The applicant faking literature suggests that faking warnings - brief messages that dissuade applicants from faking - can reduce faking on personality tests by up to 50%. However, the efficacy of warnings may be limited by their atheoretical construction. Further, these threatening messages can cause applicants to feel negatively about the personality test, potentially reducing their validity during the selection process. We tried to improve the efficacy of faking warnings, while minimizing negative applicant reactions, by leveraging theory from the accountability and morality literatures. We tested three new faking warnings that emphasized short-term accountability, long-term accountability, and morality. To do so, we tested 466 military trainees undergoing basic training at the Canadian Armed Forces and asked them to engage in a selection simulation. We assigned groups of trainees to the different faking warning conditions and guided them through the simulation. We found that a faking warning emphasizing short-term accountability, which threatened to detect fakers by contacting references and using "internal integrity checks," reduced applicant faking. None of the other messages had any effect when compared to a no-warning control group.
Keywords: Personality assessment; faking; faking warnings; job applications; military; recruitment.