Does multidimensional forced-choice prevent faking? Comparing the susceptibility of the multidimensional forced-choice format and the rating scale format to faking

A common concern with self-reports of personality traits in selection contexts is faking. The multidimensional forced-choice (MFC) format has been proposed as an alternative to rating scales (RS) that could prevent faking. The goal of this study was to compare the susceptibility of the MFC format and RS format to faking in a simulated high-stakes setting when using normative scoring for both formats. Participants were randomly assigned to three groups (total N = 1,867) and filled out the Big Five Triplets once under an honest instruction and once under a fake-good instruction. Latent mean differences between the honest and fake-good administrations indicated that the Big Five domains were faked in the expected direction. Faking effects for all traits were larger for RS compared to MFC. Faking effects were also larger for the MFC version with mixed triplets compared to the MFC version with triplets that were fully matched regarding their social desirability. The MFC format does not prevent faking completely, but it reduces faking substantially. Faking can be further reduced in the MFC format by matching the items presented in a block regarding their social desirability.