Personality Test Validity Differs Between Low‐Stakes and High‐Stakes Employment Settings

The impact of applicant faking on personality test validity in high‐stakes settings remains debated in personnel selection research, with some arguing it distorts scores while others suggest minimal effects on validity. This meta‐analysis compares personality test validity across low‐stakes (e.g., employee assessments) and high‐stakes (e.g., applicant testing) settings. Results show validity was consistently higher in low‐stakes settings across both unmatched and matched samples. In unmatched studies, personality test validity was higher in low‐stakes settings ( r' = 0.17, k = 20, N = 8883) than in high‐stakes settings ( r' = 0.13, k = 215, N = 68,372). Matched studies showed a substantial difference, where low‐stakes validity ( r' = 0.27) was 125% larger than high‐stakes validity ( r' = 0.12). These findings provide strong empirical evidence that faking substantially reduces personality test validity in selection contexts. We recommend organizations treat low‐stakes validity evidence as provisional and use it only for interim hiring decisions until high‐stakes validation data is available. To improve selection accuracy, organizations should prioritize validation studies in motivated samples, apply statistical corrections for faking, and implement faking‐resistant measures (e.g., forced‐choice formats).