - in your youth? 1. Unpopularity with boys 2. Shyness with girls, 3. UnpOpularity with teachers h. Lack of achievement in school ' 5. None of the above were at all distressing to me Up to the age of 18, how would 11- you describe your home life and your relationship with your parents? 1. Practically perfect 2. Satisfactory 3. Rather satisfactory h. Rather unsatisfactory S. Unsatisfactory When you were about 18-21, how 12- often did friends come to you for advice about how to deal with people or how to meet social situations? 1. Frequently 2. Occasionally 3. Barely 5 Very rarely Which of the following occupations would have appealed to you the most at age 21? 1. Radio announcer 2. Artist 3., Scientist h. Lawyer How much selling experience did you have prior to the age of 21? 1. None 2. Less than 1 year 3. 1-2 years b. 2-3 years 5. More than 3 years How many courses in Accounting have you co leted (high school and college ? 1. None 2. 1-2 3. 3-h N. 5-6 5. 7 or more During your undergraduate years in college how often did you visit your library to read materials not directly related to your classwork? 1. Frequently 2. Occasionally 3. Rarely h. Never How old were you when you were first married? 1. Less than 18 years old . 18 to 22 years old 23-28 years old 29 or over . Never married 2 3 h 5 To what extent do you like to keep regular hours and run your life according to an established sched- U18? 1. To a great extent 2. To some extent 3. To a small extent b. To a very small extent l3. 15. 16. 17. 18. When you feel worried or troubled, what do you most prefer to do? 1. Go to the movies 2. Have a few drinks 3. Talk to someone h. Be by myself 5. Try to sleep it off Which of the following is most characteristic of you? 1. A man of ideas 2. A man of action Consider the words listed below. Which of them is the most impor- tant to you? 1. Money 2. People 3. Ideas h. Things To what extent do you feel that hard work is the basic factor of success? 1. To a great extent 2. To some extent 3. To a small extent h. To a very small extent 5. Not at all Which one of the following best describes you? 1. Aggressive 2. Intellectual 3. Patient h. Energetic The one to whom I was most at- tached and whom I most admired as a chils was a woman. sister, aunt, or other woman). 1. True 2. Don't know or does not apply 3. False (Nether, -B- 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Which of the following seems most important to you? 1. A pleasant home and family life 2. A challenging and exciting job 3. Getting ahead in the world h. Being active and accepted in community affairs 5. Making the most of your particular abilities How often do you feel discouraged? 1. Frequently 2. Occasionally 3. Rarely h. Hardly ever 5. Never Viewing yourself as objectively as possible, would you describe yourself as: l. Aggressive 2. Occasionally aggressive, but typically not 3. Rather self-restrained h. Definitely restrained Does it take quite a bit to get you stirred up or excited? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Undecided Which one of the following best describes you? 1. Good-natured 2. Idealistic 3. Emotionally mature u. Ambitious S. Dependable 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. .0. Rate your ability as compared with 29, your associates to change your ideas and behavior and to tolerate changes around you. Consider your tendency to see things from various viewpoints, to move from one frame of thought to another, to shift from one problem to another in a confortable manner. Consider your ability to spread your attention broadly and to focus it narrowly as occasions arise. .1. Somewhat less than average 2. About average 3. Somewhat more than average h. Definitely more than average 5. Considerably more than average 30. How would you rate yourself on self-confidence compared to your associates? 1. Among top 5% 2. Among top 10% 3. Above average h. About average 31. 5. Somewhat below average During one period when I was a youngster I engaged in petty thievery. 1. True 2. Don't know or does not apply 3. False How sensitive are you to criticism 32. of your work? 1. Very sensitive 2. Somewhat sensitive 3. About average h. Not very sensitive 5. Not at all sensitive Once in a while I feel hate toward 33_ members of my family whom I usually love. 1. True 2. Don't know or does not apply 3. False If someone borrowed money from you and failed to pay you back, what would you probably do about it? 1. Ask for it after a short time 2. Sometimes ask for it depend- ing upon who borrowed it and the amount of money 3. Seldom ask for it h. DrOp hints without actually asking for it 5. Unlikely to ask for it Approximately what annual salary do you really expect to be earning ten years from now? 1. $8,000 to pl0,0CO 2. About $12,500 3. About $15,000 h. $20,000 or more How often have you found books more interesting than people? 1. Very frequently 2. Frequently 3. Occasionally h. Rarely 5. Very rarely, if ever How often do you tend to suggest somewhat "wild ideas" during a discussion with your associates? 1. Frequently 2. Occasionally 3. Rarely h. Never Do you ever stretch the truth a little to make yourself seem a little more important? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Undecided 3h. 35. 36. 37. 38. Which one of the following best 39, describes your personality? 1. Critical 2. Cynical 3. Stern h. Soft-hearted Indicate the lowest level of achievement in all-around speaking ability with which you would be no, satisfied and which you intend to achieve for your entire career. Compare yourself with your associ- ates. 1. Slightly below average 2. Above average 3. Slightly above average h. Considerably above average 5. Far above average How would feel about moving your home to a new location? 1. Do not mind at all 2. Willing, but not eager NI. 3. Agreeable, but reluctant h. Rather dislike the idea 5. Definitely dislike the idea Which one of the following factors do you feel to be the most respon- h2. sible for the world's ills? l. The lack of concern for one's fellowman, and absence of ideals 2. The great emphasis on money as an indicator of success 3. The necessity of conforming to the norms of our present society--1ack of individualism h. The lack of privacy necessary for self-development How persistent or aggressive are N3. you in gaining recognition of your ideas? 1. Very persistent 2. Definitely more persistent than average 3. Somewhat more persistent than average h. Above average in persistence 5. Somewhat below average in persistence In a daily working situation, which of the following would be most satisfying to you? 1. Profit 2. Fame 3. Power h. Security 5. Self expression How do you usually react to an unpleasant situation? 1. Generally I try to respond quickly 2. Nest of the time I put off a decision for a little while so I can think it over 3. Often want to sleep on it or put off a decision for quite a while u. I usually don't worry about it, things will take care of themselves I have never been in trouble because of my sex behavior. 1. True 2. Don't know 3. False Which of the following would be naturally easiest for you? 1. writing reports 2. Following through on requests and details 3. Reading up on new job developments h. Speaking before a large group 5. Selling others on the im- portance of getting a job done When you have had a humiliating experience, how long do you worry about it? 1. It doesn't bother me at all 2. It bothers me for a little while, but not for long 3. I occasionally worry about it too long h. I quite often worry about it too long NS. b6. b7. h8. -E- which of the following would be most U9. important for success in selling? 1. "Gift of Gab" 2. Appearance 3. Personality h. Persistence 5. Knowledge of product How do you usually behave in a group meeting? 3 l. I express my views freely and sway the group considerab- ly 2. I express my views, but the group doesn't always share them 3. ExPress my views only oc- casionally, but they are usually very well received h. Occasionally express my views, 50. but I am sometimes unsure of their reception 5. It depends upon the situation I have found people jealous of my good ideas, just because they had not thought of them first. ' 1. True 2. DOn't know or does not apply 3. False 51 Which one of the following has helped you most in getting along with peOple? 1. Being dependable 2. ‘DevelOping mutual interests 3. Giving others a lot of atten- ,tion 52. h. Recognizing when it is "necessary to change my views How do you feel about your self- confidence? 1. I am very confident of myself in any situation 2. I am quite confident of myself in most situations 3. I have quite a bit of self- confidence about 11w intel- lectual ability, but I'm not as self-confident about my social abilities u. I have quite a bit of self- confidence about my social ability, but I'm not as self- cofident about my intel- lectual ability 5. I lack some self-confidence in both intellectual and 53. Rate your ability as compared to your associates to function ef- fectively with others in a working situation. Consider how well you sense the needs of others, your ease in dealing with people, and your power to promote group activity and solidarity. Think of your willingness to share your knowledge, to recognize the efforts and achievements of others, and to defend and deve10p your legitimate interests: . Somewhat less than average . About average . Somewhat above average . Excellent . Outstanding \nE'le-J In the past, how have you reacted to competition? . Have done my best in com- petitive situations Have been unaffected by it Have done all right, but have not liked it ’ Definitely avoid it It depends upon the situation H U117 WM 0 O I wish I were not bothered by thoughts about sex. 1. True 2. Don't know or does not app 1y 3. False How willing are you to accept new or apparently absurd ap- proaches to the solution of problems? 1. Frequently 2. Occasionally 3. Rarely h. Very rarely, or never Rate your drive compared to your associates on the dynamic force of yourself, as expressed in your activities. Consider the energy with which you conduct your duties, the speed of your accomplishments, and the amount of work you get done: 1. Somewhat below average 2. Aver e a. Somew at above average . Good 5. Outstanding 55. 56. 57. 59. 60. .' Whicn is most descriptive of you? 51, l. Industrious 2. Generous I would like to be an auto racer. 1. True 2. Don't know 3. False To what extent are you the kind of individual who becomes so-absorbed in his own work and interests that he does not mind a lack of friends? . To a great extent . To some extent . To a small extent \HC’WMH . Not at all There is very little love and companionship in my family as compared to other homes. 1. True 2. Don't know or does not apply 3. False 63. Which of the following is most characteristic of you? 1. Understanding 2. Directing Indicate the lowest level of achievement in all-around com- munication ability (abilityFEo have 6“: people understand you clearly when you try to communicate your ideas or thoughts to them) with which you Would be satisfied and which you intend to achieve for your entire career. Compare yourself with your associates. 1. Slightly below average 2. About average 3. Slightly above average h. Considerably above average 5. Outstanding Which one of the following age groups would be least concerned about what their pay is likely to be when they are age 60-65? 1. 25-29 2. 30-3h 3. 35-39 h. uo-bh Form No. b . To a very small extent 62, 65. Rate your ability to determine your own thought and action based on your own ideas, judg- ments, and goals as compared with your associates. Consider your power in thinking and acting to set a course of action and to move toward a goal without the prompting, pressure, guidance, or authority from anyone but yourself. 1. Outstanding 2. Excellent 3. Somewhat above average h. About average 5. Somewhat below average How often do you have a craving for excitement? 1. Very frequently 2. Frequently 3. Occasionally h. Rarely 5. Very rarely How often do you have a desire , to be alone, to pursue your own thoughts and interests? 1. Very frequently 2. Often 3. Sometimes b. Seldom 5. Never Which one of the following best describes you? 1. Deeply interested in intellectual problems . Emotionally stable . Deeply interested in peOple . Friendly . Aggressive VII-TV“) Which of the following best describes you? 1. WOrks hard, a plugger, sticks to a job until done 2. Can handle people, doesn't annoy others, says the right thing at the right time 3. Looks before he leaps, avoids snap-judgments, likes to deliberate before making decisions A. A pusher, lots of ambition, wants to "get ahead" —D- You were asked to answer the first group of questions as though you were applying for a job. You are now asked to answer the next group of questions in a different way. Please read the following instructions carefully. Answer the following questions under these assumptions: (1) You are about to or have just graduated from college. (2) You desire to gain important information about yourself and an opportunity to do so has arisen. You have ar- ranged to take advantage of this opportunity. (3) The following questions are part of the service you have requested in which you can only benefit by giving answers that, in your opinion, most reflect the way you really are. (U) The results will be kept strictly confidential within the service. They will be released only to you. You will be the only person who can benefit from the information. You should,.therefore, answer the following questions as honestly as you can. Go ahead now and answer the questions on page A” (next page) Use the ianswer sheet printed in red. 55. 56. 57. 59. 60. -F- Whicn is most descriptive of you? 51, l. Industrious 2. Generous I would like to be an auto racer. 1. True 2. Don't know 3. False To what extent are you the kind of individual who becomes so absorbed in his own work and interests that he does not mind a lack of friends? . To a great extent . To some extent . To a small extent \nt’wm H . Not at all There is very little love and companionship in my family as compared to other homes. 1. True 2. Don't know or does not apply 3. False 63. Which of the following is most characteristic of you? 1. Understanding 2. Directing Indicate the lowest level of achievement in all-around com- munication ability (ability—to have 6“: peOple understand you clearly when you try to communicate your ideas or thoughts to them) with which you Would be satisfied and which you intend to achieve for your entire career. Compare yourself with your associates. 1. Slightly below average 2. About average 65. 3. Slightly above average h. Considerably above average ‘5. Outstanding Which one of the following age groups would be least concerned about what their pay is likely to be when they are age 60-65? 1. 25-29 2. 30-3h 3. 35-39 h. uo-uu Form No. b To a very small extent 62. Rate your ability to determine your own thought and action based on your own ideas, judg- ments, and goals as compared with your associates. Consider your power in thinking and acting to set a course of action and to move toward a goal without the prompting, pressure, guidance, or authority from anyone but yourself. 1. Outstanding 2. Excellent 3. Somewhat above average 5. About average 5. Somewhat below average How often do you have a craving for excitement? 1. Very frequently 2. Frequently 3. Occasionally h. Rarely 5. Very rarely How often do you have a desire to be alone, to pursue your own thoughts and interests? 1. Very frequently 2. Often 3. Sometimes h. Seldom 5. Never Which one of the follcxing best describes you? 1. Deeply interested in intellectual problems . Emotionally stable . Deeply interested in peOple . Friendly . Aggressive \n-C’WM Which of the following best describes you? 1. Works hard, a plugger, sticks to a job until done 2. Can handle people, doesn't annoy others, says the right thing at the right time 3. Looks before he leaps, avoids snap-judgments, likes to deliberate before making decisions A. A pusher, lots of ambition, wants to "get ahead" w- The next thing you are asked to do is to evaluate each of the questions you have already been over with respect to how acceptable or objectionable it is to you, as well as to tell why you object to it if you do. Precise instructions are: Rate every question according to how acceptable or objectionable it seems to you. By this is meant, to what extent would you be willing to answer, or object to answering, this question as a part of your applying for a job upon graduation from college? Assume you are applying for the same job as before. The rating scale you are to use for each item is as follows. You are to put an X on the line directly above the descriptive phrase that indicates how you feel about the question, e.g., X . Very willing Willing to No feeling Slightly - Strongly to answer answer one way or object to object to the other (1) (2) (3) (h) (5) Next, listed below.are several reasons that students like yourself have given for objecting to questions. For each question you slightly or strongly Object to, that is, those you rate (A) or (5), check the ap- prOpriate reasons. You may check up to 3 reasons for any one question. Also indicate which reason you feel is most important in your objecting to the question by circling the X for that reason. If other reasons are not given, specify them in the space provided. Reasons for objecting to questions: 1. The question is too personal or prying, none of their business. 2. The question is not relevant to the job, I cannot see the value or significance of the question, the question is not pertinent. 3. The question is fakeable-~0ne has to fake to get the job, others fake,, everyone answers it the same to look good, sometimes even makes one feel dishonest to have to fake. h. The choices are not adequate in the sense that more choices are needed, I want to qualify my answer and there is no way to do so, no accurate answer is possible, all choices apply, hard to discriminate between choices, the terms are not defined. 5. I don't want to be classified or categorized or stereotyped, the answer I give may depend on some particular situation and I don't want a prospective employer to generalize what is true for one situation to various other situations and in this way classify me. 6. The question is confusing, poorly worded, vague, or too general. 7. I don't want to be judged or classified or compared according to the friends or associates that I might have had; I want to be judged on my own merits. 8. 0ther(s). (Please specify.) Now consider a question that you have rated as one you would object to, that is, either (h) or (5). Suppose for that question you feel that reasons 3, 6 and 7 apply and that reason 6 is the most important. You would then indicate your res onse in the way shown below. Of course, you need not mark 3 reasons but only those that apply up to a maximum of 3. If you object to a question for only one reason, you need not circle the one . 10 2o 3. a he 50 60 i g! 70 z 8. Now begin ratinguthegquestions; -STIT your ratings in this test booklet. .-.g V ‘er —fi -7- For your convenience, this is a repetition of the list of reasons for objecting to a particular question. If in rating the questions that appear on this page you rate the question slightly or strongly objectionable, that is, (h) or (5), put an X on the line for the reason(s) (up to 3 reasons) that apply for you in the "Reasons" spaces provided. Circle the X that is the most important reason for you. If you object to a question for only one reason, you need not circle the one X. Reasons: 1. The question is too personal or prying, none of their business. 2. The question is not relevant to the job, I cannot see the value or ’ significance of the question, the question is not pertinent. 3. The question is fakeable--one has to fake to get the job, others fake, everyone answers it the same to look good, sometimes even makes one feel dishonest to have to fake. b. The choices are not adequate in the sense that more choices are needed, I want to qualify my answer and there is no way to do so, no accurate answer is possible, all choices apply, hard to dis- _ criminate between choices, the terms are not defined. 5. I don't want to be classified or categorized or stereotyped, the answer I give may depend on some particular situation and I don't want a prospective employer to generalize what is true for one situation to various other situations and in this way classify me. 6. The question is confusing, poorly worded, vague, or too general. 7. I don't want to be judged or classified or compared according to the friends or associates that I might have had; I want to be judged on my own merits. 8. 0ther(s). (Please specify.) '2!- * it 1. During your adolescence, how much time did you generally spend with your father in mutual activities per week? (1) less than 1 hour per week (2) l to 3 hours (3) h to 7 hours (5) 8 to 16 hours (5) Over 16 hours per week Very willing Willing to No feeling one Slightly Strongly to answer answer way or the other object to object to (l) (2) (3) (h) (5) Reason(s): l. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. 7' ____ .8. 2. How old were you when you first spent an entire month away from Your family? (1) Under 12 (2) 12 to 15 (3) 16 to 18 (h) 19 or older (5) Never have Very willing Willing to No feeling one Slightly Strongly to aqiwer ansYgS way orBShe other_ objfiqt to obqut to Reason(s): l. 2. I 3. h. 5. 6. 7° _____ 8. -3- Continue just as you did on the preceding page. From here On it is assumed that you know the instructions well enough' that it is not.necessary' to repeat allof them. Nevertheless, for your ready reference, the list of reasons for objecting is repeated at the tap of each page. Reasons: 1. The question is too personal or prying, none of their business. 2. The question is not relevant to the job, I cannot see the value or significance of the question, the question is not pertinent. 3. The question is fakeable--one has to fake to get the job, others fake, everyone answers it the same to look good, sometimes even makes one feel dishonest to have to fake. h. The choices are not adequate in the sense that more choices are needed, I want to qualify my answer and there is no way to do so, no accurate answer is possible, all choices apply, hard to dis- criminate between choices, the terms are not defined. 5. I don't want to be classified or categorized or stereotyped, the answer I give may depend on some particular situation and I don't want a prospective employer to generalize what is true for one situation to various other situations and in this way classify me. 6. The question is confusing, poorly worded, vague, or too general. 7. I don't want to be judged or classified or compared according to the friends or associates that I might have had; I want to be judged on my own merits. 8. 0ther(s). (Please specify.) 3. How much freedom did your mother give you during your childhood and adolescence?‘ (1) Not very much (2) A fair amount (3) Practically all I wanted (h) All I wanted (5) More than I wanted Very willing Willing to No feeling one Slightly Strongly to answer answer way or the other object to object to ‘ (1) (2) (3) (h) (5) Reason(s): l. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. 7. 8. h. Which of the following tended to be the most distressing to you in your youth? (1) UnpOpularity with boys (2) Shyness with girls (3) Unpopularity with teachers (h) Lack of achievement in school (5) None of the above were at all distreséing to me Very willing Willing to No feeling one Slightly Strongly to answer answer way or the other object to object to (l) (2) (3) (h) (S) Reason(s): l. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. 7. 8. 5. Up to the age of 18, how would you describe your home life and your relationship with your parents? (1) Practically perfect (2) Satis- factory (3) Rather satisfactory (h) Rather unsatisfactory (5) Un- satisfactory Very willing Willing to No feeling one Slightly Strongly to answer answer way or the other object to object to (1) (2) ‘ (3) ‘ ' (h) (S) Reason(s): l. 2. 3. ' "’h. ' “5. "" 6. 7. 8. -19- Reasons: 1. The question is too personal or prying, none of their business. 2. The question is not relevant to the job, I cannot see the value or significance of the question, the question is not pertinent. 3. The question is fakeable--one has to fake to get the job, others fake, everyone ‘ answers the same to look good, sometimes even makes one feel dishonest to have to fake. h. The choices are not adequate in the sense that more choices are needed, I want to qualify my answer and there is no way to do ,so, no accurate answer is possible, all choices apply, hard to discriminate _ between choices, the terms are not defined. 5. I don't want to be classi- ’fied or categorized or stereotyped, the answer I give may depend on some .- particular situation and I don't want a prospective employer to generalize .what is true for one situation to various other situations and in this way _ classify me.. 6. The question is confusing, poorly worded, vague, or too general. 7. I don't want to be judged or classified or compared according to_the friends or associates that I might have had; I want to be judged on my own merits. 8. Other(s).j_(Please specify.) 36. How would you feel about moving your home to a new location? 'r. (1) Do not mind at all (2) Willing, but not eager (3) Agreeable, but reluctant (h) Rather dislike the idea (5) Definitely dislike the idea Very willing Willing to No feeling one 'Slightly Strongly to answer answer way or the other object to object to (1) (2) (3) (u) I <5) Reason(s):' l. 2. 3. h. 5. 6.. 7. 8. 37., Which one of the following factors do you feel to be the most '3 responsible for the world's ills? (l) The lack of concern for one's fellowman, and absence of ideals (2) The great emphasis on money as an indicator of success, (3) The necessity of conforming to the norms of our present society--lack of individualism (h) The lack of privacy necessary for self-development A Very willing Willing to No TEeling one :Slightly . Strongly to answer answer way or the other object to object to ~(1) (2) (3) (h) (S) Reason(s): 1. 2. 3. h. S. 6. 7. 8. 38. HOw persistent or aggressive are you in gaining recognition of your ideas? (1) Very persistent (2) Definitely more persistent than average (3) Somewhat more persistent than average (h) About average in persistence (5) Somewhat below average in persistence Very willing Willing to No feeling one . Slightly - Strongly to answer answer way or the other object to object to (l) (2) (3) .- I (h) (S) Reason(s): l. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. 7. G -1h- Reasons: 1. The question is too personal or prying, none of their business. 2. The question is not relevant to the job, I cannot see the value or significance of the question, the question is not pertinent. 3. The question is fakeable--one has to fake to get the job, others fake, everyone answers it the same to look good, sometimes even makes one feel dishonest to have to fake. h. The choices are not adequate in the sense that more choices are needed, I want to qualify my answer and there is no way to do so, no accurate answer is possible, all choices apply, hard to discriminate between choices, the terms are not defined. 5. I don't want to be classified or categorized or stereotyped, the answer I give may depend on some particular situation and I don't want a prospective employer to generalize what is true for one situation to various other situations and in this way classify me. 6. The question is confusing, poorly'Worded: vague, or too general. 7. I don't want to be judged or classified or compared according to the friends or associates that I might have had; I want to be judged on my own merits. 8. 0ther(s). (Please specify.) 21. Viewing yourself as objectively as possible, would you describe yourself as: (l) Aggressive (2) Occasionally aggressive, but typically not (3) Rather self-restrained (h) Definitely restrained Very willing Willing to No feeling one Slightly Strongly to(iqswer an?gqr way or(§?e other oqufi§ to objggp to Reason(s): l. _____ 2. _____ 3. _____ h. _____ 5. ______6. _____ 7. _____ 8. 22. Does it take quite a bit to get you stirred up or excited? (1) Yes (2) No (3) Undecided Very willing Willing to No feéling one Slightly Strongly to answer answer way or the other object to object to 1 (2) 3 Reason(s): l. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. 7. 8. 23. Which one of the following best describes you? (1) Good-natured (2) Idealistic (3) Emotionally mature (h) Ambitious (5) Dependable Very willing Willing to No feeling one Slightly Strongly to answer answer way or the other object to object (1) (2) (3) (h) (5) Reason(s): l. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. 7. 8. _ o- M. S. U. Biographical3 Inventory Blanks For this last group of questions, you are asked to evaluate each one of the questions in a still different way. You are to evaluate each one of the questions with respect to the extent to which.you are tempted to fake the question. Rate every question according to the extent to which you would be tempted to fake it. By this is meant, to whet extent are you likely to answer the question in a less than honest manner if the question was part of a job application procedure that you were required to go through to get a specific job upon graduation from college? Assume you are applying for the same Job as before. The rating scale you are to use for each item is as follows. You are to place an X on the line directly above the descriptive phrase that indicates how you feel about the question, e.g., X ‘. definitely will I probably will not probably will definitely will not fake fake fake fake (I) (2) (3) (h) Next, listed below are several reasons that students like yourself have given for being tempted to fake questions. For each question that you would definitely or probably fake, that is, those you would rate (3) or (h), place an X on the line corresponding to the appropriate reason(s). You may check up to 3 reasons for any one question, also indicate which reason you feel is the most important in tempting you to fake the question by circling the X you placed on the line for the most important reason. If there are other applicable reasons that are not given, specify those reasons in the space provided. Reasons for being tempted to fake questions: ' - 1. It is probably possible to tell what the employer is looking for, an in order to get the gob I will answer in such a way as to appear favor- able in the eyes of he employer. 2. It is robably not possible to tell which answer is really the honest one. f those that are more or less honest, I will pick the one that will present the most favorable picture of myself. 3. It seems that everyone else will fake so I must also if I want the Job. . The employer has no right to know the honest answer, and so I will fake. h 5. A certain answer is more socially desirable, apart from any personal. quality needed to get the job, and I will fake in order to present myself as a socially valued and acceptable person. 6. 0ther(s). (Please specify.) Now, consider a question that you have rated as one you would be tempted to fake, that is, you have rated either (3) or (h). Suppose for that question you feel that reasons (2), (h), and (5) apply, and that reason (h) is the most important. You would then indicate your response(s) in the way shown below. Of course, you need not mark 3 reasons but only those that apply up to a maximum of three. If you would be te ted to fake a particular question for only one reason, you need not circle he one X. Reason(s): l. 2. X 3. h. (“Z*)'5. X 6. Now begin rating the questiOns. As with the previous group of questions in which you evaluated how much you objected to questions, mark your ratings in this test booklet. -You no longer'mmrk.your responses on an on war qhnn‘k -37- Reasons: 1. It is probably possible to tell what the employer is looking for, and in order to get the job I will answer in such a way as to appear . favorable in the eyes of the employer. 2. It is probably not possible to tell which answer is really the honest one. Of those that are more or less honest, I will pick the one that will present the most favorable picture of myself. 3. It seems that everyone else will fake so I must also if I want the job. h. The employer has no right to know the honest answer, and so I will fake. 5. A certain answer is more socially desirable, apart from any personal quality needed to get the job, and I will fake in order to present myself as a socially valued and acceptable person. 6. 0ther(s). (Please specify.) . 23. Which one of the following best describes you? (1) Good-natured (2) Idealistic (3) Emotionally mature (b) Ambitious (5) Dependable Definitely will not Probably will not Probably will Definitely will f k fak fak fak 86 (1) e (2) e (3) e (u) Reason(s): l. 2. 3. h. ‘ 5. 6 6. 2h. Rate your ability as compared with your associates to change your ideas and behavior and to tolerate changes around you. Consider your tendency to see things from various viewPoints, to move from one frame of thought to another, to shift from one problem to another in a comfortable manner. Consider your ability to spread your attention broadly and to focus it narrowly as occasions arise. (1) Somewhat less than average (2) About average (3) Somewhat more than average (h) Definitely more than average (5) Considerably more than average Definitely will not Probably will not Probably will Definitely will f ake (l) fake (2) fake (3) fake (h) Reason(s): l. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. 25. How would you rate yourself on self-confidence compared to your associates? (1) Among top 5% (2) Among t0p 10% (3) Above average (h) About average (5) Somewhat below average ’_ Definitely will’not Probably will not Probably will.” Definitely will a e (l) , A fake (2) fake (3) fake .(h) Reason(s): l. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. 26. During one period when I was a youngster I engaged in petty thievery. ‘ (1) True (2) Don't know or does not apply (3) False Definitely will not Probably will not Probably will Definitely will fake fake fake fake (1) (2) (3) (h) Reason(s): l. 2. 3 h. 5. l -hh- Reasons: 1. It is probably possible to tell what the employer is looking _ for, and in order to get the job I will answer in such a way as to appear ' favorable in the eyes of the employer. 2. It is probably not possible to tell which answer is really the honest one. Of those that are more or less honest, I will pick the one that will present the most favorable picture of myself. 3. It seems that everyone else will fake so I must also if I want the job. h. The employer has no right to know the honest answer, and ' so I will fake. 5. A certain answer is more socially desirable, apart “’from any personal quality needed to get the job, and I will fake in order 'to present myself as a socially valued and acceptable person. 6. 0ther(s). (Please specify.) . ' ~ h9. Rate your ability as compared to your associates to function effectively with others in a working situation. Consider how well you sense the needs of others, your ease in dealing with people, and your power to promote group activity and solidarity. Think of your willingness to . (share your knowledge, to rec0gnize the efforts and achievements of "others, and to defend and develOp your legitimate interests: (1) Somewhat less than average 2) About average (3) Somewhat above average (h) Excellent (5) Outstanding Definitely will not. Probably will not Probably will Definitely will fake A fake - fake fake -(1) (2) ’ (3) (h) Reason(S): l. 2. 3. b. “ '5. .6. ““' “‘“‘ “"" "“" ‘“" 50. In the past, how have you reacted to competition? (1) Have done my best in competitive situations (2) Have been unaffected by it (3) Have done all right, but have not liked it (h) Definitely avoid it (5) It depends upon the situation , T ' ; Definitely will not Probably will not Probably will Definitely W111 . fake "'fake fake fake (I) ' (2) (3) (h) Reason(s): l. 2. -3. , h. 5. 6. 51. I wish I were not bothered by thoughts about sex. (1) True (2) Don‘t know or does not apply (3) False 33.» . Definitely will not Probably will not Probably will Definitely will f ake (l) fake (2) fake (3) fake (h) Reason(s): l. 2. 3. h. 5- 6. -h9- Thank you very much for your cooperation in this study. If you have any comments or observations about biographical inventories in general or about the specific questions asked above, please write them on this page. APPENDIX III OCCUPATIONAL DESIRABILITY RATING FORMS INSTRUCTION SHEET OCCUPATIONAL DESIRABILITY RATING FORM FORM Q Imagine yourself, as best you can, as about to graduate from college and applying for a sales-oriented job in industry which you would like to get very much. Smne statements follow which you might make during the course of an employment interview. You are to rate these statements individually with respect to how you think they would impress your interviewer. A.nine-point rating scale is used. A diagram of it follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 statement statement statement ‘will make will not make will make a very much difference a very unfavorable one way or the favorable im- impression other pression Low ratings are given to statements that would make you appear unfavorable. High ratings are given to statements that would make you appear favorable. An example: 1. I would not work for your company if it was the only one in the world. If you told this to your interviewer, it would probably give him a very unfavorable impression of you. You would therefore give this item a low rating, most probably a rating of 1. You are to record your ratings on the I.B.M5 sheet provided for you. On this sheet use only the small numbers 1 through 9 to record your ratings. Disregard the O and the space between 4 and 5. An illustration follows to show you how you are to enter the ratings that you make. In the illustration a rating of 1 is given to the statement. 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 1, 22:2: :22.: ::::: ::::: ::::: :::: .:::: It will be perfectly obvious, once you get started making ratings, that the items are presented in related clusters. One clue will be that at fairly regular intervals there is a space between items. The statements that you are being asked to rate come from choices in a multiple-choice questionnaire. Frequently, these choices are a matter of degree of the same general theme. It is expected that your ratings will be influenced by the clustering of the statements. Naturally, what you consider a more acceptable degree of some personal quality or some personal behavior you will rate more acceptable than what you consider a less acceptable degree of that quality or behavior. When it is appropriate, then, let the relativity of the statements within a cluster affect the ratings you make on each of the choices within that cluster. l l lllul [I ‘ ' 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. OCCUPATIONAL DESIRABILITY RATING FORM FORMIMHj f " During my adolesCence I generally spent.less than 1 hour per week with my father in mutual activities. During my adolescence I generally spent 1 to 3 hours per week with my father in mutual activities. 6 T During my adolescence I generally spent 4 to 7 hours per week with my father in mutual activities. During my adolescence I generally spent 8 to 16 hours per week with my father in mutual activities. During my adolescence I generally spent over 16 hours per week with my father in mutual activities. I was under 12 when I first spent an entire month away from my family. I was between 12 to 15 when I first spent an entire month away from my family. I was between 16 to 18 when I first spent an entire month away from my family. I was 19 or older when I first spent an entire month away from my family. I never have spent an entire month away from my family. My mother did not give me very-much freedom during my childhood and adolescence. My mother ggye me a fair amount of freedom during my childhood and adolescence. My mother ggve me practically all the freedom I wanted during my adolescence. My mother ggve me all the freedom I wanted during my adolescence. My mother ggye me more freedom than I wanted during my adolescence. .Unpopularity with boys tended to be more distressing to me in my youth than shyness with girls, unpopularity with teachers or lack of achievement in school Shyness 'with girls tended to be more distressing to me in my youth than un- popularity with boys, unpopularity with teachers or lack of achievement in school. Unpopularity with teachers tended to be more distressing to me in my youth than unpopularity with boys, shyness with girls or lack of achievement in school. Lack of achievement in school tended to be more distressing to me in youth- than unpopularity with psy8.shyness with girls or unpopularity with teachers, Nglghgg unpopularity with boys, nor shyness with girls, nor unpopularity ‘ with teachers, nor lack of achievement in school were a; all distressigg to me in my youth. ‘ ~ ‘ Up to the age of 18, I would describe my home life and my relationship with my parents as practically perfect. Up to the age of 18, I would describe my home life and my relationship with my parents as satisfactory. , f . Up to the age of 18, I would describe my home life and my relationship with my parents as rather satisfactbry. . . Up to the age of 18, I would describe my home life and my relationship with my parents as rather unsatisfactory. « ' Up to the age of 18, I would describe my home life and my relationship with my family as unsatisfactory. ' v When I was about 18-21 my friends frequently came to me for advice about how to deal with people or how to meet social situations. When I was about 18-21 my friends occasionally came to for advice about how to deal with people or how to meet social situations. ‘When I was about 18-21 by friends rarely came to me for advice about how to deal with people or how to meet social situations. (over) 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. When I was about l8-21 my friends very rarely came to me for advice about how to deal with people or how to meet social situations. When I was about 18-21 my friends never came to me for advice about how to deal with people or how to meet social situations. At the age of 21 the occupation of radio announcer would have appealed to me more than the occupations of artist, scientist or lawyer. At the age of 21 the occupation of artist would have appealed to me more than the occupations of radio announcer, scientist or lawyer. , At the age of 21 the occupation of scientist would have appealed to me more than the occupations of radio announcer, altist or lawyer. At the age of 21 the occupation of lawyer would have appealed to me more than the occupations of radio announcer, artist or scientist. Prior to the age of 21 I had no selling experience. Prior to the age of 21 I had less than 1 year of selling experience. Prior to the age of 21 I had 1-2 years of selling experience. Prior to the age of 21 I had 2-3 years of selling experience. Prior to the age of 21 I had more than 3 yeagg of selling experience. I completed 22 courses in Accounting in high school and college. I completed 1- courses in Accounting in high school and college.) I completed -4 courses in Accounting in high school and college. I I N ”1"”! completed -6 courses in Accounting in high school and college. completed or more courses in Accounting in high school and colkage. N During my undergraduate years in college I frequently visited the library to read materials not directly related to my classwork. During my undergraduate years in college I occasionally visited the library to read materials not directly related to my classwork. During my undergraduate years in college I rarely visited the library to read materials not directly related to my classwork. During my undergraduate years in college I never visited the library to read materials not directly related to my classwork. I was less than 18 years old when I was first married. I was 18 to 22 years old when I was first married. I was 23 to 28 years old when I was first married. I was 29 or over when I was first married. I was never married. To a great extent I like to keep regular hours and run my life according to an established schedule. To some extent I like to keep regular hours and run my life according to an 1 established schedule. ‘ To a small extent I like to keep regular hours and run my life according to an established schedule. ‘ To a very small extent I like to keep regular hours and run my life according to an established schedule. When I feel worried or troubled I prefer to go to the movies more than have I a few drinks, talk to someone, be by myself or try to sleep it off. When I feel worried or troubled I prefer to have a few drinks more than go I to the movies, talk to someone, be by myself or try to sleep it off. I I When I feel worried or troubled I prefer to talk to someone more than go to the movies, have a few drinks, be by myself or try to sleep it off. ODRF-M 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. When I feel worried or troubled I prefer to be by myself more than go to the movies, have a few drinks, talk to someone or try to sleep it off. When I feel worried or troubled I prefer to try to sleep it off more than go to the movies, have a few drinks, talk to someone or be by myself. A man of ideas is more characteristic of me than a man of action. A man of action is more characteristic of me than a man of ideas. Money is more important to me than people. ideas or things. People are more important to me than money, ideas or things. Ideas are more important to me than money, people or things. Things are more important to me than money, people or ideas. To a great extent I feel that hard work is the basic factor of success. To some extent I feel that hard work is the basic factor of success. To a small extent I feel that hard work is the basic factor of success. To a very small extent I feel that hard work is the basic factor of success. I feel that hard work is not at all the basic factor of success. Aggressive describes me better than intellectual, patient, or energetic. Intellectual describes me better than aggressive, patient, or energetic. Patient describes me better than aggressive, intellectual, or energetic. Energetic describes me better than aggressive, intellectual, or patient. The one to whom I'was most attached and whom I most admired as a child 32$ a woman. (Mother, sister, aunt, or other women). I don't know if the one to whom I was most attached and whom I most admired as a child was a woman (Mother, sister, aunt or other women). The one to whom I was most attached and whom I most admired asta child was not a woman (mother, sister, aunt or other women). A pleasant home and family life seems more important to me than a challenging and exciting job, getting ahead in the world, being active and accepted in community affairs or making the most of my particular abilities. A challenging and exciting job seems more important to me than a pleasant home and family life, getting ahead in the world, being active and accepted in community affairs or making the most of my abilities. Gettigggahead in the world seems more important to me than a pleasant home and family life, a challenging and exciting job, being active and accepted in community affairs or making the most of my abilities. Being active and accepted in community affairs is more important to me than a pleasant home and family life, a challenging and exciting job, getting ahead in the world, or making the most of my particular abilities. Makingyghe most of my abilities seems more important to me than a pleasant home and family life, a challenging and exciting job, getting ahead in the world or being active and accepted in community affairs. I frequently feel discouraged. I occasionally feel discouraged. I rarely feel discouraged. I hardly ever feel discouraged. I never feel discouraged. Viewing myself as objectively as possible, I would describe myself as aggressive. Viewing myself as objectively as possible, I would describe myself as occasionally aggressive but typically not. ODRF-M (over) 93. Viewing myself as objectively as possible I would describe myself as rather self- restrained. 94. Viewing myself as objectively as possible I would describe myself as definitely self-restrained. 95. It takes quite a bit to get me stirred up or excited. 96. It does not take quite a bit to get me stirred up or excited. 97. I am undecided if it takes quite a bit to get me stirred up or excited. ODRF-M INSTRUCTION SHEET OCCUPATIONAL DESIRABILITY RATING FORM FORM R Imagine yourself, as best you can, as about to graduate from college and applying for a non-sales-oriented job in industry such as a technical, managerial, or accounting one which you would like to get very much. Some statements follow which you might make during the course of an employment interview. You are to rate these statements individually with respect to how you think they would impress your interviewer. A nine-point rating scale is used. A diagram of it follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 statement statement statement will make will not make will make a very much difference a very unfavorable one way or the favorable im- impression other pression Low ratings are given to statements that would make you appear unfavorable. High ratings are given to statements that would make you appear favorable. An example: 1. I would not work for your company if it was the only one in the world. If you told this to your interviewer, it would probably give him a very unfavorable impression of you. You would therefore give this item a low rating, most probably a rating of 1. ‘ You are to record your ratings on the I.B.M. sheet provided for you. On this sheet use only the small numbers 1 through 9 to record your ratings. Disregard the 0 and the space between 4 and 5. An illustration follows to show you how you are to enter the ratings that you make. In the illustration a rating of l is given to the statement. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1_F"__“"" "'—"""""'—"""T;_— It will be perfectly obvious, once you get started making ratings, that the items are presented in related clusters. One clue will be that at fairly regular intervals there is a space between items. The statements that you are being asked to rate come from choices in a multiple-choice questionnaire. Frequently. these choices are a matter of degree of the same general theme. It is expected that your ratings will be influenced by the clustering of the-statements. Naturally, what you consider a more acceptable degree of some personal quality or some personal behavior you will rate more acceptable than what you consider a less acceptable degree of that quality or behavior. When it is appropriate, than, let the relativity of the statements within a cluster affect the ratings you make on each of the choices within that cluster. l I ll 1| I II 4 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. OCCUPATIONAL DESIRABILITY RATING FORM FORM.N Good natured describes me better than idealistic, emotionally matured, ambitious or dependable. ‘ Idealistic describes me better than good-natured, emotionally mature, ambitious or dependable. Emotionallygmature describes me better than good- -natured, idealistic, ambitious or dependable. Ambitious describes me better than good-natured, idealistic, emotionally mature or dependable. * Dependable describes me better than good-natured, idealistic, emotionally .mature or ambitious. I rate my ability as compared with my associates to change my ideas and ’behavior and to tolerate changes around me as somewhat less than average. This considers my tendency to see things from various viewpoints, to move from one problem to another in a comfortable manner. This considers my ability to spread my attention broadly and to focus it narrowly as occasions arise. Using the explanation given in question 6 I rate my ability as compared with my associates to change my ideas and behavior and to tolerate changes around me as about average. Using the explanation given in question 6 I rate my ability as compared with my associates to change my ideas and behavior and to tolerate changes around me as somewhat more than average. Using the explanation given in question 6 I rate my ability as compared with my associates to change my ideas and behavior and to tolerate changes around me as definitely more than averag‘. Using the explanation given in question 6 I rate my ability as compared with my associates to change my ideas and behavior and to tolerate changes around me as considerably more than average. I would rate myself among the top 5% on self-confidence compared to my associates. I would rate myself among the top 10% on self-confidence compared to my associates. I would rate myself above average on self-confidence compared to my associates. I would rate myself about average on self~confidence compared to my associates. I would rate myself ggmewhat below average on self-confidence compared to my"associates. During one period when I was a youngster I engaged in petty thievery. Idon't know if during one period when I was a youngster I engaged in petty thievery. During 22 period when I was a youngster did I engage in petty thievery. am.very sensitive to criticism of my work. am somewhat sensitive to criticism of my work. am about average in sensitivity to criticism of my work. am not very sensitive to criticism of my work. am not at all sensitive to criticism of my‘work. HHHHH (over) 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. Once in a while I feel hate toward members of my family whom I usually love. I don't know if once in a while I feel hate toward members of my family whom I usually love. I never feel hate toward members of my family whom I usually love. If someone borrowed money from me and failed to pay me back, I would probably ask for it after a short time. If someone borrowed money from me and failed to pay me back I would probably sometimes ask for it depending_upon who borrowed it and the amount of the money. . If someone borrowed money from me and failed to pay me back I would probably seldom ask for it. If someone borrowed money from me and failed to pay me back I would probably drop hints without actually asking for it. If someone borrowed money from me and failed to pay me back I would probably be unlikely to ask for it. I really expect to be earning an annual salary of approximately §82000 to §10,000 ten years from how. I really expect to be earning an annual salary of about $12,500 ten years from now. I really expect to be earning an annual salary of about $154990 or more ten years from now. I really expect to be earning an annual salary of §20,000 or more ten years from now. I have very freqpently found books more interesting than people. I have frequently found books more interesting than people. I have occasionally found books more interesting than people. I have rarely found books more interesting than people. I have very rarely if ever found books more interesting than people. I frequently tend to suggest somewhat "wild ideas" during a discussion with my associates. I occasionally tend to suggest somewhat "wild ideas" during a discussion with my associates.. I rarely tend to suggest somewhat "wild ideas" during a disucssion with my assoicates. . I never tend to suggest somewhat "wild ideas" during a discussion with my associates. I have stretched the truth a little to make myself seem a little more important. I have never stretched the truth a little to make myself seem a little more important. I am undecided if I have ever stretched the truth a little to make myself seem a little more important. Critical describes my personality better than cynical, stern or soft-hearted. Cypical describes my personality better than critical, stern or soft-hearted. Stern describes my personality better than critical, cynical or soft-hearted. Soft-hearted describes my personality better than critical, cynical or stern. ODRF-N 52. The lowest level of achievement in all-around speaking with which I would be satisfied and which I intend to achieve for my entire career is slightly below average. This rating is a comparison with my associates. 53. The lowest level of achievement in all around speaking ability with which I would be satisfied and which I intend to achieve for my entire career is above average. This rating is a comparison with my associates. S4. The lowest level of achievement in all around speaking ability with which I would be satisfied and which I intend to achieve for my entire career is slightly above average. This rating is a comparison with my associates. 55. The lowest level of achievement in all around speaking ability with which I would be satisfied and which I intend to achieve for my entire career is considerably above average. This rating is a comparison with my associates. S6. The lowest level of achievement in all around speaking ability with which I would be satisfied and which I intend to achieve for my entire career is far above average. This rating is a comparison with my associates. 57. I do not mind at all moving my home to a new location. 58. I am willing, but not eager'to move my home to a new location. 59. I am agreeable, but reluctant to move my home to a new location. 60. I rather dislike the idea of moving my home to.a new location. 61. I definitely dislike the-idea of moving my home to a new location. 62. ‘I feel the lack of concern for one's fellow man and absence of ideals is more responsible for the world's ills than either the great emphasis an money as an indicator of success, the necessity of conforming to the norms of our present society, lack of individualism, or the lack of privacy necessary . for self development. 63. I feel the great emphasis on money as an indicator of success is more res- ponsible for the worlds ills than the lack of concern for one's fellow man, ‘and absence of ideals, the necessity of conforming to the norms of our present society--lack of individualism or the lack of privacy necessary for self- development. 64. I feel the necessitygof conforming to the norms of our present sociegy-- lack of individualism is more reSponsible for the world's ills than the lack of concern for ones fellow man, and absence of ideals, the great .emphasis on money as an indication of success, or the lack of privacy necessary for self- -development. , 65. I feel the lack of_privacy necessary for self- -development is more responsible for the world' s ills than the lack of concern for one 's fellow-man,and absence of ideals, the great emphasis on money as an indication of success, or the necessity of conforming to the norms of our present society-~lack of individualism. 66. I am'very persistedzin gaining recognition of my ideas. 67. I am definitely more_persistent than averagg in gaining recognition of my ideas. 68. I am somewhat more persistent than average in gaining recognition of my ideas. 69. I am above average in persistence in gaining recognition of my ideas. 70. I am somewhat below average in persistence in gaining recognition of my ideas. 71. In a daily working situation profit would be more satisfying to me than fame, power, security or self-expression. 72. In a daily working situation fame would be more satisfying to me than profit, power, security or self-expression. 73. In a daily working situation power would be more satisfying to me than profit, fame, security or self-expression. ODRF-N (over) 74. In a daily working situation security would be more satisfying to me than profit, fame, power or self-expression. 75. In a daily working situation self-expression would be more satisfying to me than profit, fame, power, or security. 76. I usually react to an unpleasant situation~py trying to respond quickly. 77. I usually react to an unpleasant situation py‘putting off a decision for a little while so I can think it over. 78. I usually react to an unpleasant situation by wanting to sleep on it or put off a decision for quite a while. 79. I usually react to an unpleasant situation by not worrying about it, things will take care of themselves. 80. I have never been in trouble because of my sex behavior. 81. I don't know if I have ever been in trouble because of my sex behavior. 82. .I have been in trouble because of my sex behavior. 83. Writing reports would be naturally easier for me than following through on requests and details, reading up on new job developments, speaking before a large group, or selling others on the importance of getting a job done. 84. Following thrgggh on requests and details would be naturally easier for me than writing reports, reading up on new job developments, speaking before a large group, or selling others on the importance of getting a job done. 85. Reading up on new job developments would be naturally easier for me than writing reports, following through on requests and details, speaking before a large group, or selling others on the importance of getting a job done. 86. Speaking before a large group would be naturally easier for me than writing reports, following through on requests and details, reading up on new job developments, or selling others on the importance of getting a job done. 87. Selling others on the importance of getting a job done would be naturally easier for me than writing reports, following through on requests and details, reading up on new job developments, or speaking before a large group. 88. When I have a humiliating experience, it doesn't bother me at all. 89. When I have a humiliating experience, it bothers me for a little while but not for long. 90., When I have a humiliating experience, I oCcasionally worry about it too long. 91. When I have a humiliating experience, I quite often worry about it too long. 92. A "gift of ggb" is more important for success in selling than appearance, personality persistence or knowledge of product. 93. Appearance is more important for success in selling than "gift of gab", personality, persistence, or knowledge of product. 94. Personali_y is more important for success in selling than "gift of gab”, appearance, persistence , or knowledge of product._ 95. Persistence is more important for a success in selling than "gift of gab" appearance, personality, or knowledge of product. 96. Knowledgg of product is more important for success in selling than "gift of gab" appearance, personality, or persistence. ODRF-N INSTRUCTION SHEET OCCUPATIONAL DESIRABILITY RATING FORM FORM R Imagine yourself, as best you can, as about to graduate from college and applying for a non-sales-oriented job in industry such as a technical, managerial, or accounting one which you would like to get very much. Some statements follow which you might make during the course of an employment interview. You are to rate these statements individually with respect to how you think they would impress your interviewer. A nine-point rating scale is used. A diagram of it follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 statement statement statement will make will not make will make a very much difference a very unfavorable one way or the favorable im- impression other pression Low ratings are given to statements that would make you appear unfavorable. High ratings are given to statements that would make you appear favorable. An example: 1. I would not work for your company if it was the only one in the world. If you told this to your interviewer, it would probably give him a very unfavorable impression of you. You would therefore give this item a low rating, most probably a rating of l. ‘ You are to record your ratings on the I.B.M. sheet provided for you. On this sheet use only the small numbers 1 through 9 to record your ratings. Disregard the 0 and the space between 4 and 5. An illustration follows to show you how you are to enter the ratings that you make. In the illustration a rating of l is given to the statement. 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1—‘6w——-—- —'———'—‘_ It will be perfectly obvious, once you get started making ratings, that the items are presented in related clusters. One clue will be that at fairly regular intervals there is a space between items. The statements that you are being asked to rate come from choices in a multiple-choice questionnaire. Frequently, these choices are a matter of degree of the same general theme. It is expected that your ratings will be influenced by the clustering of the statements. Naturally, what you consider a more acceptable degree of some personal quality or some personal behavior you will rate more acceptable than what you consider a less acceptable degree of that quality or behavior. When it is appropriate, then, let the relativity of the statements within a cluster affect the ratings you make on each of the choices within that cluster. II I" ll ll.‘ UNH 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. OCCUPATIONAL DESIRABILITY RATING FORM FORM.O In a group meeting I express my views freely_and sway the group considerably. In a group meeting I express my views, but the group doesn't always share them. In a group meeting I express my views only occasionally, but they are usually very well received. l . . . In a group meeting I occasionally expgess my views but-I am sometimes unsure of ‘ their reception. In a group meeting it depends on the situation if I express my views. I have found people jealous of my goOd ideas, just because they had not thought of them first. I don't know if I have found people jealous of my good ideas, just because they had not thought of them first. I have not found people jealous of my good ideas just because they had not thought of them first. ' Being dependable has helped me in getting along with people more than developing mutual interests, giving others a lot of attention, or recognizing when it is necessary to change my views. Developing mutual interests has helped me more in getting along with people than being dependable, giving others a lot of attention, or recognizing when it is necessary to change my views. Giving others a lot of attention has helped me more in getting along with people than being dependable, developing mutual interests, or recognizing when it is necessary to change my views. Regggpizing when it is necessary to change my views has helped me more in getting along with people than being dependable, developing mutual interests, or giving others a lot of attention. I am very self confident of myself in any situation. I am quite self confident of myself in most situations. I have quite a bit of self confidence about my intellectual ability, but I'm not as self-confident about my social abilities. I have quite a bit of self-confidence about my social ability, but I'm not as self confident about my intellectual ability. I lack some self confidence in both intellectual and social activities. I rate my ability compared to my associates to function effectively with others in a working situation as somewhat less than average. This considers how well I sense the needs of others, my ease in dealing with people, and my power to promote group activity and solidarity. This includes my willingness to share my knowledge, to recognize the efforts and achievements of others, and to defend and develop my legitimate interests. Using the explanation given in question 18 I rate my ability compared to my associates to function effectively with others in a working situation as about average. ‘ Using the explanation given in question 18 I rate my ability compared to my associates to function effectively with others in a working situation as somewhat gpove averagg. . ._ .. Using the explanation given in question 18 I rate my ability compared to my asSociates to function effectively with others in a working situation as 25221132! Using the explanation given in question 18 I rate my ability compared to my associates to function effectively with others in a working situation as pptstandipg. ' (over) 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. In the past, I have done my best in competitive situations. In the past, I have been unaffected by competitive situations. In the past, I have done all right in competitive situations, but have not liked it. In the past, I have definitely avoided competitive situations. In the past, how I reacted to competitive situations depended on the situation. I wish I were not bothered by thoughts about sex. I don't know if I Wish I were not bothered by thoughts about sex. I wish I was bothered by thoughts about sex. I am freqpently_willing to accept new or apparently absurd approaches to the solutions of problems. I am occasionally willing to accept new or apparently absurd approaches to the solution of problems. I am rarely willing to accept new or apparently absurd approaches to the solution of problems. I am very rarely, or never willing to accept new or apparently absurd approaches to the solution of problems. I rate my drive compared to my associates on the dynamic force of myself as expressed in my activities as somewhat below average. This considers the energy with which I conduct my duties, the speed of my accomplishments, and the amount of work I get done. ’ Using the explanation given in question 35 I rate my ability compared to my associates on the dynamic force of myself as expressed in my activities as average. Using the explanation given in question 35 I rate my ability compared to my associates on the dynamic force of myself as expressed in my activities as somewhat above averagg, Using the explanation given in question 35 I rate my ability compared to my associates on the dynamic force of myself as expressed in my activities as good. Using the explanation given in question 35 I rate my drive compared to my associates on the dynamic force of myself as expressed in my activities as outstanding. Industrious is more descriptive of me than generous. Generous is more descriptive of me than industrious. I would like to be an auto racer. I don't know if I like to be an auto racer. I would not like to be an auto racer. To a great extent I am the kind of individual who becomes so absorbed in my own work and interests that I do not mind a lack of friends. To some extent I am the kind of individual who becomes so absorbed in my own work and interests that I do not mind a lack of friends. To a small extent I am the kind of individual who becomes so absorbed in my own work and interests that I do not mind a lack of friends. To a very small extent I.am the kind of individual who becomes so absorbed in my own work and interests that I do not mind a lack of friends. To no extent I am the kind of individual who becomes so absorbed in my own work and interests that I do not mind a lack of friends. ODRF-O 51. 52. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. There is very little love and companionship in my family as compared to other homes. I don't know if there is very little love and companionship in my family as compared to other homes. There is a lot of love and companionship in my family as compared with other homes. Understanding is more characteristic of me than directing. Directing is more characteristic of me than understanding. The lowest level of achievement in all around communication ability (ability to have people understand me clearly when I try to communicate my thoughts to them) with which I would be satisfied and which I intend to achieve for my entire career is slightly below average. This compares myself with my associates. H Using the explanation given in question 55 the lowest level of achievement in all around communication ability with which I would be satisfied and which I intend to achieve for my entire career is about average. Using the explanation given in question 55 the lowest level of achievement in ali around communication ability with which I would be satisfied and which I intend to achieve for my entire career is slightly above averagg. Using the explanation given in question 55 the lowest level of achievement in all around communication ability with which I would be satisfied and with ‘which I intend to achieve for my entire career is considerably above average. Using the explanation given in question 55 the lowest level of achievement in a1 around communication ability with which I would be satisfied and which I intend to achieve for my entire career is outstanding. I believe that the age group 25-29 would be less concerned about what their pay is likely to be when they are age 60~65 than the age groups 30-34, 35-39 or 40- 44. I believe that the age group 30- 34 would be less concerned about what their pay is likely to be when they“ are age 60- 65 than the age groups 25-29, 35-39 or 40- 44. ", I believe that the age group 35-39 would be less concerned about what their pay is likely to be when they are age 60-65 than the age groups 25-29, 30-34, or 40-44. ‘ p I believe that the age group 40-44 would be less concerned about what their pay is likely to be when they are age 60~65 than the age groups 25-29, 30-34 or 35-39. I rate my ability to determine my own thought and action based on my own ideas, judgments and goals as compared with my associates as outstanding. This considers my power in thinking and acting to set a course of action and to move toward a goal without the prompting pressure, guidance or authority from anyone but myself. Using the explanation given in question 64, I rate my ability to determine my own thought and action based on my own ideas, judgments and goals as compared with my associates as excellent. Using the explanation given in question 64, I rate my ability to determine my own thought and action based on my own ideas, judgments, and goals as compared with my associates as somewhat above average. Using the explanation given in question 64, I rate my ability to determine my own thought and action based on my own ideas, judgments, and goals as compared with my associates as about average. Using the explanation given in question 64, I rate my ability to determine my own thought and action based on my own ideas, judgments and goals as compared with my associates as somewhat below average. ODRF-o (over) 69. 7O 7 72. 73. 1. 74 75. 76 77. 78 85. 1" AA ‘6 4 J I very frequently have a craving for excitement. I frEqpently have a craving for excitement. I occasionally have a craving for excitement. I I rarely have a craving for excitement. . very rarely have a cravi.ng for exCitement. I very frequently have a desire to be alone, to pursue my own thoughts and interests. I often have a desire to be alone, to pursue my own thoughts and interests. I sometimes have a desire to be alone, to pursue my own thoughts ent in: . Ms s. I seldom have a desire to be alone, to pursue my own thoughts and interests. I never have a desire to be alone, to pursue my own thoughts and interest" Deeply interested in intellectual problems describes me better than emotionally stable, deeply interested in peeple, friendly or aggressive. Emotionally gtable describes me better than deeply interested in intellect a1 problems, deeply interested in people, friendly or aggressive. Deeplylinterested in peOple describes me better than deeply interested ir intellectual problems, emotionally stable, friendly or aggressive. Friendly describes me better than deeply interested in intellectual problems. emotionally stable, deeply interested in people or aggressive. Aggressive describes me better than deeply interested in intellectual probfie‘s emotionally stable, deeply interested in peOple or friendly. Works hardLAaAplugger, sticks to a job until done describes me better than can handle people, doesn't annoy others, says the right thing at the right time, looks before he leaps, avoids snap judgments, likes to deliberate beiore making decisions, or a pusher, lots of ambition, wants to "get ahead. ” Can handle pgpple, doesn' t annoy others, says the right fithipg_pt the right time. describes me better than works hard, a plugger, sticks to a job until done, looks before he leaps, avoids snap judgments, likes to deliberate before making decisions, or a pusher, lots of ambition, wants to "get ahead.", Looks before he leaps, avoids snapgjudgments, likes to deliberate before makingidecisions, describes me better than works hard, a plugger, sticks to - job until done, can handle peOple, doesn't annoy others, says the right tiin. at the right time, or a pusher, lots of ambition, wants to'get ahead. " A pusher, lots of ambition, wants togfiget ahead" describes me better than no...: hard, a plugger, sticks to a job until done, can handle pecple, doesn't annoy others, says the right thing at the right time, or looks before he lea 7. avoids snap judgments, likes to deliberate before making decisions. ODRF-O INSTRUCTION SHEET OCCUPATIONAL DESIRABILITY RATING FORM FORM R Imagine yourself, as best you can, as about to graduate from college and applying for a non-sales-oriented job in industry such as a technical, managerial, or accounting one which you would like to get very much. Some statements follow which you might make during the course of an employment interview. You are to rate these statements individually with respect to how you think they would impress your interviewer. A nine-point rating scale is used. A diagram of it follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 statement statement statement will make will not make will make a very much difference a very unfavorable one way or the favorable im- impression other pression Low ratings are given to statements that would make you appear unfavorable. High ratings are given to statements that would make you appear favorable. An example: 1. I would not work for your company if it was the only one in the world. If you told this to your interviewer, it would probably give him a very unfavorable impression of you. You would therefore give this item a low rating, most probably a rating of 1. ‘ You are to record your ratings on the I.B.M. sheet provided for you. On this sheet use only the small numbers 1 through 9 to record your ratings. Disregard the 0 and the space between 4 and 5. An illustration follows to show you how you are to enter the ratings that you make. In the illustration a rating of l is given to the statement. 0 l 2 3 4 . 5 6 7 8 9 l. :_——' 3:2: '___’ ‘—-“' '—‘"' '_'"- '_'_' "T:: ’T:: 2::— It will be perfectly obvious, once you get started making ratings, that the items are presented in related clusters. One clue will be that at fairly regular intervals there is a space between items. The statements that you are being asked to rate come from choices in a multiple-choice questionnaire. Frequently, these choices are a matter of degree of the same general theme. It is expected that your ratings will be influenced by the clustering of the statements. Naturally, what you consider a more acceptable degree of some personal quality or some personal behavior you will rate more acceptable than what you consider a less acceptable degree of that quality or behavior. When it is appropriate, then, let the relativity of the Statements within a cluster affect the ratings you make on each of the choices Within that cluster. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. I very frequently have a craving for excitement. I frequently have a craving for excitement. I occasionally have a craving for excitement. I I rarely have a craving for excitement. very rarely have a craving for excitement. I very frequently have a desire to be alone, to pursue my own thoughts and interests. I often have a desire to be alone, to pursue my own thoughts and interests. I sometimes have a desire to be alone, to pursue my own thoughts and interests. I seldom have a desire to be alone, to pursue my own thoughts and interests. I never have a desire to be alone, to pursue my own thoughts and interests. Deeply interested in intellectual problems describes me better than emotionally stable, deeply interested in peOple, friendly or aggressive. Emotionally stable describes me better than deeply interested in intellectual problems, deeply interested in peOple, friendly or aggressive. Deeply interested in peOplg describes me better than deeply interested in intellectual problems, emotionally stable, friendly or aggressive. Friendly describes me better than deeply interested in intellectual problems, emotionally stable, deeply interested in peOple or aggressive. Aggressive describes me better than deeply interested in intellectual problems, emotionally stable, deeply interested in peOple or friendly. Works hard, 3 plugger, sticks to a job until done describes me better than can handle peOple, doesn't annoy others, says the right thing at the right time, looks before he leaps, avoids snap judgments, likes to deliberate before making decisions, or a pusher, lots of ambition, wants to "get ahead." Can handle people, doesn't annoy others, says the right thingyat the right time. describes me better than works hard, a plugger, sticks to a job until done, looks before he leaps, avoids snap judgments, likes to deliberate before making decisions, or a pusher, lots of ambition, wants to "get ahead." Looks before he leaps, avoids snap judgments, likes to deliberate before making decisions, describes me better than works hard, a plugger, sticks to a job until done, can handle peOple, doesn't annoy others, says the right thing at the right time, or a pusher, lots of ambition, wants to'get ahead." A pusher, lots of ambition, wants to “get ahead" describes me better than works hard, a plugger, sticks to a job until done, can handle peOple, doesn't annoy others, says the right thing at the right time, or looks before he leaps, avoids snap judgments, likes to deliberate before making decisions. ODRF-O ...- ...- 4| l l l l l I all Ill 1'. l l I l l l l ' III I l l l I l 3015 5955 numfi