psychometric report honesty test - archprofilehr.psychtests.com/archprofile/stats/honesty.pdf · 5....

PsychTests.com advancing psychology and technology

tel 514.745.3189 fax 514.745.6242 CP Normandie PO Box 26067 l Montreal, Quebec l H3M 3E8 [email protected]

PPssyycchhoommeettrriicc RReeppoorrtt

HHoonneessttyy TTeesstt

Copyright Plumeus Inc. 2005 2

Description:

A 60-item inventory assessing honesty, in terms of the test-taker’s attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors. Low overall scores indicate dishonesty, while high scores indicate that the test-taker is honest. Includes five subscales:

1. Attitude towards Dishonest Behaviors: measures whether the test-taker has a punitive or relaxed attitude towards people who behave dishonestly, and whether s/he thinks that dishonest behaviors are acceptable or unacceptable. A high score in this subscale is undesirable; it indicates that the person has a tendency to view rules and regulations as unimportant, and to have a lax attitude towards people who do dishonest, even illegal things.

2. Perceived Frequency: The frequency of which the test-taker feels that various dishonest behaviors occur, especially in the workplace setting. A high score is undesirable; it indicates that the person thinks that most people are dishonest. Research shows that humans have a tendency to think that other people are like them, so a high score in this area is suspicious. However, this score can be influenced by many different factors, and must be viewed in concert with the other scores in order to get a full picture of this individual.

3. Rationalizing Dishonest Behavior: Whether the individual agrees with statements that attempt to rationalize dishonest behavior with situational factors. A high score is undesirable and indicates that the test-taker does tend to make excuses for his or her actions.

4. Self-reported Honesty: How honestly the test-taker has behaved in the past; how s/he believes s/he is likely to act in the future. A high score is problematic for this scale, as it indicates that the test-taker has a tendency towards dishonest, even illegal behaviors.

5. Validity Scale: A compilation of two different checks on whether the test-taker answered the test in an accurate and consistent manner. The higher the score on this scale, the greater the likelihood that the results have been compromised, either by faking (intentionally, or unintentionally, as is the case when a social desirability bias comes into play) or by answering carelessly.

Reference: McKenna, K., Jerabek, I. (2003). Honesty Test. QueenDom.com Sample Size: 8,877 Sample Description: The sample used in this study includes men and women, aged 9 to 90, who took the test on the Queendom.com website. Number of questions: 60


Descriptive Statistics See Annex 1 for Descriptive statistics


Distribution for the Honesty Test

Overall

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0

Overall

Freq

uenc

y1000

800

600

400

200

0

Std. Dev = 18.28 Mean = 66.3

N = 8877.00

The distribution of the scores is shown in red; the black line plotted over it represents the normal curve. The scores are displayed on the x-axis. The y-axis corresponds to the number of respondents who fall into the relevant score range.


Attitude Towards Dishonest Behavior

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0

Attitude Towards Dishonest Behavior

Freq

uenc

y

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Std. Dev = 20.16 Mean = 33.6

N = 8877.00

Perceived Frequency

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0

Perceived Frequency

Freq

uenc

y

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Std. Dev = 17.79 Mean = 45.2

N = 8877.00


Rationalizing Dishonest Behavior

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0


Freq

uenc

y

800

600

400

200

0

Std. Dev = 22.14 Mean = 33.6

N = 8877.00


Self-Reported Honesty

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0


Freq

uenc

y

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Std. Dev = 17.64 Mean = 33.8

N = 8877.00


Reliability and Internal Consistency

Overall Score: (48 items)

Split-Half Reliability Correlation between forms: 0.6832 Spearman-Brown formula: 0.8118 Guttman’s formula: 0.8101

Inter-Item Consistency Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha: 0.9071

Subscale 1: Attitude towards Dishonest Behavior (11 items)

Note: The reliability of this scale was influenced by the cyberloafing questions; it appears that in general people have a more relaxed attitude towards using the internet or other computer technologies in an unauthorized manner than they do other dishonest behaviors. Despite this, we determined that the need to keep the questions in this scale outweighed the statistical considerations. The reliability coefficients were therefore calculated both with and without the cyberloafing questions.

Scale including the cyberloafing questions



With cyberloafing questions removed (9 items)



Subscale 2: Perceived frequency (17 items)



Subscale 3: Rationalization of Dishonest Behavior (10 items)



Subscale 4: Self-reported Honesty (20 items)



Subscale 7: Faking Scale (8 items)



Split-Half Reliability Correlation between forms: 0.4198 Spearman-Brown formula: 0. 5914 Guttman’s formula: 0.5902


Criterion and Construct Validity 1. Relationship between honesty and the tendency to follow rules. Question #1: In general, how strict are you about following rules and regulations?

1. I always follow them 2. I follow them the majority of the time 3. I tend to break rules whenever I know I

won't get caught. 4. I don't follow rules and regulations at

all. a) Overall Score: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As honesty scores decreased, so did the group’s adherence to rules. The effects are robust. See annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F (3,5462) = 549.79 p < 0.0001

Tendency to Follow Rules as a function of Overall Honesty

In general, how strict are you about following rules and regulations?

4321

Mea

n of

SC

OR

E

80

70

60

50

40


b) Subscale 1 - Attitude towards Dishonest Behaviors: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with different scores on this scale. As the groups’ average scores on this scale increased their tendency to follow break rules increased as well. The effect is robust. See annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F (3,5462) = 397.82 p < 0.0001

Tendency to Follow Rules as a Function of Attitude Towards Dishonest Behaviors


4321

Mea

n of

SU

B1

60

50

40

30

20


c) Subscale 2 - Perceived Frequency: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with different scores on this scale. As the groups’ average scores on this scale increased, their tendency to follow break rules increased as well. This result supports the inclusion of a scale measuring perceived frequency in the assessment of honesty, even though it is an indirect measure of honesty. The effect is robust. See annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F (3,5462) = 138.74 p < 0.0001

Tendency to Follow Rules as a Function of Perceived Frequency of Dishonest Behavior


4321

Mea

n of

SU

B2

70

60

50

40

30


d) Subscale 3 - Rationalizing of Dishonest Behaviors: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with different scores on this scale. As the groups’ average scores on this scale increased their tendency to follow break rules increased as well. Although a slight decrease in scores was noted in the group who reported not following rules at all, the decrease was not significant. Upon analyses of the answer options for this validity question, it appears that the answer options 3 and 4 were almost equally indicative of dishonesty, explaining the lack of linearity in the graph. The effect is robust. See annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F (3,5462) = 407.89 p < 0.0001

Tendency to Follow Rules as a function of Rationalizing of Dishonest Behaviors


4321

Mea

n of

SU

B3

60

50

40

30

20

10


e) Subscale 4 - Self-reported Honesty: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with different scores on this scale. As the groups’ average scores on this scale increased their tendency to follow break rules increased as well. Upon analyses of the answer options for this validity question, it appears that the answer options 3 and 4 were almost equally indicative of dishonesty, explaining the lack of linearity in the graph. The effect is robust. See annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F (3,5462) = 552.82 p < 0.0001

Tendency to Follow Rules as a function of Self-Reported Honesty


4321

Mea

n of

SU

B4

60

50

40

30

20


f) Subscale 5 - Validity Scale: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with different scores on this scale. There is a U-shaped curve shown in this graph, indicating that the two groups who were most likely to fake and be inconsistent were those who say they always follow rules, and those who admit to never following them. The high score in the first group could be a result of two things - they are significantly more honest than the average person, so much so that they appear to be faking, or two, that they are also faking on the validation questions. The effect is robust. See annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F (3,5462) = 87.084 p < 0.0001

Tendency to Follow Rules as a function of Validity Score


4321

Mea

n of

SU

B5

40

38

36

34

32

30

28


2. Relationship between honesty scores and self-report of honesty in comparison to others. How honest are you?

1. I am much more honest than most people. 2. I am slightly more honest than the average individual. 3. I am as honest as the average individual. 4. I am slightly less honest than the average individual. 5. I am much less honest than the average individual.

a) Overall Score: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As honesty scores decreased, so did the group’s reported honesty. The effects are robust. See annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,5402) = 210.47 p < 0.0001

Overall honesty scores as a function of reported honesty

How honest are you?

54321

Mea

n of

SC

OR

E

80

70

60

50

40


b) Sub 1 - Attitude towards Dishonest Behaviors: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As scores increased on this scale (i.e., attitudes towards dishonest behaviors became more relaxed), so did the group’s reported dishonesty. The effects are robust. See annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,5402) = 148.00 p < 0.0001

Reported Honesty as a function of Attitude towards Dishonest Behaviors

How honest are you?

54321

Mea

n of

SU

B1

60

50

40

30

20


c) Subscale 2 - Perceived Frequency: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. Groups reporting that they were slightly less honest and those reporting that they were much less honest than the average individual scored significantly higher on Perceived Frequency than groups that reporting being as or more honest than the average individual. Group 5(the people reporting that they are much less honest) also scored significantly higher than group 4 (those reporting that they are slightly less honest than the average individual). The effects are robust. See annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,5402) = 29.77 p < 0.0001

Reported Honesty as a Function of Perceived Frequency of Dishonest Behavior

How honest are you?

54321

Mea

n of

SU

B2

70

60

50

40


d) Subscale 3 - Rationalizing of Dishonest Behaviors: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As scores increased on rationalizing, so did the group’s reported dishonesty. The effects are robust. See annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F (3,5402) = 140.16 p < 0.0001

Reported Honesty as a function of Rationalizing of Dishonest Behaviors

How honest are you?

54321

Mea

n of

SU

B3

60

50

40

30

20


e) Subscale 4 - Self-reported Honesty: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As scores increased, so did the group’s reported dishonesty. The effects are robust. See annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F (3,5402) = 246.25 p < 0.0001

Reported Honesty as a function of Self-Reported Honesty

How honest are you?

54321

Mea

n of

SU

B4

60

50

40

30

20


f) Subscale 5 - Validity Scale: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with different scores on this scale. There is a U-shaped curve shown in this graph, indicating that the two groups who were most likely to fake and be inconsistent were those who say are much more and those that say they are much less honest than others. The high score in the first group could be a result of two things - they are significantly more honest, so much so that they appear to be faking, or two, that they are also faking on the validation questions. However, the highest (and therefore most suspicious) score came from the group reporting to be the least honest. The effect is robust. See annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F (3,5462) = 32.04 p < 0.0001

Reported Honesty as a function of Validity Score

How honest are you?

54321

Mea

n of

SU

B5

40

38

36

34

32

30

28


3. Relationship between honesty scores and having been fired for stealing something from employer. Have you ever been fired for stealing something from your employer?

1. No 2. Yes, once 3. Yes, more than once

a) General Score: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As honesty scores decreased, the likelihood that groups would have been fired for stealing something from their employer increased. The effects are robust. See annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,5398) = 132.38 p < 0.0001

Having been fired for stealing as a function of Overall Honesty

Have you ever been fired for stealing something from your employers?

3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SC

OR

E

70

60

50

40

30


b) Subscale 1 – Attitude towards Dishonest Behaviors: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As scores on this subscale increased, so did the likelihood that groups would have been fired for stealing something from their employer. The effects are robust. See annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,5398) = 102.66 p < 0.0001

Having been fired for stealing as a function of Attitude towards Dishonest Behaviors


3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SU

B1

70

60

50

40

30

20


c) Subscale 2 – Perceived Frequency: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As scores on this subscale increased, so did the likelihood that groups would have been fired for stealing something from their employer. The effects are robust. See annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,5398) = 43.88 p < 0.0001

Having been fired for stealing as a function of Perceived Frequency


3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SU

B2

70

60

50

40


d) Subscale 3- Rationalizing of Dishonest Behaviors: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As scores on this subscale increased, so did the likelihood that groups would have been fired for stealing something from their employer. The effects are robust. See annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,5398) = 85.94 p < 0.0001

Having been fired for stealing as a function of Rationalizing of Dishonest Behaviors


3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SU

B3

70

60

50

40

30


e) Subscale 4 – Self-Reported Honesty: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As scores on this subscale increased, so did the likelihood that groups would have been fired for stealing something from their employer. The effects are robust. See annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,5398) = 148.89 p < 0.0001

Having been fired for stealing as a function of Self-reported Honesty


3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SU

B4

70

60

50

40

30


f) Subscale 5 – Validity Scale: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As scores on this subscale increased, so did the likelihood that groups would have been fired for stealing something from their employer. The group who had been fired more than once for stealing scored highest in the faking and inconsistency scores. The effects are robust. See annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,5398) = 27.64 p < 0.0001

Having been fired for stealing as a function of Validity Scale


3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SU

B5

44

42

40

38

36

34

32

30


4. Relationship between honesty scores and having been fired for failing to respect company rules.

Have you ever been fired for not respecting company rules?


a) General Score: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As honesty scores decreased, the likelihood that groups would have been fired for failing to respect company rules increased. The effects are robust. See annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,5418) = 180.42 p < 0.0001

Having been fired for failing to respect company rules as a function of Overall Honesty


3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SC

OR

E

70

60

50

40


a) Subscale 1 – Attitude towards Dishonest Behaviors: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As scores on this subscale increased, so did the likelihood that groups would have been fired for failing to respect company rules. The effects are robust. See annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,5418) = 127.81 p < 0.0001

Having been fired for failing to respect company rules as a function of Attitude towards Dishonest Behaviors


3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SU

B1

60

50

40

30

20


a) Subscale 2 – Perceived Frequency: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As scores on this subscale increased, so did the likelihood that groups would have been fired for failing to respect company rules. The effects are robust. See annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,5418) = 64.81 p < 0.0001

Having been fired for failing to respect company rules as a function of Perceived Frequency


3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SU

B2

60

50

40


Subscale 3- Rationalizing of Dishonest Behaviors: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As scores on this subscale increased, so did the likelihood that groups would have been fired for failing to respect company rules. The effects are robust. See annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,5418) = 111.65 p < 0.0001

Having been fired for failing to respect company rules as a function of Rationalizing of Dishonest Behaviors


3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SU

B3

60

50

40

30

20


Subscale 4 – Self-Reported Honesty: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As scores on this subscale increased, so did the likelihood that groups would have been fired for failing to respect company rules. The effects are robust. See annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,5418) = 223.05 p < 0.0001

Having been fired for failing to respect company rules as a function of Self-reported Honesty


3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SU

B4

60

50

40

30


Subscale 5 – Validity Scale: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. The group who had been fired more than once for stealing scored highest in the faking and inconsistency scores that make up the validity scale. The effects are robust. See annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,5418) = 18.27 p < 0.0001

Having been fired for failing to respect company rules as a function of Self-reported Honesty


3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SU

B5

40

38

36

34

32

30


4. Relationship between honesty scores and having charged with a crime. Have you ever been charged with a crime?


a) General Score: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As honesty scores decreased, the likelihood that groups would have been charged with a crime increased. The effects are robust. See annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2, 5400) = 101.45 p < 0.0001

Having been charged with a crime as a function of Overall Honesty

Have you ever been charged with a crime?

3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SC

OR

E

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


a) Subscale 1 – Attitude towards Dishonest Behaviors: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As scores on this subscale increased, so did the likelihood that groups would have been charged with a crime. The effects are robust. See annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2, 5400) = 64.04 p < 0.0001

Having been charged with a crime as a function of Attitude towards Dishonest Behaviors


3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SU

B1

46

44

42

40

38

36

34

32

30


a) Subscale 2 – Perceived Frequency: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As scores on this subscale increased, so did the likelihood that groups would have been charged with a crime. The effects are robust. See annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2, 5400) = 19.12 p < 0.0001

Having been charged with a crime as a function of Perceived Frequency


3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SU

B2

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43


Subscale 3- Rationalizing of Dishonest Behaviors: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As scores on this subscale increased, so did the likelihood that groups would have been charged with a crime. The effects are robust. See annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2, 5400) = 60.79 p < 0.0001

Having been charged with a crime as a function of Rationalizing of Dishonest Behaviors


3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SU

B3

46

44

42

40

38

36

34

32

30


Subscale 4 – Self-Reported Honesty: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. As scores on this subscale increased, so did the likelihood that groups would have been charged with a crime. The effects are robust. See annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2, 5400)= 144.49 p < 0.0001

Having been charged with a crime as a function of Self-reported Honesty


3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SU

B4

50

40

30


Subscale 5 – Validity Scale: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with differing levels of honesty. The group who had been charged with a crime scored highest in the faking and inconsistency scores that make up the validity scale. The effects are robust. See annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2, 5400) = 4.846 p < 0.0001

Having been charged with a crime as a function of Self-reported Honesty


3.002.001.00

Mea

n of

SU

B5

32.5

32.0

31.5

31.0

30.5

30.0

29.5

29.0


5. Relationship between honesty and the type and number of jobs held in past five years. How many jobs have you held in the past five years?

1. I am a student and don't work. 2. I am a student and have worked at summer/part-time jobs. 3. I am a consultant, and have done contract work with several companies. 4. I have been retired during most or all of the past five years. 5. I have been unemployed for all or most of the past five years. 6. I have been working for the same employer in a full time position for the past five

years. 7. I have worked in full-time, stable positions for two-three different employers. 8. I have worked in full-time, stable positions for four-five different employers. 9. I have worked in full-time, stable positions for more than six employers. 10. I have worked at several part-time jobs. 11. I have worked at one part-time job. 12. I am a freelancer. 13. I am an entrepreneur/business owner. 14. I have worked at a mix of full and part-time jobs. 15. I do temp work and have worked at several different positions. 16. I have worked at one full-time and one part-time job.


a) General Score: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who have held differing numbers of jobs in the past five years. Stability of employment appears to be influenced by the level of honesty displayed by the individuals, with the groups of people in freelance positions, who have worked for more than six full-time employers in the past five years, and students who don’t work scoring lowest on honesty and those who have worked for one full-time employer for the last five years, retired people, and entrepreneurs scoring highest. The effects are robust. See annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(15,5252) = 33.06 p < 0.0001

Number of jobs held in the past five years as a function of overall honesty

How many jobs have you held in the past five years?

16151413121110987654321

Mea

n of

SC

OR

E

80

70

60

50


b) Subscale 1 – Attitude towards Dishonest Behavior: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who have held differing numbers of jobs in the past five years. Stability of employment appears to be influenced by the groups’ attitudes towards dishonest behavior, with the groups of people in freelance positions, who have worked for more than six full-time employers in the past five years, and students who don’t work scoring highest on this scale and those who have worked for one full-time employer for the last five years, retired people, and entrepreneurs scoring lowest. The more tolerant of dishonest behaviors a person was, the more often they tended to change jobs. The effects are robust. See annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(15,5252) = 30.74 p < 0.0001 Number of jobs held in the past five years as a function of attitude towards dishonest behavior


16151413121110987654321

Mea

n of

SU

B1

50

40

30

20


c) Subscale 2 – Perceived Frequency: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who have held differing numbers of jobs in the past five years. Stability of employment appears to be influenced by the groups’ perceived frequency of dishonest behavior, with the groups of people in freelance positions, who have worked for more than six full-time employers in the past five years, and students who don’t work perceiving the most and those who have worked for one full-time employer for the last five years, retired people, and entrepreneurs perceiving the least. The effects are robust. See annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(15,5252) = 25.48 p < 0.0001

Number of jobs held in the past five years as a function of perceived frequency


16151413121110987654321

Mea

n of

SU

B2

60

50

40

30


d) Subscale 3 – Rationalizing of Dishonest Behavior: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who have held differing numbers of jobs in the past five years. Stability of employment appears to be influenced by the groups’ tendency to rationalize dishonest behavior, with the groups of people in freelance positions, who have worked for more than six full-time employers in the past five years, and students who don’t work scoring highest on this scale and those who have worked for one full-time employer for the last five years, retired people, and entrepreneurs scoring lowest. The more a group tended to rationalize dishonest behaviors, the more often they changed jobs. The effects are robust. See annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(15,5252) = 39.06 p < 0.0001

Number of jobs held in the past five years as a function of the tendency to rationalize dishonest behavior


16151413121110987654321

Mea

n of

SU

B3

50

40

30

20


e) Subscale 4 – Self-reported Honesty: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who have held differing numbers of jobs in the past five years. The groups of people in freelance positions, who have worked for more than six full-time employers in the past five years, and people who have worked in several part time positions scoring highest on this scale and those who have worked for one full-time employer for the last five years, unemployed people, and entrepreneurs scoring lowest. The more a group tended to rationalize dishonest behaviors, the more often they changed jobs. The effects are robust. See annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(15,5252) = 20.13 p < 0.0001

Number of jobs held in the past five years as a function of self-reported honesty


16151413121110987654321

Mea

n of

SU

B4

50

40

30

20


f) Subscale 5 – Validity Score: No significant differences were found among groups of subjects who have held differing numbers of jobs in the past five years. Although the F was significant, post hoc tests showed that differences between groups were not significant.


Correlations

AGE SCORE Attitude Towards Dishonest

Behavior

Perceived Frequency

Rationalizing Dishonest

Behavior


Validity Scale

AGE Pearson Correlation

1 .307 -.299 -.296 -.328 -.240 -.042

Sig. (2-tailed)

. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001

N 5853 5853 5853 5853 5853 5853 5853 SCORE Pearson

Correlation .307 1 -.915 -.508 -.957 -.920 .064

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 5853 8877 8877 8877 8877 8877 8877 Attitude Towards

Dishonest Behavior Pearson

Correlation -.299 -.915 1 .437 .875 .718 .015

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .161

N 5853 8877 8877 8877 8877 8877 8877 Perceived

Frequency Pearson

Correlation -.296 -.508 .437 1 .462 .509 -.038

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000

N 5853 8877 8877 8877 8877 8877 8877 Rationalizing

Dishonest Behavior Pearson

Correlation -.328 -.957 .875 .462 1 .809 -.049

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000

N 5853 8877 8877 8877 8877 8877 8877 Self-Reported

Honesty Pearson

Correlation -.240 -.920 .718 .509 .809 1 -.125

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000

N 5853 8877 8877 8877 8877 8877 8877 Validity Scale Pearson

Correlation -.042 .064 .015 -.038 -.049 -.125 1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.001 .000 .161 .000 .000 .000 .

N 5853 8877 8877 8877 8877 8877 8877 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


Correlations:

1. Age was positively correlated with the main score and negatively correlated with all subscores except the validity score. As people get older, they tend to become more honest. The relationship is moderate.

2. All subscores are very strongly negatively correlated with the main score, except the validity scale.

3. All subscales, except the validity scale, are strongly correlated with one another. This relationship supports the attitudinal and behavioral link and the relationship between one’s perceptions and one’s behaviors.

4. The validity scale score is slightly negatively correlated with self-reported honesty. As people were less truthful and consistent, they reported being more honest.


Annex 1: Descriptive Statistics Statistics

Overall Attitude Towards

Dishonest Behavior

Perceived Frequency



Validity Scale

N Valid 8877 8877 8877 8877 8877 8877 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 66.32 33.55 45.18 33.60 33.82 33.04Std. Error

of Mean .194 .214 .189 .235 .187 .166

Median 68.00 31.00 46.00 32.00 33.00 31.00Mode 74 0 51 0 32 12

Std. Deviation

18.277 20.165 17.790 22.144 17.641 15.670

Variance 334.067 406.617 316.467 490.351 311.191 245.533Skewness -.314 .469 -.114 .295 .245 .471Std. Error

of Skewness

.026 .026 .026 .026 .026 .026

Kurtosis -.544 -.450 -.363 -.727 -.426 -.484Std. Error

of Kurtosis .052 .052 .052 .052 .052 .052

Range 98 99 100 100 98 87Minimum 2 0 0 0 0 12Maximum 100 99 100 100 98 99

Percentiles 5 35.00 5.00 14.00 .00 6.00 12.00 10 41.00 9.00 21.00 3.00 11.00 12.00 15 46.00 12.00 25.00 8.00 14.00 18.00 20 50.00 15.00 29.00 11.00 17.00 18.00 25 53.00 18.00 33.00 14.00 21.00 20.00 30 56.00 20.00 36.00 19.00 23.00 20.00 35 59.00 23.00 39.00 22.00 26.00 24.00 40 62.00 25.00 41.00 26.00 28.00 27.00 45 65.00 28.00 44.00 29.00 31.00 31.00 50 68.00 31.00 46.00 32.00 33.00 31.00 55 70.00 34.00 48.00 36.00 35.00 33.00 60 73.00 37.00 51.00 40.00 38.00 37.00 65 75.00 40.00 53.00 43.00 41.00 39.00 70 78.00 44.00 55.00 47.00 43.00 43.00 75 81.00 48.00 58.00 50.00 46.00 45.00 80 84.00 52.00 61.00 54.00 49.00 46.00 85 87.00 57.00 64.00 59.00 53.00 50.00 90 90.00 63.00 68.00 63.00 57.00 54.00 95 94.00 70.00 73.00 71.00 64.00 59.00 97 96.00 74.00 77.00 76.00 68.00 64.00 99 98.00 82.00 84.00 86.00 75.00 71.00

a Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown


Annex 2

SCORE Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05


1 2 3

I don't follow rules and regulations at all. 122 44.89 I tend to break rules whenever I know I won't get

caught.464 45.53

I follow them the majority of the time except when they are

3636 67.07

I always follow them, I feel bad if I don't. 1244 77.46Sig. .949 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 349.932. SUB1 Tukey HSD



1 2 3

I always follow them, I feel bad if I don't. 1244 23.33 I follow them the majority of the time except when

they are3636 32.10

I tend to break rules whenever I know I won't get caught.

464 53.45

I don't follow rules and regulations at all. 122 56.20Sig. 1.000 1.000 .171




1 2 3 4

I always follow them, I feel bad if I don't. 1244 40.12 I follow them the majority of the time except

when they are3636 44.60


464 56.46

I don't follow rules and regulations at all. 122 60.46Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 349.932.


SUB3 Tukey HSD



1 2 3


they are3636 32.56

I don't follow rules and regulations at all. 122 55.84I tend to break rules whenever I know I won't get

caught.464 56.58

Sig. 1.000 1.000 .961Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 349.932. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. SUB4 Tukey HSD



1 2 3


they are3636 33.74


464 53.76

I don't follow rules and regulations at all. 122 53.89Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 349.932. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.


Annex 3 Overall Score Tukey HSD


How honest are you? 1 2 3 4I am much less honest

than the average individual.

89 44.04

I am slightly less honest than the

average individual.

184 46.84

I am as honest as the average individual.

1415 61.58

I am slightly more honest than the

average individual.

1707 67.74

I am much more honest than most

people.

2012 72.96

Sig. .295 1.000 1.000 1.000Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 270.852. Attitudes towards Dishonest Behavior Tukey HSD


How honest are you? 1 2 3 4I am much more

honest than most people.

2012 27.41


average individual.

1707 31.66


1415 37.09


average individual.

184 52.27

I am much less honest than the average

individual.

89 56.74

Sig. .063 1.000 1.000 1.000Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 270.852.


Perceived Frequency Tukey HSD


How honest are you? 1 2 3I am much more


2012 43.74


average individual.

1707 44.63


1415 45.91


average individual.

184 53.53


individual.

89 59.33

Sig. .596 1.000 1.000Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 270.852. Rationalizing of Dishonest Behavior Tukey HSD


How honest are you? 1 2 3I am much more


2012 26.95


average individual.

1707 31.71


1415 38.24


average individual.

184 54.24


individual.

89 56.17

Sig. .063 1.000 .821Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 270.852.


Self-reported Honesty Tukey HSD


How honest are you? 1 2 3 4I am much more


2012 26.84


average individual.

1707 33.03


1415 39.46


average individual.

184 53.08


individual.

89 55.28

Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 .499Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 270.852. Validity Scale Tukey HSD


How honest are you? 1 2 3I am slightly less honest than the

average individual.

184 29.10


1415 29.70


average individual.

1707 30.05

I am much more honest than most

people.

2012 34.28


individual.

89 38.30

Sig. .949 1.000 1.000Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 270.852.


Annex 4 SCORE Tukey HSD

N Subset for

alpha = .05


1 2 3

Yes, more than once 85 39.56 Yes, once 138 57.51

No 5187 67.99Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000


N Subset for

alpha = .05


1 2 3

No 5187 31.62 Yes, once 138 40.30

Yes, more than once 85 59.66Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000




1 2

No 5187 44.47 Yes, once 138 48.54

Yes, more than once 85 63.04Sig. .098 1.000


N Subset for

alpha


= .05 Have you ever been fired for stealing something from

your employers? 1 2 3

No 5187 31.79 Yes, once 138 40.78



N Subset for

alpha = .05


1 2 3

No 5187 32.43 Yes, once 138 45.12





1 2

No 5187 31.34 Yes, once 138 34.74




Annex 5: SCORE Tukey HSD



1 2 3


No 4917 68.44Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000




1 2 3

No 4917 31.27 Yes, once 356 37.99





1 2 3

No 4917 44.14 Yes, once 356 49.30





1 2 3

No 4917 31.38 Yes, once 356 38.21




SUB4 Tukey HSD



1 2 3

No 4917 31.88 Yes, once 356 42.28





1 2

Yes, once 356 30.98 No 4917 31.51





N Subset for alpha = .05 Have you ever been charged with a crime? 1 2 3


No 4652 68.55Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000



No 4652 31.16 Yes, once 518 37.06




No 4652 44.29 Yes, once 518 47.25




No 4652 31.24 Yes, once 518 37.74




SUB4 Tukey HSD


No 4652 31.79 Yes, once 518 39.64



N Subset for alpha = .05 Have you ever been charged with a crime? 1 2

Yes, once 518 29.60 No 4652 31.74 31.74

Yes, more than once 242 32.08 Sig. .072 .934




N Subset for alpha

= .05


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am a freelancer. 89 59.63 I have worked in full-time, stable positions for more

than s

57 60.30 60.30

I am a student and don't work.

653 60.74 60.74

I have worked at several part-time jobs.

248 62.47 62.47 62.47

I am a student and have worked at summer/part-time

jobs.

1075 62.94 62.94 62.94 62.94

I do temp work and have worked at several different

position

75 63.03 63.03 63.03 63.03

I have worked at a mix of full and part-time jobs.

353 64.20 64.20 64.20 64.20

I have worked at one part-time job.

307 66.49 66.49 66.49 66.49 66.49

I have worked in full-time, stable positions for four-five

d

90 67.34 67.34 67.34 67.34 67.34

16 447 68.78 68.78 68.78 68.78 68.78I am a consultant, and have

done contract work with several

54 70.19 70.19 70.19 70.19

I have worked in full-time, stable positions for two-three

d

748 72.20 72.20 72.20

I have been unemployed for all or most of the past five

year

82 72.80 72.80 72.80

I have been retired during most or all of the past five

year

48 73.13 73.13 73.13

I am an entrepreneur/business

owner.

135 74.47 74.47

I have been working for the same employer in a full time

pos

807 75.04

Sig. .117 .092 .221 .070 .153 .082 .233Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 123.480.


SUB1 Tukey HSD



1 2 3 4 5 6

I am an entrepreneur/business owner.

135 24.63

I have been retired during most or all of the past five year

48 24.88

I have been working for the same employer in a full time pos

807 24.88

I have worked in full-time, stable positions for two-three d

748 26.43 26.43

I have been unemployed for all or most of the past five year

82 26.85 26.85

16 447 30.00 30.00 30.00 I am a consultant, and have done

contract work with several 54 30.57 30.57 30.57 30.57

I have worked in full-time, stable positions for four-five d

90 32.58 32.58 32.58 32.58 32.58

I have worked at one part-time job. 307 33.74 33.74 33.74 33.74 33.74I have worked at a mix of full and

part-time jobs. 353 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46

I have worked at several part-time jobs.

248 36.34 36.34 36.34 36.34

I am a student and have worked at summer/part-time jobs.

1075 36.68 36.68 36.68 36.68

I do temp work and have worked at several different position

75 36.68 36.68 36.68 36.68

I have worked in full-time, stable positions for more than s

57 38.33 38.33 38.33

I am a student and don't work. 653 40.10 40.10I am a freelancer. 89 40.79

Sig. .068 .061 .270 .086 .113 .190Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 123.480.


SUB2 Tukey HSD



1 2 3 4 5 6

I am an entrepreneur/business owner.

135 36.12


807 38.34 38.34


48 39.33 39.33 39.33


748 40.04 40.04 40.04 40.04

I am a consultant, and have done contract work with several

54 41.20 41.20 41.20 41.20

I have been unemployed for all or most of the past five year

82 42.77 42.77 42.77 42.77 42.77

16 447 43.82 43.82 43.82 43.82 43.82I do temp work and have worked

at several different position 75 45.29 45.29 45.29 45.29 45.29


353 45.66 45.66 45.66 45.66 45.66


90 46.70 46.70 46.70 46.70

I am a freelancer. 89 46.84 46.84 46.84I have worked at one part-time job. 307 47.37 47.37 47.37I am a student and have worked at

summer/part-time jobs. 1075 48.89 48.89

I am a student and don't work. 653 49.96 49.96I have worked at several part-time

jobs. 248 50.64

I have worked in full-time, stable positions for more than s

57 50.81

Sig. .140 .057 .054 .057 .069 .091Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 123.480.


SUB3 Tukey HSD



1 2 3 4 5


807 22.10


48 23.46 23.46

I am an entrepreneur/business owner. 135 23.47 23.47 I have been unemployed for all or most

of the past five year82 25.04 25.04


748 25.53 25.53


54 26.48 26.48 26.48

16 447 30.85 30.85 30.85 30.85 I have worked in full-time, stable

positions for four-five d90 31.50 31.50 31.50

I have worked at one part-time job. 307 35.09 35.09 35.09I have worked at a mix of full and part-

time jobs.353 35.83 35.83


75 37.53 37.53

I have worked at several part-time jobs. 248 38.05 38.05I have worked in full-time, stable

positions for more than s57 38.32 38.32


1075 38.67 38.67

I am a student and don't work. 653 40.77I am a freelancer. 89 41.31

Sig. .074 .156 .087 .192 .590Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 123.480.


SUB4 Tukey HSD



1 2 3 4 5


807 26.90

I am an entrepreneur/business owner. 135 27.54 I have been unemployed for all or most

of the past five year82 28.84


748 30.24 30.24


48 30.27 30.27


54 31.52 31.52 31.52

16 447 32.27 32.27 32.27 32.27 I have worked at one part-time job. 307 32.36 32.36 32.36 32.36


90 33.44 33.44 33.44 33.44


1075 36.27 36.27 36.27 36.27


353 36.70 36.70 36.70 36.70


75 36.84 36.84 36.84 36.84

I am a student and don't work. 653 37.73 37.73 37.73I have worked at several part-time jobs. 248 37.93 37.93 37.93

I am a freelancer. 89 39.44 39.44I have worked in full-time, stable

positions for more than s57 41.37

Sig. .154 .145 .181 .069 .573Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 123.480.

psychometric report honesty test - archprofilehr.psychtests.com/archprofile/stats/honesty.pdf · 5....

Documents