Comparing the efficacy of faking warning types in preemployment personality tests: A meta-analysis

Benjamin Moon, Kabir N. Daljeet, Thomas A. O'Neill, Harley Harwood, Wahaj Awad, Leonid V. Beletski (2025)

Journal of Applied Psychology, 110(1), 131-147

https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001224

ABSTRACT

Numerous faking warning types have been investigated as interventions that aim to minimize applicant faking in preemployment personality tests. However, studies vary in the types and effectiveness of faking warnings used, personality traits, as well as the use of different recruitment settings and participant samples. In the present study, we advance a theory that classifies faking warning types based on ability, opportunity, and motivation to fake (Tett & Simonet, 2011), which we validated using subject matter expert ratings. Using this framework as a guide, we conducted a random-effects pairwise meta-analysis (k = 34) and a network meta-analysis (k = 36). We used inverse-variance weighting to pool the effect sizes and relied on 80% prediction intervals to evaluate heterogeneity. Overall, faking warnings had a significant, moderate effect in reducing applicant faking (d = 0.31, 95% CI [0.23, 0.39]). Warning types that theoretically targeted ability, motivation, and opportunity to fake (d = 0.36, 95% CI [0.25, 0.47]) were the most effective. Additionally, warnings were least effective in studies using recruitment settings and nonuniversity student samples. However, all effect sizes contained substantial heterogeneity, and all warning types will be ineffective in some contexts. Organizations should be cognizant that warnings alone may not be sufficient to address applicant faking, and future research should explore how their effectiveness varies depending on other contextual factors and applicant characteristics.