In laboratory faking research, participants are often instructed to respond honestly (generic instructions [GIs], control condition) or to fake (personnel-selection scenario [PSS], faking condition). Considering the research on instruction-level contextualization, a PSS might not only motivate participants to fake but might also promote the adoption of a work frame of reference (FOR). Thus, differences in responses between faking and control conditions could partly result from FOR effects. (Full) item-level contextualization can also be used to promote the adoption of a work FOR, and the adoption through this route is stronger than through instruction manipulation. We combined the two approaches to disentangle FOR and faking, conducted a 4-wave longitudinal study with a 2 (instructions: GIs vs. PSS) x 2 (full item-level work contextualization absent vs. present) repeated-measures design (N = 309), and compared the effects of these conditions on three HEXACO-PI-R scales (Conscientiousness, Emotionality, Honesty-Humility). Irrespective of the investigated personality trait, the ANOVAs revealed significant main effects. As expected, compared with GIs, the PSS increased the adoption of a work FOR, and the effects were smaller than the effects of full item-level work contextualization present (vs. absent). Also, as expected, the PSS (vs. GIs) and full item-level work contextualization present (vs. absent) changed participants’ scale mean scores. However, importantly, there were no interaction effects. Exploratory mediation analyses indicated direct rather than indirect (mediator: adoption of a work FOR) effects of instructions on participants’ scale mean scores. In conclusion, the internal validity of faking research is not threatened by confounding FOR effects.
In laboratory faking research, participants are often instructed to respond honestly (generic instructions [GIs], control condition) or to fake (personnel-selection scenario [PSS], faking condition). Considering the research on instruction-level contextualization, a PSS might not only motivate participants to fake but might also promote the adoption of a work frame of reference (FOR). Thus, differences in responses between faking and control conditions could partly result from FOR effects. (Full) item-level contextualization can also be used to promote the adoption of a work FOR, and the adoption through this route is stronger than through instruction manipulation. We combined the two approaches to disentangle FOR and faking, conducted a 4-wave longitudinal study with a 2 (instructions: GIs vs. PSS) × 2 (full item-level work contextualization absent vs. present) repeated-measures design (N = 309), and compared the effects of these conditions on three HEXACO-PI-R scales (Conscientiousness, Emotionality, Honesty-Humility). Irrespective of the investigated personality trait, the ANOVAs revealed significant main effects. As expected, compared with GIs, the PSS increased the adoption of a work FOR, and the effects were smaller than the effects of full item-level work contextualization present (vs. absent). Also, as expected, the PSS (vs. GIs) and full item-level work contextualization present (vs. absent) changed participants' scale mean scores. However, importantly, there were no interaction effects. Exploratory mediation analyses indicated direct rather than indirect (mediator: adoption of a work FOR) effects of instructions on participants' scale mean scores. In conclusion, the internal validity of faking research is not threatened by confounding FOR effects.