Character/Personality Tests When Applying For A Job

[Big Papa Zone 93]

OK, so I went for a preliminary job screening the other day, and they asked me to take one of those computerised personality/character tests.

An example of some the questions:

"If a fellow employee was caught doing something that resulted in disciplinary action, and you knew others were involved, would you tell on them?" - I said, "probably not."

Had there been an option that said, "if the offence was serious enough, then yes" I would have chosen that, but there wasn't.

"Have you ever thought about stealing money if you knew you could get away with it?" - I think we all have at some point, but I said, "definitely not."

"Have you ever thought that someone deserved a punch?" - I figured they'd see me as a flatout liar if I said, "no" so I said, "sometimes."

You with me here? I was torn between honesty and common sense answers for a lot of these. What exactly are they looking for? Complete honesty? Or what they want to hear? A mixture of both?

Tell me!!!

[NickD 202]

Too bad they won't let you explain your answers, but was given the opportunity to explain a question about, Do you think other people are stealing your ideas? Answered yes to that and asked why, was in court with one of my patents being infringed upon.

With your test, since your potential employer is giving it, best to put yourself in the position of your potential employer and answer the questions as to how you would want them answered. Would you want to hire somebody that would steal from you, or conspired with those that are?

[justashooter 430]

about 600 questions? sounds like some version or another of what is generically known as the MMPI (minnesota multi-phasic personality inventory). the test supposedly screens for 14 different psychiatric or psychological defects by scale. in truth it is really only capable of weeding out the complete nut jobs. you answers should be consistent within a type so that your personality appears to be stable and coherent. lemme know when you get to the polygraph, and i'll send you a PM with info on how to beat it.

[Jenn! 918]

Always pick the goody-two-shoes answer. That's what they're looking for.

ETA: I'm not an HR person, just my intuition.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Jenn!

[Big Papa Zone 93]

Always pick the goody-two-shoes answer. That's what they're looking for.

ETA: I'm not an HR person, just my intuition.

See, part of me was thinking just that, but then I wouldn't be being at all honest, and I figured they'd see that and mark me down as a bullshit artist.

lemme know when you get to the polygraph, and i'll send you a PM with info on how to beat it.

OK then.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think they analyze individual answers, just general 'trends'. I don't think you are going to set off any alarm bells though

[justashooter 430]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Mul...ality_Inventory

analysis of the entire series of answers can indicate personality flaws:

Number Abbreviation Description What is Measured

1 Hs Hypochondriasis Concern with bodily symptoms

2 D Depression Depressive Symptoms

3 Hy Hysteria Awareness of problems and vulnerabilities

4 Pd Psychopathic Deviate Conflict, struggle, anger, respect for society's rules

5 MF Masculinity/Femininity Stereotypical masculine or feminine interests/behaviors

6 Pa Paranoia Level of trust, suspiciousness, sensitivity

7 Pt Psychasthenia Worry, Anxiety, tension, doubts, obsessiveness

8 Sc Schizophrenia Odd thinking and social alienation

9 Ma Hypomania Level of excitability

0 Si Social Introversion People orientation

"validity" of your persona:

? 1 "Cannot Say" Questions not answered

L 1 Lie Client "faking good"

F 1 Infrequency Client "faking bad" (in first half of test)

K 1 Defensiveness Denial/Evasiveness

Fb 2 Back F Client "faking bad" (in last half of test)

VRIN 2 Variable Response Inconsistency answering similar/opposite question pairs inconsistently

TRIN 2 True Response Inconsistency answering questions all true/all false

F-K 2 F minus K honesty of test responses/not faking good or bad

S 2 Superlative Self-Presentation improving upon K scale, "appearing excessively good"

Fp 2 F-Psychopathology Frequency of presentation in clinical setting

Fs 2 RF Infrequent Somatic Response Overreporting of somatic symptoms

and a bunch of other subjective #######:

Es Ego Strength Scale

OH Over-Controlled Hostility Scale

MAC MacAndrews Alcoholism Scale

MAC-R MacAndrews Alcoholism Scale Revised

Do Dominance Scale

APS Addictions Potential Scale

AAS Addictions Acknowledgement Scale

SOD Social Discomfort Scale

A Anxiety Scale

R Repression Scale

TPA Type A Scale

MDS Marital Distress Scale

trouble is, this test assumes that all people have similar basis, and penalises those who are psychiatrically sound but have unusual basis. i bang hard on a few scales in this kind of testing (i can hear them laughing now), but that's because of my unusual life experiences. and yes, i have taken this test 3 times. once for a security clearance, once for a police job, and once for a custody case (which i won).

there is an orthodoxy for "beating" the MMPI. succesful application of the method requires analysis of the nature of the question being asked in each instance. "beating" the test takes about 10% more time than just taking it if the testee is well prepared, and much longer if not well prepared.

MMPI gives inaccurate results in about 15% of cases with regard to major mental illness (false positives, usually), and 25-30% with regard to personality flaws. this mostly the result of differential experience that is not considered by the writers of the test in question selection. not a fault of the writers, who tried to be inclusive, rather a result of the wide variation of human experience. of course, the test is only even marginally valid for anglicised USC above the age of 20, or so.

the polygraph is similarly flawed, but for different reasons. "beating the poly" is more widely discussed than beating the MMPI. understanding the deception involved in polygraphy and seeing the process for what it really is makes it possible for even a "jack the ripper" to breeze thru it.

[Y's_habibitk 2]

Ya, its what they want to hear def.

Being honest is great, but employers probably want to hire someone who thinks that punching someone in the face is never an appropriate response.

Always go with the angelic answers

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

OK, so I went for a preliminary job screening the other day, and they asked me to take one of those computerised personality/character tests.

An example of some the questions:

"If a fellow employee was caught doing something that resulted in disciplinary action, and you knew others were involved, would you tell on them?" - I said, "probably not."

Had there been an option that said, "if the offence was serious enough, then yes" I would have chosen that, but there wasn't.

"Have you ever thought about stealing money if you knew you could get away with it?" - I think we all have at some point, but I said, "definitely not."

"Have you ever thought that someone deserved a punch?" - I figured they'd see me as a flatout liar if I said, "no" so I said, "sometimes."

You with me here? I was torn between honesty and common sense answers for a lot of these. What exactly are they looking for? Complete honesty? Or what they want to hear? A mixture of both?

Tell me!!!

I would answer 'no' to the punch question. Most places have zero tolerance for violence, not lying.

I've take the 600+ question MMPI many times.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

my guess is that these tests don't leave room for nuance

I think we'd all be lying if we didn't want to punch someone, but I don't think they want to hear that.

if they asked you directly if you had punched someone, and the answer was yes, I'd be honest about that as chances are it was put on record by your employer!

[Peikko 1,575]

It probably all depends if these tests are designed to differentiate between a fanciful desire to do something (like punching someone for being annoying or whatever) and people who actually react in this way in given situations. Many people are guilty(?) of the former, few of the latter.

[HAL 9000 96]

It probably all depends if these tests are designed to differentiate between a fanciful desire to do something (like punching someone for being annoying or whatever) and people who actually react in this way in given situations. Many people are guilty(?) of the former, few of the latter.

That's why these tests can be 'rather long.' The idea behind the design is to repeat the question in several different ways so that the potential employer can observe variations in how the candidates answer. My wife tells me that even the placement of the questions can influence the expected answers- between that which is latent and that which can come out rapidly in terms of different scenarios presented to the employee.

To be honest most of these tests have major flaws, hence why so many loonies end up in positions they shouldn't have.

[Peikko 1,575]

I would be pretty darned suspicious of any company that relied too heavily on these tests to be honest. A good interviewer can pretty much tell what is what

[Niels Bohr 72]

Most of those questions are ethical questions. If anything can be hold against you, you must answer it clearly. For example, the question: "If a fellow employee was caught doing something that resulted in disciplinary action, and you knew others were involved, would you tell on them?" You want to answer "yes."

You want to answer what is the most ethical answer to the questions. Not whether or not you're honest.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[HAL 9000 96]

Yep. When she arrived here my wife freaked out that a good part of the HR process she'd practice has been delegated to fixed algorithms that are not very good personality filters. I remember visiting her onsite, and seeing job candidates leave interviews with tears in their eyes. It pays to have psychologists using I/O Psychology during the HR process.

Maybe that's why some wackos get hired in this country and not others?