Gender and race differences on incentivized personality measures

Introduction Employment screening based on personalities gives applicants incentives to misrepresent themselves. Studies of group differences on personality measures primarily examine differences on measures taken without incentives for misrepresentation. Incentives may matter for group differences for at least two reasons. First, groups with different unincentivized means have different scope to distort their responses—differences in “opportunity-to-fake.” Second, groups may differ in their notions of what constitutes a desirable personality. Methods We use a within-subject laboratory experiment to examine group differences on Big Five measures. Subjects first responded without incentives. A week later, subjects viewed a job ad and were informed that bonuses would be paid to subjects best fitting the hiring criteria. The treatments varied the information in the ad about desired personality traits. Results Controlling for opportunity-to-fake, we find evidence of racial but not gender differences in faking. Incentives attenuate gender differences on unincentivized personality measures but lead to racial differences where no differences exist on unincentivized measures. In every instance where a gap emerged on an incentivized measure where none existed on the unincentivized measure, the minority group would be disadvantaged were hiring based on the measure. We assess whether protected groups would be adversely impacted from selection on incentivized measures using the realized group differences in the experiment and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's “four-fifth's” rule. We find no evidence that women would be adversely affected by selection on incentivized personality measures, but racial minorities would be adversely impacted in the majority of trait-treatment comparisons. Discussion Given the prevalence of personality testing in employment screening, more research is needed on how the incentives for response distortion present in hiring influence racial differences on personality measures and whether any such differences influence hiring outcomes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Frontiers in Behavioral Economics
Published
2025-04-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/frbhe.2025.1499464
Primary Topic
Personality Traits and Psychology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Gender and race differences on incentivized personality measures

Peter McGee, Andrew McGee
1 links
Frontiers in Behavioral Economics
Personality Traits and Psychology
article

Gender and race differences on incentivized personality measures

Peter McGee, Andrew McGee
article en

Abstract

Introduction Employment screening based on personalities gives applicants incentives to misrepresent themselves. Studies of group differences on personality measures primarily examine differences on measures taken without incentives for misrepresentation. Incentives may matter for group differences for at least two reasons. First, groups with different unincentivized means have different scope to distort their responses—differences in “opportunity-to-fake.” Second, groups may differ in their notions of what constitutes a desirable personality. Methods We use a within-subject laboratory experiment to examine group differences on Big Five measures. Subjects first responded without incentives. A week later, subjects viewed a job ad and were informed that bonuses would be paid to subjects best fitting the hiring criteria. The treatments varied the information in the ad about desired personality traits. Results Controlling for opportunity-to-fake, we find evidence of racial but not gender differences in faking. Incentives attenuate gender differences on unincentivized personality measures but lead to racial differences where no differences exist on unincentivized measures. In every instance where a gap emerged on an incentivized measure where none existed on the unincentivized measure, the minority group would be disadvantaged were hiring based on the measure. We assess whether protected groups would be adversely impacted from selection on incentivized measures using the realized group differences in the experiment and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's “four-fifth's” rule. We find no evidence that women would be adversely affected by selection on incentivized personality measures, but racial minorities would be adversely impacted in the majority of trait-treatment comparisons. Discussion Given the prevalence of personality testing in employment screening, more research is needed on how the incentives for response distortion present in hiring influence racial differences on personality measures and whether any such differences influence hiring outcomes.

Frontiers in Behavioral EconomicsVol. 4
University of Alberta (CA), IZA - Institute of Labor Economics (DE), University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 88%
Personality Traits and Psychology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.