Investigates faking susceptibility in open-ended personality assessments, suggesting new AI frameworks enhance accuracy.
¯ = .63). Training sample configuration also influenced psychometric properties, such that training on a mixed sample of honest and motivated responses yielded the best results. Finally, AI-generated responses (fully synthetic and human-AI hybrid) received scores that varied considerably across models, though they typically were higher than human scores. However, a customized algorithm accurately differentiated human from AI responses with near-perfect accuracy (across seven large language models and for humans using AI), with only a 1% false positive rate. Collectively, these findings suggest that open-ended personality assessments, when paired with natural language processing scoring, have potential to offer a scalable, more faking-resistant approach to personality assessment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Speer et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: