Summary based on the article “Can Job Applicants Fake Personality Tests?” published by Hogan Assessments.
In this Hogan article, the short answer is: job applicants can’t really “fake” personality tests in a way that reliably helps them. Hogan’s main point is that concerns about candidates “gaming the test” are usually overstated, partly because “faking” can mean very different things, and partly because well-built assessments are designed to remain useful even when someone tries to present themselves in the best light.
What “faking” can mean (and why that matters)
Hogan breaks “faking” into three common interpretations:
- Identity vs. reputation: People can genuinely misjudge themselves (identity), while others experience them differently at work (reputation). Hogan emphasizes that their assessments focus on reputation, meaning the behavioural patterns someone is likely to be known for in real settings.
- Impression management: Many candidates respond in socially desirable ways, similar to how they act in interviews. Hogan frames this as common and not easily separable from normal “best behaviour” during a job search.
- Deception: Deliberately trying to answer inaccurately (for example, attempting to match a perceived “ideal” profile, exaggerating strengths, or following external tips). Hogan argues this is rarely beneficial because it can create mismatch and backfire.
Why “faking” doesn’t meaningfully change hiring outcomes
Hogan gives four reasons candidate faking attempts typically do not improve selection results:
1. It’s difficult to engineer a believable profile
Assessments are complex and interconnected. Trying to optimize one trait can accidentally create contradictions elsewhere, producing a distorted profile that doesn’t achieve the candidate’s goal.
2. Individual answers don’t drive decisions
Results aren’t judged item by item. Scores are converted into percentiles based on large comparison samples. In other words, the process is designed so a few “strategic” answers won’t determine the hiring outcome.
3. Distortions tend to be small and inconsistent over time
Hogan points to retesting evidence suggesting that even motivated retesters show limited meaningful change. That supports the idea that large, reliable “faking gains” are uncommon.
4. “Identity” isn’t scientifically measurable
Hogan argues that the concept of “faking” assumes there is a true inner self being hidden, but identity can’t be verified objectively. Reputation can, on the other hand, because it shows up in observable behaviour and how others experience someone.
Talent acquisition takeaway: focus less on “can they fake it?” and more on “are we using it well?”
From a hiring perspective, Hogan’s message is that strong personality assessment programs are not derailed by candidate impression management. What matters most is using assessments as just one aspect of a structured process:
- Pair assessment insights with structured interviews, using the data to guide targeted follow-up questions.
- Treat results as information about likely workplace behaviour and fit, not as a pass/fail gate.
- Coach candidates to respond naturally. Hogan notes that deliberate distortion can disadvantage the candidate by increasing mismatch risk.