<_SYM psyRA_NP JAPP_NP 2012_CD 4_CD >_SYM 
<_SYM Intentional_NP Response_NP Distortion_NP on_IN Personality_NP Tests_NPS :_: Using_VVG Eye-Tracking_NP to_TO Understand_NP Response_NP Processes_NNS When_WRB Faking_NP >_SYM 
<_SYM Edwin_NP A_NP ._SENT J_NP ._SENT van_NP Hooft_NP Marise_NP Ph._NP Born_NP >_SYM 
Abstract_JJ 
Intentional_JJ response_NN distortion_NN or_CC faking_VVG among_IN job_NN applicants_NNS completing_VVG measures_NNS such_JJ as_IN personality_NN and_CC integrity_NN tests_NNS is_VBZ a_DT concern_NN in_IN personnel_JJ selection_NN ._SENT The_DT present_JJ study_NN aimed_VVN to_TO investigate_VV whether_IN eye-tracking_NN technology_NN can_MD improve_VV our_PP$ understanding_NN of_IN the_DT response_NN process_NN when_WRB faking_VVG ._SENT In_IN anexperimental_JJ within-participants_NNS design_NN ,_, a_DT Big_NP Five_CD personality_NN test_NN and_CC an_DT integrity_NN measure_NN were_VBD administered_VVN to_TO 129_CD university_NN students_NNS in_IN 2_CD conditions_NNS :_: a_DT respond_NN honestly_RB and_CC a_DT faking_VVG good_JJ instruction_NN ._SENT Item_NN responses_NNS ,_, response_NN latencies_NNS ,_, and_CC eye_NN movements_NNS were_VBD measured_VVN ._SENT Results_NNS demonstrated_VVD that_IN/that all_DT personality_NN dimensions_NNS were_VBD fakeable_JJ ._SENT In_IN support_NN of_IN the_DT theoretical_JJ position_NN that_DT faking_VVG involves_VVZ a_DT less_JJR cognitively_NN demanding_VVG process_NN than_IN responding_VVG honestly_RB ,_, we_PP found_VVD that_IN/that response_NN times_NNS were_VBD on_IN average_JJ 0.25_CD s_NNS slower_JJR and_CC participants_NNS had_VHD less_JJR eye_NN fixations_NNS in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_JJ condition_NN ._SENT However_RB ,_, in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_JJ condition_NN ,_, participants_NNS had_VHD more_JJR fixations_NNS on_IN the_DT 2_CD extreme_JJ response_NN options_NNS of_IN the_DT 5-point_JJ answering_NN scale_NN ,_, and_CC they_PP fixated_VVD on_IN these_DT more_RBR directly_RB after_IN having_VHG read_VVN the_DT question_NN ._SENT These_DT findings_NNS support_VVP the_DT idea_NN that_IN/that faking_VVG leads_NNS to_TO semantic_JJ rather_RB than_IN self-referenced_JJ item_NN interpretations_NNS ._SENT Eyetracking_NP was_VBD demonstrated_VVN to_TO be_VB potentially_RB useful_JJ in_IN detecting_VVG faking_VVG behavior_NN ,_, improving_VVG detecting_VVG rates_NNS over_IN and_CC beyond_IN response_NN extremity_NN and_CC latency_NN metrics_NNS ._SENT 
Intentional_JJ response_NN distortion_NN or_CC faking_VVG among_IN job_NN applicants_NNS completing_VVG measures_NNS such_JJ as_IN personality_NN and_CC integrity_NN tests_NNS continues_VVZ to_TO be_VB a_DT concern_NN in_IN personnel_NNS selection_NN (_( Griffith_NP ,_, Malm_NP ,_, English_NP ,_, Yoshita_NP ,_, &_CC Gujar_NP ,_, 2006_CD )_) ._SENT Faking_VVG can_MD be_VB defined_VVN as_IN a_DT response_NN bias_NN whereby_WRB individuals_NNS consciously_RB manipulate_VVP their_PP$ answers_NNS as_RB to_TO create_VV an_DT overly_RB positive_JJ impression_NN (_( Komar_NP ,_, Brown_NP ,_, Komar_NP ,_, &_CC Robie_NP ,_, 2008_CD ;_: McFarland_NP &_CC Ryan_NP ,_, 2000_CD )_) ._SENT Faking_VVG is_VBZ generally_RB understood_VVN as_IN a_DT motivated_JJ behavior_NN that_WDT has_VHZ both_DT dispositional_JJ and_CC situational_JJ antecedents_NNS (_( McFarland_NP &_CC Ryan_NP ,_, 2006_CD ;_: Snell_NP ,_, Sydell_NP ,_, &_CC Lueke_NP ,_, 1999_CD ;_: Stark_NP ,_, Chernyshenko_NP ,_, Chan_NP ,_, Lee_NP ,_, &_CC Drasgow_NP ,_, 2001_CD )_) ._SENT Studies_NNS taking_VVG a_DT dispositional_JJ perspective_NN on_IN faking_VVG typically_RB interpret_VV faking_VVG as_IN a_DT personality_NN trait_NN ,_, operationalized_VVN by_IN using_VVG self-reported_JJ social_JJ desirability_NN ,_, impression_NN management_NN ,_, or_CC lie_VV scale_NN scores_NNS ._SENT Studies_NNS taking_VVG a_DT situational_JJ perspective_NN typically_RB interpret_VV faking_VVG as_IN a_DT function_NN of_IN the_DT testing_NN conditions_NNS ,_, and_CC operationalize_VVP faking_VVG as_IN the_DT difference_NN between_IN job_NN applicants_NNS '_'' and_CC job_NN incumbents_NNS '_POS scores_NNS (_( Birkeland_NP ,_, Manson_NP ,_, Kisamore_NP ,_, Brannick_NP ,_, &_CC Smith_NP ,_, 2006_CD )_) or_CC as_IN the_DT difference_NN between_IN scores_NNS in_IN an_DT experiment_NN with_IN a_DT faking_VVG and_CC a_DT responding_VVG honestly_RB instruction_NN condition_NN (_( Viswesvaran_NP &_CC Ones_NP ,_, 1999_CD )_) ._SENT 
Meta-analytic_JJ work_NN demonstrated_VVD that_IN/that individuals_NNS are_VBP able_JJ to_TO fake_VV on_IN self-report_JJ non-cognitive_JJ measures_NNS when_WRB instructed_VVN to_TO do_VV so_IN (_( Alliger_NP &_CC Dwight_NP ,_, 2000_CD ;_: Viswesvaran_NP &_CC Ones_NP ,_, 1999_CD )_) ._SENT Furthermore_RB ,_, although_IN there_EX has_VHZ been_VBN substantial_JJ debate_NN in_IN the_DT literature_NN ,_, meta-analytic_JJ work_NN on_IN differences_NNS between_IN job_NN applicants_NNS '_'' and_CC job_NN incumbents_NNS '_POS scores_NNS demonstrates_VVZ that_IN/that it_PP is_VBZ likely_RB that_DT faking_VVG does_VVZ occur_VV among_IN actual_JJ job_NN applicants_NNS (_( Birkeland_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2006_CD )_) ._SENT The_DT proportion_NN of_IN fakers_NNS in_IN applicant_NN samples_NNS varies_VVZ between_IN approximately_RB 20_CD %_NN and_CC 50_CD %_NN ._SENT For_IN example_NN ,_, in_IN a_DT study_NN using_VVG randomized_VVN response_NN techniques_NNS ,_, more_JJR than_IN 30_CD %_NN of_IN recent_JJ applicants_NNS admitted_VVD that_IN/that they_PP had_VHD engaged_VVN in_IN faking_VVG behavior_NN (_( Donovan_NP ,_, Dwight_NP ,_, &_CC Hurtz_NP ,_, 2003_CD )_) ._SENT Griffith_NP ,_, Chmielowski_NP ,_, and_CC Yoshita_NP (_( 2007_CD )_) had_VHD recent_JJ job_NN applicants_NNS complete_VV the_DT same_JJ personality_NN test_NN again_RB under_IN an_DT honest_JJ instruction_NN ,_, and_CC they_PP found_VVD that_IN/that (_( depending_VVG on_IN the_DT estimation_NN method_NN used_VVN )_) between_IN 22_CD %_NN and_CC 49_CD %_NN had_VHD elevated_VVN their_PP$ scores_NNS during_IN the_DT job_NN application_NN ._SENT 
As_IN individuals_NNS can_MD and_CC do_VV fake_NN on_IN self-report_NN personality_NN and_CC integrity_NN tests_NNS ,_, an_DT important_JJ issue_NN then_RB is_VBZ whether_IN faking_VVG poses_NNS a_DT threat_NN to_TO the_DT validity_NN of_IN such_JJ tests_NNS ._SENT Several_JJ studies_NNS indicated_VVD that_DT faking_VVG does_VVZ not_RB impact_VV the_DT validity_NN (_( e.g._FW ,_, Barrick_NP &_CC Mount_NP ,_, 1996_CD ;_: Ellingson_NP ,_, Smith_NP ,_, &_CC Sackett_NP ,_, 2001_CD ;_: Hough_NP ,_, 1998_CD ;_: Hough_NP ,_, Eaton_NP ,_, Dunnette_NP ,_, Kamp_NP ,_, &_CC McCloy_NP ,_, 1990_CD ;_: Li_NP &_CC Bagger_NP ,_, 2006_CD ;_: Ones_NP &_CC Viswesvaran_NP ,_, 1998_CD ;_: Ones_NP ,_, Viswesvaran_NP ,_, &_CC Reiss_NP ,_, 1996_CD ;_: Smith_NP &_CC Ellingson_NP ,_, 2002_CD )_) ._SENT These_DT studies_NNS ,_, however_RB ,_, almost_RB exclusively_RB operationalized_VVN faking_VVG using_VVG social_JJ desirability_NN ,_, impression_NN management_NN ,_, or_CC lie_VV scale_NN scores_NNS ._SENT Because_IN such_JJ self-report_NN scales_NNS to_TO assess_VV faking_VVG themselves_PP have_VHP been_VBN found_VVN to_TO be_VB sensitive_JJ to_TO faking_VVG (_( e.g._FW ,_, Viswesvaran_NP &_CC Ones_NP ,_, 1999_CD ;_: Zickar_NP &_CC Robie_NP ,_, 1999_CD )_) and_CC because_IN their_PP$ validity_NN has_VHZ been_VBN questioned_VVN (_( Griffith_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2006_CD ;_: Griffith_NP &_CC Peterson_NP ,_, 2008_CD ;_: Stark_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2001_CD ;_: see_VVP also_RB McFarland_NP &_CC Ryan_NP ,_, 2000_CD )_) ,_, it_PP may_MD be_VB problematic_JJ to_TO draw_VV firm_NN conclusions_NNS about_IN the_DT effects_NNS of_IN faking_VVG from_IN studies_NNS using_VVG such_JJ scales_NNS (_( Burns_NP &_CC Christiansen_NP ,_, 2006_CD )_) ._SENT Indeed_RB ,_, studies_NNS using_VVG other_JJ paradigms_NNS such_JJ as_IN comparing_VVG applicants_NNS with_IN non-applicants_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, Griffin_NP ,_, Hesketh_NP ,_, &_CC Grayson_NP ,_, 2004_CD ;_: Rosse_NP ,_, Stecher_NP ,_, Miller_NP ,_, &_CC Levin_NP ,_, 1998_CD ;_: Schmit_NP &_CC Ryan_NP ,_, 1993_CD ;_: Stark_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2001_CD )_) or_CC comparing_VVG scores_NNS in_IN a_DT faking_VVG condition_NN with_IN scores_NNS in_IN a_DT responding_VVG honestly_RB condition_NN (_( e.g._FW ,_, Douglas_NP ,_, McDaniel_NP ,_, &_CC Snell_NP ,_, 1996_CD ;_: Holden_NP ,_, Wood_NP ,_, &_CC Tomashewski_NP ,_, 2001_CD ;_: McFarland_NP &_CC Ryan_NP ,_, 2000_CD ;_: Zickar_NP &_CC Robie_NP ,_, 1999_CD )_) typically_RB conclude_VVP that_DT faking_VVG does_VVZ impact_NN both_CC the_DT construct_NN and_CC criterion-related_JJ validity_NN ._SENT Regarding_VVG the_DT construct_NN validity_NN ,_, for_IN example_NN ,_, faking_VVG has_VHZ been_VBN found_VVN to_TO affect_VV the_DT factor_NN structure_NN of_IN personality_NN measures_NNS (_( Schmit_NP &_CC Ryan_NP ,_, 1993_CD ;_: Zickar_NP &_CC Robie_NP ,_, 1999_CD )_) and_CC to_TO lead_VV to_TO differential_JJ item_NN functioning_VVG (_( Griffin_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2004_CD ;_: Stark_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2001_CD )_) ._SENT Regarding_VVG criterion-related_JJ validity_NN ,_, studies_NNS comparing_VVG job_NN applicants_NNS with_IN job_NN incumbents_NNS (_( Rosse_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 1998_CD )_) ,_, comparing_VVG a_DT faking_VVG and_CC a_DT responding_VVG honestly_RB condition_NN (_( Douglas_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 1996_CD ;_: Griffith_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2007_CD ;_: Holden_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2001_CD )_) ,_, and_CC Monte_NP Carlo_NP simulation_NN studies_NNS (_( Komar_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2008_CD )_) have_VHP demonstrated_VVN that_IN/that faking_VVG negatively_RB impacts_VVZ the_DT criterion-related_JJ validity_NN and_CC affects_VVZ hiring_VVG decisions_NNS based_VVN on_IN personality_NN tests_NNS ._SENT 
If_IN faking_VVG on_IN personality_NN and_CC integrity_NN tests_NNS indeed_RB impacts_VVZ the_DT construct_NN validity_NN ,_, criterion-related_JJ validity_NN ,_, and_CC hiring_VVG decisions_NNS ,_, this_DT raises_VVZ the_DT issue_NN of_IN how_WRB to_TO detect_VV faking_VVG in_IN a_DT selection_NN setting_NN ._SENT In_IN the_DT selection_NN practice_NN ,_, testing_VVG companies_NNS usually_RB include_VVP social_JJ desirability_NN ,_, impression_NN management_NN ,_, or_CC lie_VV scales_NNS to_TO identify_VV fakers_NNS ._SENT Given_VVN the_DT finding_NN that_IN/that such_JJ measures_NNS may_MD have_VH low_JJ validity_NN ,_, techniques_NNS that_WDT do_VVP not_RB rely_VV on_IN self-report_NN measures_NNS may_MD be_VB more_RBR useful_JJ for_IN detecting_VVG faking_VVG behavior_NN ._SENT Based_VVN on_IN this_DT reasoning_NN ,_, the_DT purpose_NN of_IN the_DT present_JJ study_NN was_VBD twofold_JJ ._SENT First_RB ,_, we_PP aimed_VVD to_TO investigate_VV whether_IN eye-tracking_NN technology_NN can_MD increase_VV our_PP$ understanding_NN of_IN the_DT response_NN processes_VVZ when_WRB faking_VVG on_IN personality_NN and_CC integrity_NN items_NNS compared_VVN to_TO answering_VVG honestly_RB ._SENT Second_RB ,_, we_PP sought_VVD to_TO explore_VV whether_IN eye-tracking_NN technology_NN may_MD yield_VV information_NN that_WDT can_MD be_VB used_VVN for_IN identifying_VVG faking_VVG behavior_NN ._SENT 
Eye-tracking_NN is_VBZ a_DT technology_NN that_WDT allows_VVZ for_IN the_DT recording_NN of_IN eye_NN gaze_VVP positions_NNS and_CC eye_NN movements_NNS when_WRB looking_VVG to_TO texts_NNS ,_, images_NNS ,_, displays_NNS ,_, or_CC moving_VVG scenes_NNS ._SENT Eye-tracking_NN is_VBZ often_RB used_VVN in_IN research_NN on_IN reading_NN and_CC information_NN processing_NN ,_, visual_JJ search_NN ,_, and_CC scene_NN perception_NN (_( for_IN a_DT comprehensive_JJ review_NN ,_, see_VVP Rayner_NP ,_, 1998_CD )_) ._SENT This_DT body_NN of_IN research_NN demonstrated_VVD that_IN/that eye_NN movements_NNS are_VBP related_VVN to_TO attention_NN and_CC cognitive_JJ load_NN ,_, suggesting_VVG that_IN/that tracking_VVG eye_NN movements_NNS is_VBZ an_DT effective_JJ tool_NN for_IN investigating_VVG cognitive_JJ processes_NNS involved_VVN in_IN reading_NN ,_, visual_JJ search_NN ,_, and_CC scene_NN perception_NN ._SENT Furthermore_RB ,_, eye-tracking_NN has_VHZ been_VBN demonstrated_VVN to_TO be_VB useful_JJ in_IN ,_, for_IN example_NN ,_, identifying_VVG dyslexia_NN and_CC autism_NN ._SENT More_RBR recently_RB ,_, studies_NNS have_VHP used_VVN eye-tracking_NN to_TO examine_VV the_DT effects_NNS of_IN individual_JJ differences_NNS in_IN optimism_NN (_( Isaacowitz_NP ,_, 2005_CD )_) and_CC trait_NN anxiety_NN (_( Calvo_NP &_CC Avero_NP ,_, 2002_CD ,_, Calvo_NP &_CC Avero_NP ,_, 2005_CD )_) on_IN attentional_JJ preferences_NNS when_WRB looking_VVG at_IN visual_JJ stimuli_NNS or_CC reading_VVG about_IN (_( non_JJ )_) threatening_JJ events_NNS ._SENT Findings_NNS from_IN these_DT and_CC previous_JJ eye-tracking_NN studies_NNS suggest_VVP that_IN/that studying_VVG eye_NN movements_NNS may_MD potentially_RB be_VB useful_JJ in_IN faking_VVG research_NN ._SENT 
In_IN the_DT present_JJ study_NN ,_, we_PP conducted_VVD a_DT laboratory_NN experiment_NN in_IN which_WDT participants_NNS were_VBD asked_VVN to_TO complete_VV a_DT Big_JJ Five_CD personality_NN test_NN and_CC an_DT integrity_NN measure_NN under_IN two_CD different_JJ instructional_JJ sets_NNS (_( i.e._FW ,_, answering_VVG honestly_RB vs._IN faking_VVG good_JJ )_) ._SENT Replicating_VVG previous_JJ faking_VVG research_NN ,_, we_PP examined_VVD (_( a_DT )_) whether_IN a_DT faking_VVG good_JJ instruction_NN leads_VVZ to_TO higher_RBR mean_VV scores_NNS than_IN an_DT answer_NN honestly_RB instruction_NN ,_, (_( b_LS )_) whether_IN there_EX are_VBP differences_NNS in_IN the_DT fakability_NN of_IN the_DT Big_JJ Five_CD factors_NNS and_CC integrity_NN ,_, and_CC (_( c_LS )_) whether_IN there_EX are_VBP differences_NNS in_IN response_NN latencies_NNS between_IN a_DT faking_VVG good_JJ and_CC an_DT answer_NN honestly_RB instruction_NN ._SENT Extending_VVG previous_JJ faking_VVG research_NN ,_, we_PP explored_VVD (_( d_LS )_) whether_IN there_EX are_VBP differences_NNS in_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS and_CC eye_NN movements_NNS between_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS ._SENT Based_VVN on_IN the_DT found_VVN differences_NNS between_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS ,_, we_PP explored_VVD whether_IN (_( and_CC how_WRB well_RB )_) measures_NNS based_VVN on_IN these_DT differences_NNS may_MD distinguish_VV between_IN honest_JJ responders_NNS and_CC fakers_NNS ._SENT 
Following_VVG recommendations_NNS in_IN previous_JJ faking_VVG research_NN (_( Viswesvaran_NP &_CC Ones_NP ,_, 1999_CD )_) ,_, a_DT within-participants_NNS design_NN was_VBD used_VVN for_IN the_DT analyses_NNS in_IN the_DT context_NN of_IN our_PP$ first_JJ purpose_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, examining_VVG whether_IN eye-tracking_NN can_MD increase_VV our_PP$ understanding_NN of_IN the_DT response_NN processes_VVZ when_WRB faking_VVG compared_VVN to_TO answering_VVG honestly_RB )_) ._SENT When_WRB studying_VVG the_DT effects_NNS of_IN faking_VVG on_IN score_NN elevations_NNS ,_, Viswesvaran_NP and_CC Ones_NP (_( 1999_CD )_) recommended_VVD using_VVG a_DT within-participant_JJ design_NN because_IN such_PDT a_DT design_NN removes_VVZ possible_JJ effects_NNS of_IN individual_JJ differences_NNS in_IN faking_VVG propensities_NNS ,_, resulting_VVG in_IN more_JJR accurate_JJ estimates_NNS of_IN score_NN elevations_NNS when_WRB faking_VVG ._SENT Similarly_RB ,_, substantial_JJ individual_JJ differences_NNS have_VHP been_VBN reported_VVN in_IN response_NN latencies_NNS (_( Holden_NP ,_, Fekken_NP ,_, &_CC Cotton_NP ,_, 1991_CD ;_: Holden_NP ,_, Kroner_NP ,_, Fekken_NP ,_, &_CC Popham_NP ,_, 1992_CD )_) and_CC eye_NN behavior_NN (_( Rayner_NP ,_, 1998_CD )_) ._SENT By_IN comparing_VVG response_NN latencies_NNS and_CC eye_NN behavior_NN between_IN faking_VVG and_CC honest_JJ responding_VVG within_IN participants_NNS ,_, the_DT effects_NNS of_IN such_JJ between-individual_NN differences_NNS are_VBP removed_VVN ,_, providing_VVG more_RBR fine-grained_JJ information_NN about_IN differences_NNS between_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS in_IN underlying_VVG response_NN processes_NNS ._SENT Regarding_VVG our_PP$ second_JJ purpose_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, exploring_VVG whether_IN eye-tracking_NN technology_NN may_MD yield_VV information_NN that_WDT can_MD be_VB used_VVN for_IN identifying_VVG faking_VVG behavior_NN )_) ,_, a_DT between-participants_NP design_NN was_VBD deemed_VVN preferable_JJ ,_, because_IN such_PDT a_DT design_NN more_RBR accurately_RB represents_VVZ actual_JJ test-taking_NN settings_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, applicants_NNS taking_VVG a_DT personality_NN test_NN during_IN a_DT selection_NN procedure_NN )_) ._SENT 
Faking_VVG and_CC Scores_NNS on_IN Personality_NP Factors_NP and_CC Integrity_NP 
Meta-analyses_NNS have_VHP reported_VVN evidence_NN for_IN faking_VVG on_IN personality_NN and_CC integrity_NN measures_NNS across_IN different_JJ study_NN designs_NNS ._SENT For_IN example_NN ,_, in_IN a_DT meta-analysis_NN of_IN experimental_JJ studies_NNS ,_, Viswesvaran_NP and_CC Ones_NP (_( 1999_CD )_) reported_VVD medium_NN to_TO large_JJ effect_NN sizes_NNS for_IN mean_JJ differences_NNS on_IN the_DT Big_JJ Five_CD factors_NNS between_IN faking_VVG and_CC honest_JJ conditions_NNS ,_, with_IN ds_NNS ranging_VVG from_IN 0.48_CD to_TO 0.65_CD in_IN between-participants_NP designs_NNS ,_, and_CC from_IN 0.47_CD to_TO 0.93_CD in_IN within-participants_NNS designs_NNS ._SENT Alliger_NP and_CC Dwight_NP (_( 2000_CD )_) reported_VVD effect_NN sizes_NNS between_IN 0.59_CD and_CC 1.02_CD in_IN a_DT meta-analysis_NN of_IN studies_NNS on_IN integrity_NN tests_NNS using_VVG between-participants_NP designs_NNS ._SENT In_IN a_DT meta-analysis_NN of_IN studies_NNS comparing_VVG job_NN applicants_NNS '_'' and_CC non-applicants_NP '_POS personality_NN scores_NNS ,_, Birkeland_NP et_CC al_NP ._SENT (_( 2006_CD )_) found_VVD small_JJ to_TO medium_JJ mean_JJ differences_NNS (_( ds_VVN between_IN 0.11_CD and_CC 0.45_CD )_) ._SENT Although_IN response_NN distortion_NN occurs_VVZ on_IN all_DT Big_JJ Five_CD factors_NNS and_CC integrity_NN ,_, these_DT meta-analyses_NNS reported_VVD the_DT largest_JJS effect_NN sizes_NNS for_IN Neuroticism_NP and_CC Conscientiousness_NP ._SENT The_DT finding_NN that_IN/that people_NNS inflate_VV their_PP$ scores_NNS the_DT most_JJS on_IN Neuroticism_NP and_CC Conscientiousness_NP items_NNS corresponds_VVZ with_IN research_NN showing_VVG that_IN/that these_DT are_VBP the_DT two_CD personality_NN factors_NNS with_IN the_DT strongest_JJS relations_NNS to_TO job_NN performance_NN (_( Barrick_NP ,_, Mount_NP ,_, &_CC Judge_NP ,_, 2001_CD )_) and_CC managers_NNS '_POS hirability_NN ratings_NNS (_( Dunn_NP ,_, Mount_NP ,_, Barrick_NP ,_, &_CC Ones_NP ,_, 1995_CD )_) ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, consistent_JJ with_IN research_NN findings_NNS and_CC managers_NNS '_POS ideas_NNS ,_, applicants_NNS want_VVP to_TO come_VV across_RP as_IN conscientious_JJ and_CC emotionally_RB stable_JJ ._SENT Based_VVN on_IN this_DT research_NN ,_, we_PP hypothesized_VVD that_IN/that participants_NNS '_POS mean_JJ scores_NNS on_IN the_DT Big_NP Five_CD personality_NN factors_NNS and_CC integrity_NN will_MD be_VB higher_JJR in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_JJ condition_NN than_IN in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN ,_, especially_RB on_IN the_DT factors_NNS Conscientiousness_NP and_CC Emotional_NP Stability_NP ._SENT 
Faking_VVG and_CC Response_NP Latencies_NNS 
Several_JJ studies_NNS have_VHP examined_VVN whether_IN faking_VVG is_VBZ associated_VVN with_IN response_NN latencies_NNS when_WRB answering_VVG personality_NN items_NNS ._SENT An_DT item_NN 's_POS response_NN latency_NN reflects_VVZ the_DT time_NN that_WDT elapses_VVZ between_IN the_DT presentation_NN of_IN the_DT item_NN and_CC the_DT occurrence_NN of_IN a_DT response_NN to_TO the_DT item_NN (_( cf_NN ._SENT Hsu_NP ,_, Santelli_NP ,_, &_CC Hsu_NP ,_, 1989_CD )_) ._SENT Theory_NN on_IN the_DT effects_NNS of_IN faking_VVG on_IN response_NN latencies_NNS is_VBZ still_RB unclear_JJ (_( e.g._FW ,_, Fluckinger_NP ,_, McDaniel_NP ,_, &_CC Whetzel_NP ,_, 2008_CD )_) ,_, and_CC several_JJ contrasting_VVG theoretical_JJ perspectives_NNS have_VHP been_VBN proposed_VVN (_( Holden_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2001_CD ;_: Holtgraves_NP ,_, 2004_CD ;_: Vasilopoulos_NP ,_, Reilly_NP ,_, &_CC Leaman_NP ,_, 2000_CD )_) ._SENT These_DT theoretical_JJ perspectives_NNS build_VVP upon_IN stage_NN models_NNS of_IN the_DT response_NN process_NN ._SENT That_DT is_VBZ ,_, when_WRB answering_VVG to_TO self-report_NN items_NNS ,_, theory_NN suggests_VVZ that_IN/that respondents_NNS move_VVP through_IN the_DT following_VVG stages_NNS (_( Tourangeau_NP &_CC Rasinski_NP ,_, 1988_CD ;_: see_VVP also_RB Holtgraves_NP ,_, 2004_CD ;_: McDaniel_NP &_CC Timm_NP ,_, 1990_CD )_) :_: (_( a_DT )_) interpretation_NN of_IN the_DT item_NN ,_, (_( b_LS )_) retrieval_NN of_IN relevant_JJ information_NN ,_, (_( c_LS )_) rendering_VVG a_DT judgment_NN based_VVN on_IN the_DT retrieved_VVN information_NN ,_, and_CC (_( d_LS )_) mapping_VVG the_DT judgment_NN onto_IN the_DT format_NN of_IN the_DT answer_NN scale_NN and_CC executing_VVG the_DT response_NN ._SENT 
A_DT first_JJ theoretical_JJ perspective_NN suggests_VVZ that_DT faking_VVG takes_VVZ time_NN ,_, leading_VVG to_TO longer_JJR response_NN latencies_NNS ._SENT Previous_JJ research_NN on_IN lying_VVG and_CC deceiving_VVG ,_, for_IN example_NN ,_, has_VHZ conceptualized_VVN lying_VVG as_IN a_DT cognitively_RB more_RBR complex_JJ task_NN than_IN telling_VVG the_DT truth_NN (_( e.g._FW ,_, Zuckerman_NP ,_, DePaulo_NP ,_, &_CC Rosenthal_NP ,_, 1981_CD )_) ,_, resulting_VVG in_IN a_DT higher_JJR cognitive_JJ load_NN (_( Vrij_NP ,_, Edward_NP ,_, &_CC Bull_NP ,_, 2001_CD )_) ._SENT In_IN their_PP$ comprehensive_JJ meta-analysis_NN ,_, DePaulo_NP et_CC al_NP ._SENT (_( 2003_CD )_) reported_VVD that_IN/that lying_VVG is_VBZ generally_RB associated_VVN with_IN increased_VVN response_NN latencies_NNS when_WRB people_NNS cannot_MD prepare_VV their_PP$ answers_NNS ._SENT Tourangeau_NP and_CC Rasinski_NP (_( 1988_CD )_) offered_VVD a_DT rationale_NN for_IN longer_JJR response_NN times_NNS when_WRB faking_VVG by_IN theorizing_VVG that_IN/that answers_NNS may_MD undergo_VV an_DT editing_VVG process_NN in_IN which_WDT the_DT answer_NN is_VBZ checked_VVN for_IN social_JJ desirability_NN ._SENT Similarly_RB ,_, McDaniel_NP and_CC Timm_NP (_( 1990_CD )_) suggested_VVD that_IN/that compared_VVN to_TO telling_VVG the_DT truth_NN ,_, lying_VVG on_IN an_DT item_NN or_CC faking_VVG should_MD take_VV time_NN because_IN it_PP involves_VVZ an_DT additional_JJ stage_NN in_IN the_DT response_NN process_NN ,_, that_WDT is_VBZ ,_, formulating_VVG the_DT decision_NN to_TO lie_VV ._SENT Consistent_JJ with_IN these_DT ideas_NNS ,_, McDaniel_NP and_CC Timm_NP found_VVD that_IN/that dishonest_JJ responses_NNS on_IN a_DT biodata_NN instrument_NN took_VVD on_IN average_JJ 0.60_CD s_NNS longer_RBR than_IN honest_JJ responses_NNS ._SENT Similarly_RB ,_, in_IN three_CD experimental_JJ studies_NNS ,_, Holtgraves_NP (_( 2004_CD )_) found_VVD that_IN/that heightened_JJ concerns_NNS with_IN social_JJ desirability_NN resulted_VVN in_IN longer_JJR response_NN times_NNS ._SENT 
A_DT second_JJ ,_, opposing_JJ ,_, theoretical_JJ perspective_NN is_VBZ that_IN/that faking_VVG causes_NNS shorter_JJR response_NN latencies_NNS ._SENT Hsu_NP et_FW al_NP ._SENT (_( 1989_CD )_) and_CC Holtgraves_NP (_( 2004_CD )_) noted_VVD that_IN/that the_DT process_NN of_IN faking_VVG may_MD involve_VV more_RBR primitive_JJ cognitive_JJ processing_NN than_IN honest_JJ responding_VVG ,_, suggesting_VVG that_IN/that respondents_NNS do_VVP not_RB move_VV through_IN all_DT stages_NNS of_IN the_DT response_NN process_NN ._SENT More_RBR specifically_RB ,_, Hsu_NP et_CC al_NP ._SENT stated_VVD that_IN/that whereas_IN honest_JJ responding_VVG leads_NNS to_TO a_DT self-referenced_JJ interpretation_NN of_IN the_DT item_NN content_NN ,_, faking_VVG leads_NNS to_TO a_DT purely_RB semantic_JJ item_NN interpretation_NN ,_, which_WDT takes_VVZ less_JJR processing_NN time_NN ._SENT Holtgraves_NP noted_VVD that_IN/that social_JJ desirability_NN responding_VVG may_MD be_VB characterized_VVN by_IN the_DT less_RBR complex_JJ response_NN process_NN of_IN direct_JJ retrieval_NN ,_, meaning_VVG that_IN/that when_WRB faking_VVG ,_, respondents_NNS do_VVP not_RB try_VV to_TO retrieve_VV accurate_JJ information_NN but_CC produce_VV a_DT response_NN based_VVN solely_RB on_IN the_DT fake_JJ instruction_NN and_CC the_DT social_JJ desirability_NN of_IN the_DT item_NN ._SENT Consistent_JJ with_IN this_DT perspective_NN ,_, Hsu_NP et_CC al_NP ._SENT reported_VVD faster_JJR response_NN times_NNS when_WRB faking_VVG than_IN when_WRB responding_VVG honestly_RB ._SENT Furthermore_RB ,_, Holden_NP ,_, Fekken_NP ,_, and_CC Jackson_NP (_( 1985_CD )_) found_VVD a_DT negative_JJ correlation_NN between_IN response_NN latency_NN and_CC social_JJ desirability_NN of_IN personality_NN items_NNS ,_, indicating_VVG that_IN/that socially_RB desirable_JJ items_NNS take_VVP less_JJR time_NN to_TO respond_VV to_TO ._SENT Also_RB in_IN support_NN of_IN the_DT notion_NN that_IN/that faking_VVG is_VBZ faster_JJR ,_, Holden_NP et_CC al_NP ._SENT (_( 2001_CD )_) showed_VVD that_IN/that limiting_VVG respondents_NNS '_POS answering_NN time_NN did_VVD not_RB prevent_VV people_NNS from_IN faking_VVG ._SENT 
A_DT third_JJ perspective_NN ,_, described_VVN by_IN Holden_NP et_CC al_NP ._SENT (_( 1992_CD )_) ,_, states_VVZ that_IN/that the_DT effects_NNS of_IN faking_VVG on_IN response_NN latencies_NNS depend_VVP on_IN the_DT faking_VVG schema_NN and_CC the_DT social_JJ (_( un_NN )_) desirability_NN of_IN the_DT test_NN item_NN ._SENT Specifically_RB ,_, when_WRB respondents_NNS adopt_VVP a_DT faking_VVG good_JJ strategy_NN ,_, socially_RB desirable_JJ items_NNS align_VVP with_IN the_DT adopted_VVN schema_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, creating_VVG a_DT favorable_JJ impression_NN )_) and_CC are_VBP therefore_RB easy_JJ to_TO respond_VV to_TO ._SENT Socially_RB undesirable_JJ items_NNS ,_, however_RB ,_, are_VBP inconsistent_JJ with_IN a_DT faking_VVG good_JJ schema_NN ,_, as_IN they_PP are_VBP indicative_JJ of_IN creating_VVG a_DT non-favorable_JJ impression_NN ,_, and_CC therefore_RB more_RBR difficult_JJ to_TO respond_VV to_TO ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, compared_VVN to_TO honest_JJ responding_VVG ,_, faking_VVG good_JJ leads_NNS to_TO faster_JJR responses_NNS on_IN socially_RB desirable_JJ items_NNS and_CC slower_JJR responses_NNS on_IN socially_RB undesirable_JJ items_NNS (_( Holden_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2001_CD )_) ._SENT Several_JJ studies_NNS have_VHP found_VVN support_NN for_IN this_DT interactive_JJ model_NN of_IN faking_VVG (_( e.g._FW ,_, Brunetti_NP ,_, Schlottmann_NP ,_, Scott_NP ,_, &_CC Hollrah_NP ,_, 1998_CD ;_: Holden_NP &_CC Kroner_NP ,_, 1992_CD ;_: Holden_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 1992_CD )_) ._SENT 
In_IN the_DT present_JJ study_NN ,_, we_PP examined_VVD which_WDT theoretical_JJ perspective_NN is_VBZ supported_VVN by_IN our_PP$ data_NNS ._SENT If_IN faking_VVG is_VBZ more_RBR cognitive_JJ complex_NN and_CC adds_VVZ an_DT extra_JJ stage_NN to_TO the_DT response_NN process_NN (_( e.g._FW ,_, deciding_VVG to_TO fake_NN ,_, response_NN editing_VVG )_) ,_, response_NN latencies_NNS should_MD be_VB larger_JJR in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_NN than_IN in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN ._SENT If_IN faking_VVG involves_VVZ a_DT more_RBR primitive_JJ response_NN process_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, semantic_JJ rather_RB than_IN self-referenced_JJ item_NN interpretation_NN ,_, direct_JJ retrieval_NN )_) ,_, response_NN latencies_NNS should_MD be_VB larger_JJR in_IN the_DT honest_JJ than_IN in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_JJ condition_NN ._SENT If_IN Holden_NP et_FW al._FW 's_POS (_( 1992_LS )_) interactive_JJ model_NN is_VBZ valid_JJ ,_, participants_NNS '_POS response_NN latencies_NNS should_MD be_VB lower_JJR in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_NN than_IN in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN for_IN positively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ,_, and_CC higher_JJR in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_NN than_IN in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN for_IN negatively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ._SENT 
Faking_VVG and_CC Eye_NP Behavior_NP 
An_DT important_JJ contribution_NN of_IN the_DT present_JJ study_NN is_VBZ the_DT investigation_NN of_IN the_DT effects_NNS of_IN faking_VVG on_IN eye_NN behavior_NN when_WRB responding_VVG to_TO test_VV items_NNS ._SENT When_WRB reading_VVG or_CC looking_VVG at_IN a_DT picture_NN ,_, our_PP$ eyes_NNS alternately_RB make_VVP rapid_JJ movements_NNS ,_, called_VVN saccades_NNS ,_, or_CC remain_VVP relatively_RB still_RB during_IN fixations_NNS on_IN specific_JJ regions_NNS of_IN interest_NN (_( Rayner_NP ,_, 1998_CD )_) ._SENT Saccades_NNS last_JJ about_IN 15�40_JJ ms_NNS and_CC mainly_RB serve_VV to_TO move_VV the_DT eye_NN from_IN one_CD fixation_NN point_NN to_TO the_DT next_JJ (_( Reichle_NP ,_, Pollatsek_NP ,_, Fisher_NP ,_, &_CC Rayner_NP ,_, 1998_CD )_) ._SENT Information_NN is_VBZ largely_RB obtained_VVN during_IN fixations_NNS ,_, because_IN the_DT eyes_NNS are_VBP moving_VVG too_RB quickly_RB during_IN saccades_NNS (_( Rayner_NP ,_, 1998_CD )_) ._SENT Therefore_RB ,_, analyses_NNS of_IN eye_NN behavior_NN are_VBP usually_RB based_VVN on_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS (_( Reichle_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 1998_CD )_) ._SENT In_IN the_DT present_JJ study_NN ,_, we_PP focus_VVP on_IN the_DT number_NN and_CC the_DT location_NN of_IN the_DT eye_NN fixations_NNS ,_, proposing_VVG that_IN/that such_JJ data_NNS may_MD provide_VV valuable_JJ information_NN about_IN the_DT response_NN process_NN when_WRB faking_VVG ,_, beyond_IN response_NN latency_NN data_NNS ._SENT That_DT is_VBZ ,_, fixation_NN data_NNS allow_VVP for_IN examining_VVG what_WP areas_NNS of_IN the_DT test_NN item_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, the_DT question_NN ,_, neutral_JJ or_CC extreme_JJ response_NN options_NNS )_) draw_VVP the_DT attention_NN of_IN the_DT test-taker_NN ,_, providing_VVG information_NN about_IN the_DT underlying_VVG cognitive_JJ processes_NNS ._SENT 
Because_RB ,_, to_TO our_PP$ knowledge_NN ,_, no_DT research_NN or_CC theory_NN has_VHZ addressed_VVN eye_NN behavior_NN in_IN the_DT context_NN of_IN faking_VVG on_IN personality_NN tests_NNS ,_, we_PP resorted_VVD to_TO general_JJ research_NN on_IN lying_VVG and_CC deceiving_VVG (_( see_VV DePaulo_NP et_CC al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2003_CD )_) ,_, work_NN on_IN eye_NN behavior_NN in_IN reading_NN and_CC information_NN processing_NN (_( see_VV Rayner_NP ,_, 1998_CD )_) ,_, and_CC theory_NN and_CC research_NN on_IN faking_VVG and_CC response_NN latencies_NNS to_TO formulate_VV tentative_JJ hypotheses_NNS regarding_VVG the_DT effects_NNS of_IN faking_VVG on_IN eye_NN behavior_NN ._SENT First_RB ,_, based_VVN on_IN the_DT same_JJ rationales_NNS as_IN for_IN response_NN latencies_NNS ,_, if_IN lying_VVG or_CC faking_VVG is_VBZ cognitively_RB more_RBR complex_JJ than_IN answering_NN honestly_RB (_( i.e._FW ,_, containing_VVG an_DT extra_JJ stage_NN in_IN the_DT response_NN process_NN )_) ,_, the_DT number_NN of_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS is_VBZ expected_VVN to_TO be_VB larger_JJR in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_NN than_IN in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN ._SENT That_DT is_VBZ ,_, previous_JJ research_NN on_IN eye_NN behavior_NN when_WRB reading_NN demonstrated_VVD that_IN/that cognitive_JJ load_NN relates_VVZ to_TO an_DT increase_NN in_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS (_( Rayner_NP ,_, 1998_CD )_) ._SENT Second_RB ,_, if_IN lying_VVG or_CC faking_VVG is_VBZ associated_VVN with_IN a_DT more_RBR primitive_JJ response_NN process_NN than_IN telling_VVG the_DT truth_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, direct_JJ retrieval_NN ,_, semantic_JJ item_NN interpretations_NNS )_) ,_, cognitive_JJ load_NN is_VBZ lower_JJR ,_, which_WDT should_MD result_VV in_IN less_JJR fixations_NNS in_IN the_DT faking_VVG good_JJ than_IN in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN ._SENT Third_JJ ,_, extending_VVG Holden_NP et_FW al._FW 's_POS (_( 1992_LS )_) interactive_JJ model_NN to_TO eye_NN fixations_NNS ,_, the_DT number_NN of_IN fixations_NNS should_MD be_VB lower_JJR in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_NN than_IN in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN for_IN positively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ,_, and_CC higher_JJR in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_NN than_IN in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN for_IN negatively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ._SENT 
In_IN addition_NN to_TO the_DT number_NN of_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS during_IN item_NN responding_VVG ,_, we_PP examined_VVD (_( a_DT )_) the_DT location_NN of_IN the_DT fixations_NNS and_CC (_( b_LS )_) the_DT order_NN of_IN fixation_NN locations_NNS (_( i.e._FW ,_, eye_NN paths_NNS )_) ._SENT When_WRB faking_VVG good_JJ ,_, participants_NNS aim_VVP at_IN getting_VVG higher_JJR total_JJ scores_NNS on_IN the_DT personality_NN factors_NNS and_CC integrity_NN (_( see_VV Alliger_NP &_CC Dwight_NP ,_, 2000_CD ;_: Birkeland_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2006_CD ;_: Viswesvaran_NP &_CC Ones_NP ,_, 1999_CD )_) ._SENT Because_IN higher_JJR scores_NNS result_NN from_IN giving_VVG more_JJR extreme_JJ responses_NNS ,_, in_IN the_DT faking_VVG good_JJ condition_NN ,_, supposedly_RB more_JJR attention_NN is_VBZ paid_VVN to_TO the_DT extreme_JJ response_NN categories_NNS than_IN to_TO the_DT middle_JJ response_NN categories_NNS ._SENT Consequently_RB ,_, in_IN the_DT faking_VVG good_JJ condition_NN ,_, more_JJR fixations_NNS are_VBP expected_VVN on_IN the_DT extreme_JJ response_NN categories_NNS that_WDT reflect_VVP a_DT high_JJ score_NN (_( which_WDT differs_VVZ for_IN positively_RB and_CC negatively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS )_) ._SENT In_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN ,_, in_IN contrast_NN ,_, more_JJR eye_NN fixations_NNS are_VBP expected_VVN on_IN the_DT middle_JJ response_NN categories_NNS ._SENT We_PP also_RB explored_VVD the_DT eye_NN paths_NNS when_WRB reading_VVG and_CC responding_VVG to_TO test_VV items_NNS ._SENT As_IN mentioned_VVN ,_, when_WRB reading_NN ,_, the_DT eyes_NNS alternately_RB focus_VVP on_IN points_NNS of_IN interest_NN during_IN fixations_NNS and_CC move_NN between_IN these_DT points_NNS during_IN saccades_NNS ._SENT Eye_NN paths_NNS can_MD be_VB construed_VVN based_VVN on_IN the_DT sequence_NN of_IN fixation_NN locations_NNS ._SENT Such_JJ eye_NN paths_NNS may_MD be_VB reflective_JJ of_IN the_DT underlying_VVG response_NN process_NN when_WRB faking_VVG or_CC answering_VVG honestly_RB ._SENT For_IN example_NN ,_, a_DT purely_RB semantic_JJ item_NN interpretation_NN and_CC corresponding_JJ socially_RB desirable_JJ response_NN may_MD result_VV in_IN a_DT more_RBR direct_JJ eye_NN path_NN such_JJ that_IN/that after_IN fixating_VVG on_IN the_DT question_NN ,_, the_DT eyes_NNS directly_RB move_VVP to_TO the_DT socially_RB desirable_JJ response_NN option_NN ._SENT Based_VVN on_IN this_DT reasoning_NN ,_, we_PP explored_VVD whether_IN the_DT eye_NN paths_NNS differed_VVD between_IN the_DT faking_VVG good_JJ and_CC honest_JJ condition_NN ._SENT If_IN faking_VVG good_JJ leads_NNS to_TO a_DT more_RBR primitive_JJ response_NN process_NN indicated_VVN by_IN a_DT semantic_JJ rather_RB than_IN self-referenced_JJ item_NN interpretation_NN ,_, more_JJR eye_NN paths_NNS in_IN the_DT form_NN of_IN question_NN ?_SENT extreme_JJ response_NN option_NN are_VBP to_TO be_VB expected_VVN ._SENT 
Differentiating_VVG Between_IN Honest_NP Responding_VVG and_CC Faking_NP 
If_IN faking_VVG leads_NNS to_TO different_JJ eye_NN behavior_NN compared_VVN to_TO responding_VVG honestly_RB ,_, then_RB an_DT interesting_JJ question_NN is_VBZ whether_IN such_JJ differences_NNS may_MD yield_VV information_NN that_WDT is_VBZ useful_JJ to_TO detect_VV faking_VVG behavior_NN ._SENT To_TO explore_VV this_DT issue_NN ,_, we_PP construed_VVD metrics_NNS that_IN/that differentiated_VVN between_IN faking_VVG and_CC responding_VVG honestly_RB ,_, and_CC we_PP used_VVD these_DT to_TO examine_VV how_WRB well_RB faking_VVG can_MD be_VB identified_VVN ._SENT Because_IN previous_JJ research_NN on_IN mean_JJ differences_NNS (_( i.e._FW ,_, Alliger_NP &_CC Dwight_NP ,_, 2000_CD ;_: Birkeland_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2006_CD ;_: Viswesvaran_NP &_CC Ones_NP ,_, 1999_CD )_) suggests_VVZ that_IN/that when_WRB faking_VVG good_JJ participants_NNS give_VVP more_JJR extreme_JJ responses_NNS ,_, a_DT first_JJ metric_NN reflected_VVD the_DT proportion_NN of_IN extreme_JJ responses_NNS ._SENT Further_RBR ,_, previous_JJ research_NN has_VHZ demonstrated_VVN that_IN/that response_NN latencies_NNS can_MD be_VB used_VVN to_TO differentiate_VV between_IN honest_JJ and_CC faking_VVG responses_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, Holden_NP ,_, 1998_CD ;_: Holden_NP &_CC Hibbs_NP ,_, 1995_CD ;_: Holden_NP &_CC Kroner_NP ,_, 1992_CD )_) ._SENT For_IN example_NN ,_, in_IN his_PP$ experimental_JJ study_NN ,_, Holden_NP (_( 1998_CD )_) found_VVD that_IN/that response_NN latency_NN measures_NNS were_VBD useful_JJ to_TO distinguish_VV fakers_NNS from_IN non-fakers_NNS with_IN a_DT hit_VVN rate_NN of_IN 64.5_CD %_NN ._SENT Other_JJ studies_NNS using_VVG response_NN latency_NN measures_VVZ to_TO differentiate_VV between_IN a_DT fake_JJ and_CC honest_JJ condition_NN found_VVD classification_NN hit_VVD rates_NNS varying_VVG between_IN 62_CD %_NN and_CC 82_CD %_NN (_( see_VV Holden_NP &_CC Hibbs_NP ,_, 1995_CD )_) ._SENT Therefore_RB ,_, a_DT second_JJ cluster_NN of_IN metrics_NNS was_VBD based_VVN on_IN response_NN latencies_NNS ._SENT In_IN the_DT present_JJ study_NN ,_, we_PP sought_VVD to_TO extend_VV this_DT research_NN by_IN exploring_VVG whether_IN a_DT third_JJ cluster_NN of_IN metrics_NNS based_VVN on_IN eye-tracking_NN data_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, number_NN ,_, location_NN ,_, and_CC order_NN of_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS )_) can_MD improve_VV the_DT identification_NN of_IN faking_VVG beyond_IN the_DT use_NN of_IN extreme_JJ response_NN and_CC latency_NN data_NNS ._SENT 
Method_NN 
Participants_NNS and_CC Design_NN 
Participants_NNS were_VBD 129_CD university_NN students_NNS (_( 81_CD women_NNS and_CC 48_CD men_NNS ;_: mean_JJ age_NN =_SYM 21.91_CD years_NNS ,_, SD_NP =_SYM 3.52_CD )_) ._SENT Students_NNS participated_VVD for_IN either_DT course_NN credit_NN or_CC �15_NN ._SENT A_DT 2_CD �_NN 2_CD mixed_JJ design_NN was_VBD used_VVN with_IN response_NN instruction_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, answer_VV honestly_RB vs._IN fake_JJ good_NN )_) as_IN the_DT within-participants_NNS factor_NN and_CC order_NN of_IN instruction_NN as_IN the_DT between-participants_NP factor_NN ._SENT For_IN the_DT within-participants_NNS factor_NN ,_, respondents_NNS were_VBD asked_VVN to_TO respond_VV to_TO 105_CD items_NNS on_IN personality_NN and_CC integrity_NN ,_, once_RB honestly_RB and_CC once_RB faking_VVG good_JJ ._SENT Order_NN of_IN instruction_NN was_VBD randomized_VVN ._SENT 
Procedure_NN ,_, Materials_NPS ,_, and_CC Manipulations_NNS 
Data_NNS were_VBD collected_VVN in_IN the_DT eye-tracker_NN laboratory_NN of_IN a_DT market_NN research_NN company_NN ._SENT This_DT company_NN specialized_VVN in_IN eye-tracking_NN research_NN for_IN commercial_JJ and_CC scientific_JJ purposes_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, Pieters_NP &_CC Wedel_NP ,_, 2004_CD )_) ._SENT Upon_IN entering_VVG the_DT laboratory_NN ,_, participants_NNS were_VBD registered_VVN and_CC given_VVN an_DT identification_NN card_NN with_IN a_DT unique_JJ participant_NN number_NN ._SENT Participants_NNS were_VBD told_VVN that_IN/that the_DT total_JJ test_NN session_NN would_MD take_VV about_RB 75_CD min_NN and_CC consisted_VVD of_IN three_CD parts_NNS :_: a_DT first_JJ personality_NN test_NN ,_, a_DT cognitive_JJ ability_NN test_NN ,_, and_CC a_DT second_JJ personality_NN test_NN ._SENT Participants_NNS were_VBD further_JJR explained_VVD that_IN/that both_DT personality_NN tests_NNS would_MD be_VB administered_VVN at_IN an_DT eye-tracker_NN ._SENT Although_IN participants_NNS thus_RB were_VBD aware_JJ that_IN/that their_PP$ eye_NN movements_NNS were_VBD recorded_VVN ,_, they_PP were_VBD not_RB aware_JJ of_IN the_DT purpose_NN of_IN the_DT study_NN and_CC the_DT eye-tracking_NN ._SENT If_IN applicable_JJ ,_, participants_NNS were_VBD asked_VVN to_TO remove_VV eye_NN mascara_NN ,_, hard_JJ contact_NN lenses_NNS ,_, and_CC glasses_NNS to_TO ensure_VV the_DT reliability_NN of_IN the_DT eye-tracking_NN ._SENT If_IN needed_VVN ,_, special_JJ lightweight_JJ replacement_NN glasses_NNS were_VBD available_JJ ._SENT 
After_IN registration_NN ,_, the_DT participants_NNS were_VBD seated_VVN behind_IN one_CD of_IN the_DT eye-trackers_NNS (_( see_VV Figure_NP 1_CD )_) ._SENT Instructions_NNS and_CC test_NN items_NNS were_VBD presented_VVN on_IN a_DT 21-in_JJ ._SENT (_( 53.34-cm_NP )_) liquid_JJ crystal_NN display_NN (_( LCD_NP )_) touch_NN screen_NN monitor_NN with_IN a_DT 1_CD ,_, 280_CD �_NN 1_CD ,_, 024_CD pixel_NN resolution_NN ,_, which_WDT was_VBD built_VVN into_IN a_DT table_NN ._SENT Participants_NNS looked_VVD through_IN a_DT glass_NN sheet_NN to_TO the_DT monitor_NN ._SENT Participants_NNS were_VBD free_JJ to_TO move_VV their_PP$ heads_NNS within_IN a_DT space_NN of_IN about_RB 30_CD cm_NN ._SENT Cameras_NNS (_( situated_VVN at_IN the_DT top_NN of_IN the_DT eye-tracker_NN )_) tracked_VVD the_DT specific_JJ position_NN at_IN which_WDT the_DT fovea_NN was_VBD directed_VVN every_DT 20_CD ms_NNS ,_, using_VVG infrared_JJ corneal_JJ reflection_NN (_( Duchovski_NP ,_, 2003_CD )_) ._SENT That_DT is_VBZ ,_, the_DT glass_NN sheet_NN between_IN the_DT participant_NN and_CC the_DT LCD_NP monitor_NN reflected_VVD the_DT infrared_JJ beam_NN from_IN the_DT camera_NN to_TO the_DT eye_NN and_CC back_RB ._SENT Because_IN infrared_JJ light_NN is_VBZ invisible_JJ to_TO the_DT eye_NN ,_, it_PP does_VVZ not_RB distract_VV participants_NNS ._SENT After_IN calibration_NN ,_, this_DT technology_NN assesses_VVZ the_DT eye_NN gaze_NN position_NN on_IN the_DT LCD_NP screen_NN with_IN a_DT measurement_NN precision_NN better_JJR than_IN 0.5_CD degrees_NNS of_IN visual_JJ angle_NN (_( Pieters_NP &_CC Wedel_NP ,_, 2004_CD )_) ._SENT 
For_IN each_DT participant_NN ,_, the_DT session_NN started_VVD with_IN a_DT calibration_NN procedure_NN to_TO ensure_VV measurement_NN precision_NN ._SENT Participants_NNS had_VHD to_TO look_VV at_IN several_JJ dots_NNS spread_VVN on_IN the_DT screen_NN ,_, based_VVN on_IN which_WDT the_DT eye_NN tracker_NN was_VBD calibrated_VVN ._SENT After_IN calibration_NN ,_, participants_NNS were_VBD presented_VVN with_IN either_CC the_DT respond_NN honestly_RB or_CC the_DT fake_JJ good_JJ instruction_NN ._SENT The_DT instructions_NNS were_VBD adapted_VVN from_IN McFarland_NP and_CC Ryan_NP (_( 2000_CD )_) ._SENT The_DT respond_NN honestly_RB instruction_NN read_NN as_RB follows_VVZ :_: 
In_IN the_DT next_JJ screens_NNS you_PP will_MD be_VB presented_VVN with_IN 105_CD questions_NNS with_IN five_CD response_NN options_NNS ._SENT Please_UH answer_VV the_DT questions_NNS as_IN honestly_RB as_RB possible_JJ ._SENT Your_PP$ answers_NNS will_MD remain_VV completely_RB confidential_JJ and_CC anonymous_JJ ,_, and_CC will_MD be_VB used_VVN for_IN research_NN purposes_NNS only_RB ._SENT For_IN this_DT study_NN we_PP are_VBP interested_JJ in_IN how_WRB you_PP really_RB are_VBP ._SENT Therefore_RB it_PP is_VBZ very_RB important_JJ that_IN/that you_PP answer_VV the_DT following_VVG questions_NNS as_IN accurately_RB and_CC honestly_RB as_IN you_PP can_MD ._SENT 
The_DT fake_JJ good_JJ instruction_NN read_NN as_RB follows_VVZ :_: 
Please_UH imagine_VV that_IN/that you_PP are_VBP graduated_VVN and_CC are_VBP applying_VVG for_IN a_DT job_NN ._SENT As_IN part_NN of_IN the_DT selection_NN procedure_NN you_PP are_VBP presented_VVN with_IN the_DT following_VVG 105_CD questions_NNS with_IN five_CD response_NN options_NNS ._SENT Please_UH answer_VV the_DT questions_NNS such_JJ that_IN/that you_PP will_MD come_VV across_RP as_IN the_DT ideal_JJ employee_NN ._SENT For_IN this_DT study_NN we_PP are_VBP not_RB interested_JJ in_IN what_WP your_PP$ real_JJ answers_NNS for_IN each_DT question_NN would_MD be_VB ._SENT Instead_RB ,_, for_IN each_DT question_NN please_VVP select_VV the_DT answer_NN that_IN/that you_PP feel_VVP will_MD give_VV you_PP the_DT best_JJS rank_NN and_CC make_VV you_PP look_VV like_IN the_DT most_RBS suitable_JJ job_NN applicant_NN ._SENT 
Following_VVG the_DT instruction_NN screen_NN ,_, each_DT of_IN the_DT 105_CD items_NNS of_IN the_DT personality_NN and_CC integrity_NN test_NN was_VBD presented_VVN on_IN a_DT separate_JJ screen_NN ._SENT The_DT question_NN was_VBD presented_VVN at_IN the_DT top_NN ,_, followed_VVN by_IN the_DT five_CD response_NN options_NNS in_IN boxes_NNS ._SENT After_IN having_VHG touched_VVN one_CD of_IN the_DT boxes_NNS on_IN the_DT screen_NN ,_, the_DT next_JJ item_NN was_VBD presented_VVN ._SENT Answering_VVG all_DT 105_CD items_NNS took_VVD about_RB 10_CD min_NN ._SENT 
After_IN having_VHG finished_VVN the_DT first_JJ test_NN on_IN the_DT eye-tracker_NN ,_, participants_NNS were_VBD brought_VVN to_TO a_DT different_JJ room_NN and_CC were_VBD seated_VVN behind_IN a_DT laptop_JJ computer_NN to_TO complete_VV a_DT cognitive_JJ ability_NN test_NN as_IN a_DT filler_NN task_NN ._SENT This_DT test_NN consisted_VVN of_IN a_DT short_JJ instruction_NN ,_, practice_NN items_NNS ,_, and_CC four_CD subtests_NNS ,_, and_CC it_PP took_VVD about_RB 45_CD min_NN ._SENT Then_RB participants_NNS were_VBD brought_VVN back_RB to_TO the_DT eye-tracker_NN room_NN to_TO complete_VV the_DT second_JJ administration_NN of_IN the_DT 105_CD items_NNS with_IN either_CC the_DT honest_JJ or_CC the_DT fake_JJ good_JJ instruction_NN ,_, depending_VVG on_IN the_DT instruction_NN they_PP had_VHD at_IN the_DT first_JJ administration_NN ._SENT The_DT second_JJ session_NN was_VBD followed_VVN by_IN a_DT manipulation_NN check_NN item_NN and_CC two_CD items_NNS on_IN perceived_VVN task_NN difficulty_NN ._SENT Lastly_RB ,_, participants_NNS were_VBD debriefed_VVN ,_, given_VVN their_PP$ course_NN credit_NN or_CC �15_NN ,_, and_CC presented_VVD with_IN a_DT short_JJ report_NN of_IN their_PP$ performance_NN on_IN the_DT cognitive_JJ ability_NN test_NN ._SENT 
Measures_NNS 
Personality_NN 
The_DT Five_CD Factor_NP Personality_NP Inventory_NP (_( FFPI_NP ;_: Hendriks_NP ,_, Hofstee_NP ,_, &_CC De_NP Raad_NP ,_, 1999_CD )_) �consisting_NN of_IN 100_CD brief_JJ statements_NNS with_IN a_DT Likert_NP response_NN format_NN ranging_VVG from_IN 0_CD (_( much_RB less_RBR [_SYM often_RB ]_SYM than_IN others_NNS )_) to_TO 4_CD (_( much_RB more_RBR [_SYM often_RB ]_SYM than_IN others_NNS )_) �was_NNS used_VVN to_TO assess_VV personality_NN ._SENT Each_DT of_IN the_DT five_CD personality_NN factors_NNS (_( i.e._FW ,_, Extraversion_NP ,_, Agreeableness_NP ,_, Conscientiousness_NP ,_, Emotional_NP Stability_NP ,_, and_CC Autonomy_NP )_) were_VBD measured_VVN with_IN 10_CD positively_RB keyed_VVN items_NNS and_CC 10_CD negatively_RB keyed_VVN items_NNS ._SENT Items_NNS were_VBD recoded_VVN such_JJ that_IN/that high_JJ scores_NNS reflect_VVP high_JJ levels_NNS on_IN the_DT factor_NN ._SENT Positively_RB and_CC negatively_RB keyed_VVN sample_NN items_NNS are_VBP �I_NNS love_VVP to_TO chat�_NN and_CC �I_NNS keep_VVP apart_RB from_IN others�_NN for_IN Extraversion_NP ,_, �I_NN respect_NN others_NNS '_POS feelings�_NN and_CC �I_NN order_NN people_NNS around�_NN for_IN Agreeableness_NN ,_, �I_NNS do_VVP things_NNS according_VVG to_TO a_DT plan�_NN and_CC �I_NNS make_VVP a_DT mess_NN of_IN things�_NN for_IN Conscientiousness_NN ,_, �I_NNS readily_RB overcome_VVP setbacks�_NN and_CC �I_NNS get_VVP overwhelmed_VVN by_IN emotions�_NN for_IN Emotional_NP Stability_NP ,_, and_CC �I_NNS can_MD easily_RB link_VV facts_NNS together�_NN and_CC �I_NNS follow_VVP the_DT crowd�_NN for_IN Autonomy_NP ._SENT The_DT FFPI_NP factors_NNS have_VHP been_VBN found_VVN to_TO be_VB reliable_JJ ,_, stable_JJ ,_, and_CC of_IN good_JJ construct_NN validity_NN ,_, as_RB demonstrated_VVN by_IN high_JJ test�retest_JJ correlations_NNS (_( .74�.83_NN )_) and_CC self�other_JJ correlations_NNS (_( .54�.73_NP ;_: Hendriks_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 1999_CD )_) ._SENT In_IN further_JJR support_NN of_IN the_DT construct_NN validity_NN ,_, De_NP Fruyt_NP ,_, McCrae_NP ,_, Szirmak_NP ,_, and_CC Nagy_NP (_( 2004_CD )_) and_CC Hendriks_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT (_( 1999_CD )_) found_VVD strong_JJ convergence_NN with_IN the_DT NEO_NP Personality_NP Inventory�Revised_NP (_( Costa_NP &_CC McCrae_NP ,_, 1992_CD )_) across_IN different_JJ countries_NNS for_IN four_CD of_IN the_DT FFPI_NP factors_NNS (_( i.e._FW ,_, for_IN Extraversion_NN ,_, rs_NNS ranged_VVD from_IN .63_CD to_TO .80_CD ;_: for_IN Agreeableness_NN ,_, rs_NNS ranged_VVD from_IN .53_CD to_TO .81_CD ;_: for_IN Conscientiousness_NN ,_, rs_NNS ranged_VVD from_IN .49_CD to_TO .81_CD ;_: and_CC for_IN Emotional_NP Stability_NP /_SYM Neuroticism_NN ,_, rs_NNS ranged_VVD from_IN �.48_NN to_TO �.83_NN )_) ._SENT Only_RB for_IN Autonomy_NN the_DT convergent_JJ correlations_NNS were_VBD somewhat_RB lower_JJR (_( .20�.60_NN )_) ._SENT Table_NN 1_CD displays_NNS the_DT alpha_NN coefficients_NNS ._SENT 
Integrity_NN was_VBD measured_VVN with_IN five_CD items_NNS based_VVN on_IN Wanek_NP ,_, Sackett_NP ,_, and_CC Ones_NP 's_POS (_( 2003_CD )_) item-level_NN review_NN of_IN integrity_NN tests_NNS and_CC Van_NP Iddekinge_NP ,_, Taylor_NP ,_, and_CC Eidson_NP 's_POS (_( 2005_LS )_) study_VV on_IN integrity_NN facets_NNS ._SENT The_DT items_NNS read_VVP as_RB follows_VVZ :_: �I_NNS am_VBP an_DT honest_JJ person_NN ,_, �_NN �I_NNS have_VHP occasionally_RB stolen_VVN something_NN small_JJ from_IN another_DT person�_NN (_( reverse_RB scored_VVN )_) ,_, �I_NNS have_VHP friends_NNS that_WDT are_VBP dishonest_JJ at_IN times�_NN (_( reverse_RB scored_VVN )_) ,_, �Every_NN now_RB and_CC then_RB I_PP have_VHP thought_VVN to_TO take_VV something_NN that_WDT was_VBD not_RB mine�_JJ (_( reverse_RB scored_VVN )_) ,_, and_CC �I_NNS am_VBP too_RB honest_JJ to_TO steal.�_JJ Response_NP options_NNS were_VBD identical_JJ to_TO those_DT of_IN the_DT FFPI_NP ._SENT Items_NNS were_VBD recoded_VVN such_JJ that_IN/that high_JJ scores_NNS reflect_VVP high_JJ levels_NNS of_IN integrity_NN ._SENT See_VV Table_NP 1_CD for_IN the_DT alpha_NN coefficients_NNS ._SENT 
Manipulation_NN check_NN and_CC task_NN difficulty_NN items_NNS 
As_IN a_DT manipulation_NN check_NN ,_, participants_NNS were_VBD asked_VVN the_DT following_VVG question_NN on_IN a_DT 5-point_JJ Likert_NP scale_NN :_: �You_NNS have_VHP answered_VVN to_TO the_DT same_JJ set_NN of_IN questions_NNS twice_RB ._SENT To_TO what_WP extent_NN did_VVD you_PP give_VV the_DT same_JJ or_CC different_JJ answers_NNS at_IN both_DT times_NNS ?_SENT �_NN The_DT response_NN options_NNS varied_VVN from_IN 0_CD (_( completely_RB the_DT same_JJ )_) to_TO 4_CD (_( completely_RB different_JJ )_) ._SENT Next_RB ,_, participants_NNS were_VBD given_VVN two_CD items_NNS regarding_VVG the_DT self-perceived_JJ task_NN difficulty_NN in_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS ._SENT Specifically_RB ,_, participants_NNS were_VBD asked_VVN the_DT following_NN :_: �How_RB difficult_JJ or_CC easy_RB did_VVD you_PP think_VVP it_PP was_VBD to_TO answer_VV the_DT questions_NNS as_IN honestly_RB as_RB possible_JJ ?_SENT �_NP (_( cf_NN ._SENT the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN )_) and_CC �How_NN difficult_JJ or_CC easy_RB did_VVD you_PP think_VVP it_PP was_VBD to_TO answer_VV the_DT questions_NNS as_IN coming_VVG across_RP as_IN the_DT best_JJS job_NN applicant_NN ?_SENT �_NP (_( cf_NN ._SENT the_DT faking_VVG good_JJ condition_NN )_) ._SENT Response_NN options_NNS varied_VVN from_IN 0_CD (_( very_RB difficult_JJ )_) to_TO 4_CD (_( very_RB easy_JJ )_) for_IN both_DT items_NNS ._SENT 
Response_NN latencies_NNS 
For_IN each_DT participant_NN ,_, the_DT response_NN time_NN in_IN milliseconds_NNS was_VBD recorded_VVN for_IN each_DT test_NN item_NN in_IN both_DT conditions_NNS ._SENT The_DT response_NN time_NN was_VBD defined_VVN as_IN the_DT time_NN between_IN the_DT moment_NN that_IN/that the_DT test_NN item_NN was_VBD presented_VVN on_IN the_DT screen_NN and_CC the_DT moment_NN that_IN/that the_DT participant_NN touched_VVD the_DT screen_NN to_TO answer_VV that_DT test_NN item_NN ._SENT Based_VVN on_IN the_DT item_NN response_NN times_NNS ,_, the_DT following_VVG average_JJ response_NN latency_NN scores_NNS were_VBD calculated_VVN ._SENT First_RB ,_, average_JJ response_NN latencies_NNS were_VBD calculated_VVN for_IN the_DT Big_JJ Five_CD factors_NNS and_CC integrity_NN per_IN participant_NN per_IN condition_NN by_IN averaging_VVG the_DT response_NN latencies_NNS on_IN the_DT test_NN items_NNS of_IN each_DT factor_NN ._SENT Second_RB ,_, an_DT average_JJ response_NN latency_NN total_JJ score_NN for_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN and_CC for_IN the_DT fake_JJ condition_NN was_VBD calculated_VVN per_IN participant_NN by_IN averaging_VVG all_DT item_NN response_NN latencies_NNS per_IN condition_NN ._SENT Third_JJ ,_, average_JJ response_NN latency_NN scores_NNS in_IN the_DT honest_JJ and_CC fake_JJ condition_NN were_VBD calculated_VVN for_IN positively_RB keyed_JJ and_CC negatively_RB keyed_VVN items_NNS separately_RB ._SENT 
Eye-tracking_NN measures_NNS 
An_DT eye_NN fixation_NN is_VBZ a_DT period_NN during_IN which_WDT the_DT eyes_NNS come_VVP to_TO rest_VV and_CC pause_VV at_IN a_DT region_NN of_IN interest_NN (_( Reichle_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 1998_CD ;_: Salvucci_NP &_CC Goldberg_NP ,_, 2000_CD )_) ._SENT In_IN silent_JJ reading_NN ,_, fixation_NN duration_NN is_VBZ 225_CD ms_NN on_IN average_NN but_CC may_MD range_VV from_IN less_JJR than_IN 100_CD ms_NN to_TO more_JJR than_IN 500_CD ms_NNS depending_VVG on_IN characteristics_NNS of_IN the_DT individual_NN and_CC the_DT text_NN (_( Rayner_NP ,_, 1998_CD ;_: Reichle_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 1998_CD )_) ._SENT Several_JJ studies_NNS on_IN reading_NN have_VHP demonstrated_VVN that_IN/that if_IN readers_NNS are_VBP allowed_VVN 50�60_JJ ms_NNS on_IN each_DT eye_NN fixation_NN ,_, they_PP read_VVP quite_RB normally_RB (_( e.g._FW ,_, Liversedge_NP et_CC al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2004_CD ;_: Rayner_NP ,_, Inhoff_NP ,_, Morrison_NP ,_, Slowiaczek_NP ,_, &_CC Bertera_NP ,_, 1981_CD )_) ._SENT Based_VVN on_IN this_DT research_NN ,_, in_IN the_DT present_JJ study_NN we_PP included_VVD eye_NN fixations_NNS (_( i.e._FW ,_, having_VHG the_DT same_JJ gaze_NN position_NN at_IN sequential_JJ measurement_NN points_NNS )_) that_WDT lasted_VVD for_IN at_IN least_JJS three_CD sequential_JJ measurement_NN points_NNS of_IN 20_CD ms._NN For_IN each_DT eye_NN fixation_NN ,_, the_DT exact_JJ pixel_NN location_NN on_IN the_DT LCD_NP screen_NN and_CC the_DT duration_NN (_( in_IN number_NN of_IN sequential_JJ measurement_NN points_NNS of_IN 20_CD ms_NNS )_) of_IN the_DT fixation_NN was_VBD recorded_VVN ._SENT Furthermore_RB ,_, we_PP defined_VVD several_JJ areas_NNS of_IN interest_NN on_IN the_DT screen_NN for_IN locating_VVG the_DT fixation_NN position_NN ._SENT As_IN shown_VVN in_IN Figure_NP 2_CD ,_, the_DT question_NN text_NN (_( q_NN )_) ,_, all_DT five_CD response_NN options_NNS (_( a1�a5_NN )_) ,_, and_CC the_DT total_JJ screen_NN (_( d_LS )_) were_VBD defined_VVN as_IN boxes_NNS of_IN interest_NN ._SENT Based_VVN on_IN the_DT pixel_NN location_NN ,_, it_PP was_VBD recorded_VVN whether_IN the_DT fixation_NN was_VBD within_IN or_CC outside_IN each_DT box_NN of_IN interest_NN ._SENT 
Analyses_NNS and_CC Results_NNS 
The_DT results_NNS on_IN the_DT manipulation_NN check_NN item_NN indicated_VVD that_IN/that 88.4_CD %_NN of_IN the_DT participants_NNS responded_VVD slightly_RB to_TO completely_RB different_JJ in_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS ,_, and_CC 11.6_CD %_NN indicated_VVD that_IN/that they_PP had_VHD responded_VVN about_IN the_DT same_JJ ._SENT Because_IN none_NN of_IN the_DT participants_NNS indicated_VVD that_IN/that they_PP had_VHD responded_VVN completely_RB the_DT same_JJ in_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS ,_, all_DT participants_NNS were_VBD retained_VVN in_IN subsequent_JJ analyses_NNS ._SENT Results_NNS on_IN the_DT task_NN difficulty_NN items_NNS showed_VVD that_IN/that participants_NNS found_VVD faking_VVG more_JJR difficult_JJ (_( M_NP =_SYM 1.91_CD ,_, SD_NP =_SYM 1.09_CD )_) than_IN answering_NN honestly_RB (_( M_NP =_SYM 2.37_CD ,_, SD_NP =_SYM 0.82_CD )_) ,_, t_NN (_( 128_CD )_) =_SYM 4.14_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .001_CD ._SENT 
Scale_NN Scores_NNS on_IN the_DT Big_JJ Five_CD Factors_NNS and_CC Integrity_NN 
For_IN each_DT participant_NN ,_, scale_NN scores_NNS for_IN each_DT of_IN the_DT Big_JJ Five_CD factors_NNS and_CC integrity_NN were_VBD calculated_VVN for_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS separately_RB ._SENT Table_NN 1_CD presents_VVZ the_DT results_NNS ._SENT A_DT within-participants_NNS multivariate_JJ analysis_NN of_IN variance_NN (_( MANOVA_NP )_) including_VVG all_DT six_CD scale_NN scores_NNS showed_VVD that_IN/that the_DT means_NNS differed_VVD significantly_RB between_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS ,_, F_NP (_( 6_CD ,_, 123_CD )_) =_SYM 89.24_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .001_CD ,_, ?_SENT 2_CD =_SYM .81_CD ._SENT Subsequent_JJ paired-sample_JJ t_NN tests_NNS demonstrated_VVD that_IN/that all_DT scores_NNS were_VBD significantly_RB higher_JJR in_IN the_DT faking_VVG than_IN in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN (_( with_IN absolute_JJ d_NN values_NNS varying_VVG between_IN 0.58_CD and_CC 1.88_CD )_) ,_, supporting_VVG the_DT effectiveness_NN of_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_JJ instructions_NNS ._SENT Consistent_JJ with_IN our_PP$ hypothesis_NN ,_, effect_NN sizes_NNS indicated_VVD that_IN/that participants_NNS inflated_VVD their_PP$ scores_NNS the_DT most_JJS on_IN Conscientiousness_NP and_CC Emotional_NP Stability_NP ._SENT Scale_NN scores_NNS for_IN these_DT two_CD personality_NN factors_NNS were_VBD well_RB over_IN 1.5_CD standard_JJ deviations_NNS higher_JJR in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_NN than_IN in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN ,_, representing_VVG large_JJ effect_NN sizes_NNS ._SENT 
Response_NN Latencies_NNS 
Table_NN 2_CD presents_NNS the_DT means_NN and_CC standard_JJ deviations_NNS of_IN the_DT average_JJ response_NN latency_NN scores_NNS per_IN Big_NP Five_CD factor_NN and_CC integrity_NN in_IN each_DT condition_NN ._SENT In_IN total_NN ,_, across_IN all_DT items_NNS ,_, response_NN times_NNS were_VBD 0.25_CD s_NN slower_JJR in_IN the_DT faking_VVG good_JJ than_IN in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN ._SENT This_DT mean_JJ difference_NN was_VBD significant_JJ ,_, representing_VVG a_DT small_JJ effect_NN size_NN (_( d_LS =_SYM 0.23_CD )_) ,_, and_CC was_VBD robust_JJ for_IN outliers_NNS ._SENT At_IN the_DT factor_NN level_NN ,_, the_DT differences_NNS in_IN average_JJ response_NN latencies_NNS between_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS were_VBD largest_JJS for_IN Emotional_NP Stability_NP (_( d_LS =_SYM 0.41_CD )_) and_CC Integrity_NP (_( d_LS =_SYM 0.33_CD )_) ._SENT No_DT significant_JJ differences_NNS in_IN average_JJ response_NN latencies_NNS between_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS were_VBD found_VVN for_IN Agreeableness_NP and_CC Autonomy_NP ._SENT 
Further_RBR ,_, we_PP tested_VVD Holden_NP et_FW al._FW 's_POS (_( 1992_LS )_) interactive_JJ model_NN of_IN faking_VVG by_IN comparing_VVG participants_NNS '_POS average_JJ response_NN latencies_NNS on_IN positively_RB keyed_JJ and_CC negatively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ._SENT A_DT 2_CD �_NN 2_CD analysis_NN of_IN variance_NN (_( ANOVA_NP )_) with_IN instruction_NN (_( honest_JJ vs._CC fake_JJ good_NN )_) and_CC item_NN desirability_NN (_( positively_RB keyed_VVN vs._IN negatively_RB keyed_VVN )_) as_IN within-participants_NNS factors_NNS demonstrated_VVD significant_JJ main_JJ effects_NNS for_IN both_DT instruction_NN ,_, F_NP (_( 1_CD ,_, 128_CD )_) =_SYM 7.89_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .01_CD ,_, ?_SENT 2_CD =_SYM .06_CD ,_, and_CC item_NN desirability_NN ,_, F_NP (_( 1_CD ,_, 128_CD )_) =_SYM 16.03_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .001_CD ,_, ?_SENT 2_CD =_SYM .11_CD ,_, with_IN faking_VVG and_CC positively_RB keyed_VVN items_NNS leading_VVG to_TO faster_JJR response_NN latencies_NNS than_IN answering_VVG honestly_RB and_CC negatively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ,_, respectively_RB ._SENT However_RB ,_, no_DT significant_JJ instruction_NN by_IN item_NN desirability_NN interaction_NN was_VBD found_VVN ,_, F_NP (_( 1_CD ,_, 128_CD )_) =_SYM 0.38_CD ,_, p_NN =_SYM .54_CD ,_, ?_SENT 2_CD =_SYM .00_CD ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, Holden_NP et_FW al._FW 's_POS interactive_JJ model_NN of_IN faking_VVG was_VBD not_RB supported_VVN ._SENT 
In_IN general_JJ ,_, our_PP$ findings_NNS on_IN response_NN latencies_NNS do_VVP not_RB support_VV the_DT idea_NN that_DT faking_VVG takes_VVZ more_JJR time_NN than_IN responding_VVG honestly_RB ,_, but_CC rather_RB that_DT faking_VVG involves_VVZ a_DT faster_JJR response_NN process_NN for_IN both_DT positively_RB and_CC negatively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ._SENT 
Eye_NP Behavior_NP 
Total_JJ number_NN of_IN fixations_NNS 
For_IN each_DT participant_NN ,_, we_PP first_RB calculated_VVD the_DT total_JJ number_NN of_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS including_VVG all_DT test_NN items_NNS for_IN the_DT honest_JJ and_CC faking_VVG condition_NN separately_RB ._SENT Table_NN 3_CD (_( first_JJ data_NNS line_NN )_) presents_VVZ the_DT mean_JJ and_CC standard_JJ deviation_NN across_IN all_DT participants_NNS of_IN this_DT total_JJ number_NN of_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS for_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS ._SENT In_IN total_NN ,_, participants_NNS had_VHD 98.92_CD fixations_NNS (_( i.e._FW ,_, slightly_RB less_JJR than_IN 1_CD fixation_NN per_IN test_NN item_NN on_IN average_NN )_) more_JJR in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN (_( M_NP =_SYM 1_CD ,_, 361.84_CD )_) than_IN in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_JJ condition_NN (_( M_NP =_SYM 1_CD ,_, 262.92_CD )_) ._SENT This_DT mean_JJ difference_NN was_VBD significant_JJ ,_, representing_VVG a_DT small_JJ effect_NN size_NN (_( d_LS =_SYM 0.24_CD )_) ,_, and_CC was_VBD robust_JJ for_IN outliers_NNS ._SENT This_DT finding_NN corresponds_VVZ with_IN the_DT results_NNS for_IN response_NN latencies_NNS ,_, namely_RB that_DT faking_VVG is_VBZ less_RBR cognitively_RB demanding_VVG than_IN answering_VVG honestly_RB ._SENT 
Further_RBR ,_, we_PP tested_VVD whether_IN the_DT number_NN of_IN fixations_NNS differed_VVN across_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS for_IN positively_RB keyed_JJ and_CC negatively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ._SENT For_IN this_DT purpose_NN ,_, we_PP composed_VVD four_CD variables_NNS for_IN each_DT participant_NN ,_, calculated_VVN as_IN the_DT total_JJ number_NN of_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS per_IN condition_NN for_IN positively_RB keyed_JJ and_CC negatively_RB keyed_VVN items_NNS separately_RB ._SENT Using_VVG these_DT sum_NN scores_NNS ,_, a_DT 2_CD �_NN 2_CD within-participants_NNS ANOVA_NP with_IN instruction_NN (_( honest_JJ vs._CC fake_JJ good_NN )_) and_CC item_NN desirability_NN (_( positively_RB keyed_VVN vs._IN negatively_RB keyed_VVN )_) as_IN within-participants_NNS factors_NNS was_VBD conducted_VVN ._SENT Significant_JJ main_JJ effects_NNS were_VBD found_VVN for_IN both_DT instruction_NN ,_, F_NP (_( 1_CD ,_, 128_CD )_) =_SYM 7.42_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .01_CD ,_, ?_SENT 2_CD =_SYM .06_CD ,_, and_CC item_NN desirability_NN ,_, F_NP (_( 1_CD ,_, 128_CD )_) =_SYM 112.42_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .001_CD ,_, ?_SENT 2_CD =_SYM .47_CD ,_, with_IN answering_VVG honestly_RB and_CC negatively_RB keyed_VVN items_NNS leading_VVG to_TO more_JJR eye_NN fixations_NNS than_IN faking_VVG and_CC positively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ,_, respectively_RB ._SENT A_DT significant_JJ Instruction_NN �_NN Item_NP Desirability_NP interaction_NN was_VBD found_VVN ,_, F_NP (_( 1_CD ,_, 128_CD )_) =_SYM 8.60_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .01_CD ,_, ?_SENT 2_CD =_SYM .06_CD ,_, such_JJ that_IN/that the_DT difference_NN in_IN the_DT number_NN of_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS between_IN positively_RB keyed_JJ and_CC negatively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS was_VBD larger_JJR in_IN the_DT honest_JJ than_IN in_IN the_DT faking_VVG good_JJ condition_NN (_( see_VV Figure_NP 3_CD )_) ._SENT However_RB ,_, the_DT form_NN of_IN this_DT interaction_NN was_VBD not_RB consistent_JJ with_IN Holden_NP et_FW al._FW 's_POS (_( 1992_LS )_) interactive_JJ model_NN of_IN faking_VVG when_WRB applied_VVN to_TO eye_NN fixations_NNS ._SENT 
Location_NN of_IN fixations_NNS 
To_TO examine_VV the_DT location_NN of_IN the_DT eye_NN fixations_NNS ,_, we_PP calculated_VVD the_DT total_JJ number_NN of_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS (_( including_VVG all_DT test_NN items_NNS )_) on_IN each_DT of_IN the_DT boxes_NNS of_IN interest_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, q_NN ,_, a1�a5_NN ;_: see_VV Figure_NP 2_CD )_) for_IN each_DT participant_NN for_IN the_DT honest_JJ and_CC faking_VVG condition_NN separately_RB ._SENT A_DT within-participants_NNS MANOVA_NP including_VVG all_DT six_CD boxes_NNS demonstrated_VVD that_IN/that the_DT number_NN of_IN fixations_NNS on_IN the_DT response_NN options_NNS differed_VVD significantly_RB between_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS ,_, F_NP (_( 6_CD ,_, 123_CD )_) =_SYM 34.21_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .001_CD ,_, ?_SENT 2_CD =_SYM .63_CD ._SENT Table_NN 3_CD presents_NNS the_DT means_NN and_CC standard_JJ deviations_NNS across_IN participants_NNS for_IN these_DT sum_NN scores_NNS ,_, as_RB well_RB as_IN the_DT subsequent_JJ t_NN tests_NNS ._SENT As_IN hypothesized_VVN ,_, when_WRB responding_VVG honestly_RB ,_, significantly_RB more_JJR eye_NN fixations_NNS occurred_VVD on_IN the_DT middle_JJ response_NN options_NNS (_( a2_NP ,_, a3_NN ,_, and_CC a4_NN )_) ._SENT In_IN contrast_NN ,_, when_WRB faking_VVG ,_, significantly_RB more_JJR eye_NN fixations_NNS occurred_VVD on_IN the_DT extreme_JJ response_NN options_NNS (_( a1_JJ and_CC a5_JJ )_) ._SENT The_DT mean_JJ differences_NNS were_VBD significant_JJ ,_, representing_VVG moderate_JJ to_TO large_JJ effect_NN sizes_NNS (_( with_IN absolute_JJ d_NN values_NNS varying_VVG between_IN 0.40_CD and_CC 0.85_CD )_) ,_, and_CC were_VBD robust_JJ for_IN outliers_NNS ._SENT 
In_IN addition_NN ,_, we_PP examined_VVD the_DT location_NN of_IN the_DT fixations_NNS for_IN positively_RB keyed_JJ and_CC negatively_RB keyed_VVN test_NN items_NNS separately_RB ._SENT For_IN this_DT purpose_NN ,_, we_PP composed_VVD four_CD variables_NNS for_IN each_DT participant_NN ,_, calculated_VVN as_IN the_DT total_JJ number_NN of_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS on_IN box_NN a1_NN per_IN condition_NN for_IN positively_RB and_CC negatively_RB keyed_VVN items_NNS separately_RB ._SENT Using_VVG these_DT sum_NN scores_NNS ,_, a_DT 2_CD �_NN 2_CD within-participants_NNS ANOVA_NP was_VBD conducted_VVN ,_, demonstrating_VVG that_IN/that the_DT response_NN option_NN a1_NN (_( much_RB more_RBR [_SYM often_RB ]_SYM than_IN others_NNS )_) was_VBD fixated_VVN on_IN more_JJR for_IN positively_RB keyed_VVN items_NNS than_IN for_IN negatively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ,_, F_NP (_( 1_CD ,_, 128_CD )_) =_SYM 255.17_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .001_CD ,_, ?_SENT 2_CD =_SYM .67_CD ._SENT This_DT difference_NN between_IN the_DT number_NN of_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS for_IN positively_RB and_CC negatively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS was_VBD larger_JJR in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_NN than_IN in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN ,_, as_RB indicated_VVN by_IN a_DT significant_JJ interaction_NN effect_NN ,_, F_NP (_( 1_CD ,_, 128_CD )_) =_SYM 49.85_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .001_CD ,_, ?_SENT 2_CD =_SYM .28_CD ._SENT Similarly_RB ,_, we_PP composed_VVD the_DT same_JJ four_CD variables_NNS for_IN each_DT participant_NN regarding_VVG the_DT total_JJ number_NN of_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS on_IN box_NN a5_NN ._SENT The_DT results_NNS of_IN a_DT 2_CD �_NN 2_CD within-participants_NNS ANOVA_NP demonstrated_VVD a_DT reversed_JJ pattern_NN for_IN the_DT eye_NN fixations_NNS on_IN response_NN option_NN a5_NN (_( much_RB less_RBR [_SYM often_RB ]_SYM than_IN others_NNS )_) ,_, such_JJ that_IN/that the_DT response_NN option_NN a5_NN was_VBD fixated_VVN on_IN more_JJR for_IN negatively_RB keyed_VVN than_IN for_IN positively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ,_, F_NP (_( 1_CD ,_, 128_CD )_) =_SYM 302.73_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .001_CD ,_, ?_SENT 2_CD =_SYM .70_CD ._SENT This_DT difference_NN between_IN the_DT number_NN of_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS for_IN positively_RB and_CC negatively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS was_VBD larger_JJR in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_NN than_IN in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN as_IN indicated_VVN by_IN a_DT significant_JJ interaction_NN ,_, F_NP (_( 1_CD ,_, 128_CD )_) =_SYM 91.81_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .001_CD ,_, ?_SENT 2_CD =_SYM .42_CD ._SENT Figure_NN 4_CD displays_NNS the_DT means_NN for_IN total_JJ number_NN of_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS on_IN response_NN options_NNS a1_JJ and_CC a5_JJ for_IN positively_RB and_CC negatively_RB keyed_VVN items_NNS in_IN both_DT conditions_NNS ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, especially_RB in_IN the_DT faking_VVG good_JJ condition_NN ,_, people_NNS interpret_VVP the_DT test_NN items_NNS in_IN terms_NNS of_IN being_VBG positive_JJ or_CC negative_JJ ,_, and_CC they_PP consequently_RB fixate_VVP on_IN the_DT much_RB more_JJR (_( often_RB )_) than_IN others_NNS response_NN option_NN for_IN positive_JJ items_NNS and_CC on_IN the_DT much_RB less_JJR (_( often_RB )_) than_IN others_NNS response_NN option_NN for_IN negative_JJ items_NNS ._SENT 
Eye_NN paths_NNS 
When_WRB looking_VVG to_TO a_DT test_NN item_NN screen_NN ,_, participants_NNS have_VHP various_JJ eye_NN fixations_NNS spread_VVN across_IN the_DT screen_NN ._SENT After_IN each_DT eye_NN fixation_NN ,_, the_DT eyes_NNS move_VVP to_TO the_DT next_JJ eye_NN fixation_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, a_DT saccade_NN )_) ._SENT In_IN addition_NN to_TO the_DT number_NN and_CC location_NN of_IN fixations_NNS ,_, we_PP analyzed_VVD the_DT order_NN of_IN the_DT fixations_NNS ._SENT For_IN all_DT participants_NNS ,_, an_DT eye_NN path_NN was_VBD composed_VVN for_IN each_DT test_NN item_NN describing_VVG the_DT order_NN of_IN the_DT fixation_NN locations_NNS ._SENT For_IN example_NN ,_, the_DT path_NN �q_NN ?_SENT q_NN ?_SENT q_NN ?_SENT a1_JJ ?_SENT a3_NN ?_SENT a2�_NN indicates_VVZ that_IN/that the_DT participant_NN 's_POS first_JJ three_CD fixations_NNS were_VBD on_IN box_NN q_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, at_IN three_CD different_JJ locations_NNS in_IN box_NN q_NN )_) ,_, the_DT fourth_JJ fixation_NN was_VBD on_IN box_NN a1_NN ,_, the_DT fifth_JJ fixation_NN was_VBD on_IN box_NN a3_NN ,_, and_CC the_DT sixth_JJ fixation_NN was_VBD on_IN box_NN a2_NN ._SENT To_TO facilitate_VV data_NNS analysis_NN and_CC interpretation_NN ,_, repeated_VVD fixations_NNS on_IN the_DT same_JJ box_NN of_IN interest_NN were_VBD combined_VVN ._SENT For_IN example_NN ,_, the_DT path_NN mentioned_VVD above_IN was_VBD transformed_VVN into_IN �q_NP ?_SENT a1_JJ ?_SENT a3_NN ?_SENT a2.�_JJ Analysis_NN of_IN all_DT test_NN items_NNS for_IN all_DT participants_NNS shows_VVZ that_IN/that 93.1_CD %_NN of_IN the_DT fixation_NN paths_NNS start_VVP with_IN a_DT fixation_NN on_IN the_DT question_NN box_NN (_( q_NN )_) ,_, indicating_VVG that_IN/that participants_NNS usually_RB start_VVP with_IN reading_VVG the_DT question_NN ._SENT 
Next_RB ,_, we_PP examined_VVD where_WRB the_DT eyes_NNS move_VVP to_TO directly_RB after_IN having_VHG read_VVN the_DT question_NN ,_, by_IN examining_VVG the_DT first_JJ fixation_NN after_IN the_DT fixation_NN (_( s_NN )_) on_IN the_DT question_NN box_NN ._SENT We_PP were_VBD especially_RB interested_JJ in_IN eye_NN paths_NNS indicating_VVG fixations_NNS on_IN the_DT extreme_JJ response_NN options_NNS (_( a1_JJ and_CC a5_JJ )_) directly_RB after_IN having_VHG read_VVN the_DT question_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, q_NN ?_SENT a1_JJ and_CC q_NN ?_SENT a5_JJ eye_NN paths_NNS )_) ,_, because_IN such_JJ paths_NNS may_MD be_VB indicative_JJ of_IN purely_RB semantic_JJ item_NN interpretations_NNS ._SENT For_IN each_DT participant_NN ,_, we_PP calculated_VVD on_IN how_WRB many_DT positively_RB keyed_VVN test_NN items_NNS they_PP had_VHD an_DT eye_NN path_NN starting_VVG with_IN a_DT q_NN fixation_NN directly_RB followed_VVN by_IN an_DT a1_JJ fixation_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, q_NN ?_SENT a1_JJ eye_NN path_NN )_) ,_, and_CC on_IN how_WRB many_DT negatively_RB keyed_VVN test_NN items_NNS they_PP had_VHD an_DT eye_NN path_NN starting_VVG with_IN a_DT q_NN fixation_NN directly_RB followed_VVN by_IN an_DT a5_JJ fixation_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, q_NN ?_SENT a5_JJ eye_NN path_NN )_) in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_JJ and_CC honest_JJ condition_NN separately_RB ._SENT In_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_JJ condition_NN ,_, participants_NNS had_VHD significantly_RB more_JJR q_NN ?_SENT a1_JJ eye_NN paths_NNS on_IN positively_RB keyed_VVN items_NNS than_IN in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN (_( M_NP =_SYM 14.41_CD vs._IN M_NP =_SYM 9.07_CD )_) ,_, t_NN (_( 128_CD )_) =_SYM 7.93_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .001_CD ,_, d_LS =_SYM 0.67_CD ,_, and_CC significantly_RB more_JJR q_NN ?_SENT a5_JJ paths_NNS on_IN negatively_RB keyed_VVN items_NNS (_( M_NP =_SYM 3.02_CD vs._IN M_NP =_SYM 1.09_CD )_) ,_, t_NN (_( 128_CD )_) =_SYM 5.38_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .001_CD ,_, d_LS =_SYM 0.59_CD ._SENT These_DT findings_NNS demonstrate_VVP that_IN/that when_WRB in_IN the_DT faking_VVG good_JJ condition_NN ,_, after_IN having_VHG read_VVN the_DT question_NN the_DT eyes_NNS more_RBR often_RB move_VV directly_RB to_TO the_DT extreme_JJ response_NN option_NN that_WDT fits_VVZ with_IN the_DT item_NN framing_NN ._SENT 
Differentiating_VVG Faking_NP From_IN Honest_NP Responding_VVG 
Based_VVN on_IN the_DT results_NNS of_IN the_DT analyses_NNS on_IN actual_JJ responses_NNS (_( i.e._FW ,_, means_NN )_) ,_, response_NN latencies_NNS ,_, eye_NN fixations_NNS ,_, and_CC eye_NN paths_NNS ,_, we_PP examined_VVD the_DT extent_NN to_TO which_WDT fakers_NNS can_MD be_VB differentiated_VVN from_IN honest_JJ responders_NNS ._SENT For_IN this_DT purpose_NN ,_, we_PP analyzed_VVD our_PP$ data_NN between-participants_NNS (_( by_IN taking_VVG the_DT data_NNS of_IN the_DT first_JJ session_NN only_JJ )_) ,_, because_IN a_DT between-participants_NP design_NN more_JJR accurately_RB reflects_VVZ actual_JJ settings_NNS in_IN which_WDT one_PP seeks_VVZ to_TO differentiate_VV between_IN fakers_NNS and_CC honest_JJ responders_NNS ._SENT As_IN such_JJ ,_, we_PP pooled_VVD the_DT data_NNS from_IN participants_NNS who_WP were_VBD instructed_VVN to_TO respond_VV honestly_RB in_IN the_DT first_JJ session_NN (_( n_NN =_SYM 64_CD )_) with_IN the_DT data_NNS from_IN participants_NNS who_WP were_VBD instructed_VVN to_TO fake_VV good_JJ in_IN the_DT first_JJ session_NN (_( n_NN =_SYM 65_CD )_) ._SENT For_IN each_DT participant_NN ,_, we_PP computed_VVD the_DT following_VVG variables_NNS that_WDT may_MD potentially_RB add_VV to_TO the_DT identification_NN of_IN faking_VVG ._SENT Regarding_VVG actual_JJ responses_NNS ,_, for_IN each_DT participant_NN we_PP calculated_VVD the_DT proportion_NN of_IN extreme_JJ responses_NNS on_IN the_DT test_NN items_NNS ._SENT Regarding_VVG response_NN latencies_NNS ,_, based_VVN on_IN the_DT results_NNS as_RB shown_VVN in_IN Table_NP 2_CD ,_, for_IN each_DT participant_NN we_PP calculated_VVD the_DT mean_JJ response_NN times_NNS on_IN the_DT Emotional_NP Stability_NP items_NNS ,_, the_DT Integrity_NN items_NNS ,_, the_DT Conscientiousness_NN items_NNS ,_, and_CC the_DT Extraversion_NN items_NNS ._SENT Regarding_VVG eye_NN fixations_NNS ,_, based_VVN on_IN the_DT results_NNS as_RB displayed_VVN in_IN Table_NP 3_CD and_CC Figure_NP 4_CD ,_, for_IN each_DT participant_NN we_PP calculated_VVD the_DT mean_JJ number_NN of_IN fixations_NNS in_IN box_NN a1_NN for_IN positively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ;_: the_DT mean_JJ number_NN of_IN fixations_NNS in_IN box_NN a5_NN for_IN negatively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ;_: and_CC the_DT mean_JJ number_NN of_IN fixations_NNS in_IN boxes_NNS a2_JJ ,_, a3_JJ ,_, and_CC a4_NN for_IN all_DT items_NNS ._SENT Regarding_VVG the_DT eye_NN paths_NNS ,_, for_IN each_DT participant_NN we_PP calculated_VVD the_DT average_JJ number_NN of_IN �q_NP ?_SENT a1�_JJ paths_NNS on_IN positively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ,_, and_CC the_DT average_JJ number_NN of_IN �q_NP ?_SENT a5�_JJ paths_NNS on_IN negatively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ._SENT 
Using_VVG these_DT variables_NNS as_IN predictors_NNS ,_, we_PP ran_VVD a_DT hierarchical_JJ logistic_JJ regression_NN analysis_NN with_IN response_NN instruction_NN on_IN the_DT first_JJ session_NN (_( honest_JJ vs._CC fake_JJ good_NN )_) as_IN the_DT dependent_JJ variable_NN ,_, and_CC we_PP computed_VVD the_DT zero-order_NN correlations_NNS (_( see_VV Table_NP 4_CD and_CC Table_NP 5_CD )_) ._SENT As_IN shown_VVN in_IN Table_NP 4_CD ,_, the_DT proportion_NN of_IN extreme_JJ responses_NNS and_CC the_DT response_NN latency_NN variables_NNS significantly_RB differentiated_VVD fakers_NNS from_IN honest_JJ responders_NNS ,_, with_IN a_DT 79.8_CD %_NN classification_NN hit_VVD rate_NN ._SENT The_DT eye_NN fixation_NN variables_NNS contributed_VVD significantly_RB to_TO the_DT prediction_NN over_IN and_CC beyond_IN the_DT extreme_JJ response_NN and_CC response_NN latency_NN variables_NNS ,_, increasing_VVG the_DT classification_NN hit_VVD rate_NN to_TO 82.9_CD %_NN (_( with_IN 83.1_CD %_NN of_IN the_DT fakers_NNS correctly_RB identified_VVN as_IN fakers_NNS ,_, 16.9_CD %_NN of_IN the_DT fakers_NNS incorrectly_RB identified_VVN as_IN honest_JJ responders_NNS ,_, and_CC 17.2_CD %_NN of_IN the_DT honest_JJ responders_NNS incorrectly_RB identified_VVN as_IN fakers_NNS )_) ._SENT The_DT eye_NN path_NN variables_NNS did_VVD not_RB further_JJR increase_NN model_NN fit_NN ._SENT 
Because_IN half_NN of_IN our_PP$ sample_NN consisted_VVN of_IN �fakers_NNS ,_, �_NN whereas_IN in_IN field_NN settings_NNS the_DT proportion_NN of_IN fakers_NNS is_VBZ estimated_VVN to_TO vary_VV between_IN 20_CD %_NN and_CC 50_CD %_NN (_( Donovan_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2003_CD ;_: Griffith_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2007_CD )_) ,_, we_PP explored_VVD how_WRB our_PP$ classification_NN hit_NN rate_NN would_MD hold_VV under_IN different_JJ conditions_NNS ._SENT Using_VVG R_NP (_( R_NP Development_NP Core_NP Team_NP ,_, 2010_CD )_) ,_, we_PP calculated_VVD 95_CD %_NN bootstrap_NN confidence_NN intervals_NNS (_( CIs_NP )_) around_IN the_DT classification_NN hit_VVD rate_NN (_( using_VVG the_DT percentile_NN method_NN ;_: Efron_NP ,_, 1987_CD )_) ,_, based_VVN on_IN 1_CD ,_, 000_CD bootstrap_NN replications_NNS ._SENT Assuming_VVG a_DT 50�50_JJ distribution_NN of_IN fakers_NNS versus_CC honest_JJ responders_NNS in_IN a_DT sample_NN of_IN 129_CD ,_, the_DT 95_CD %_NN bootstrap_NN CI_NP was_VBD .783�.930_JJ ,_, with_IN a_DT mean_NN of_IN .862_CD ._SENT Assuming_VVG a_DT 20�80_JJ distribution_NN in_IN a_DT sample_NN of_IN 129_CD ,_, the_DT 95_CD %_NN bootstrap_NN CI_NP was_VBD .876�.977_JJ ,_, with_IN a_DT mean_NN of_IN .929_CD ._SENT 
Discussion_NN 
Both_CC in_IN science_NN and_CC in_IN practice_NN ,_, faking_VVG on_IN self-report_NN personality_NN measures_NNS is_VBZ a_DT much-debated_JJ issue_NN ._SENT Research_NP has_VHZ demonstrated_VVN that_IN/that individuals_NNS can_MD and_CC do_VV fake_NN on_IN self-report_JJ non-cognitive_JJ measures_NNS ,_, and_CC that_IN/that faking_VVG likely_JJ impacts_NNS both_CC the_DT construct_NN and_CC criterion-related_JJ validity_NN ._SENT Because_IN social_JJ desirability_NN ,_, impression_NN management_NN ,_, or_CC lie_VVP scales_NNS may_MD not_RB be_VB very_RB accurate_JJ to_TO identify_VV fakers_NNS ,_, techniques_NNS that_WDT do_VVP not_RB rely_VV on_IN self-report_NN measures_NNS may_MD be_VB more_RBR useful_JJ for_IN detecting_VVG faking_VVG behavior_NN ._SENT In_IN this_DT context_NN ,_, previous_JJ research_NN has_VHZ examined_VVN people_NNS 's_POS response_NN latencies_NNS when_WRB faking_VVG (_( e.g._FW ,_, Holden_NP ,_, 1998_CD ;_: Holden_NP &_CC Hibbs_NP ,_, 1995_CD ;_: Vasilopoulos_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2000_CD )_) ._SENT The_DT present_JJ study_NN extends_VVZ this_DT line_NN of_IN research_NN by_IN not_RB only_RB examining_VVG response_NN latencies_NNS but_CC also_RB people_NNS 's_POS eye_NN fixations_NNS and_CC eye_NN movements_NNS when_WRB responding_VVG to_TO a_DT Big_JJ Five_CD measure_NN and_CC several_JJ Integrity_NN items_NNS ._SENT As_IN such_JJ ,_, the_DT present_JJ study_NN adds_VVZ to_TO the_DT literature_NN by_IN investigating_VVG whether_IN eye-tracking_NN can_MD increase_VV our_PP$ understanding_NN of_IN people_NNS 's_POS response_NN processes_VVZ when_WRB faking_VVG ,_, and_CC whether_IN eye-tracking_NN may_MD yield_VV information_NN that_WDT can_MD be_VB used_VVN to_TO identify_VV faking_VVG behavior_NN over_IN and_CC beyond_IN the_DT actual_JJ item_NN responses_NNS and_CC response_NN latency_NN information_NN ._SENT 
Major_NP Findings_NP 
Consistent_JJ with_IN previous_JJ research_NN (_( Alliger_NP &_CC Dwight_NP ,_, 2000_CD ;_: Viswesvaran_NP &_CC Ones_NP ,_, 1999_CD )_) ,_, our_PP$ findings_NNS demonstrate_VVP that_IN/that people_NNS are_VBP able_JJ to_TO fake_VV on_IN personality_NN and_CC integrity_NN measures_NNS when_WRB instructed_VVN to_TO do_VV so_RB ._SENT Means_NNS were_VBD 0.58�1.88_JJ standard_JJ deviations_NNS higher_JJR in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_NN than_IN in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN ,_, representing_VVG medium_NN to_TO large_JJ effect_NN sizes_NNS ._SENT As_IN hypothesized_VVN ,_, differences_NNS between_IN the_DT conditions_NNS were_VBD largest_JJS for_IN Conscientiousness_NP and_CC Emotional_NP Stability_NP (_( d_LS =_SYM 1.88_CD and_CC 1.69_CD ,_, respectively_RB )_) ._SENT This_DT suggests_VVZ that_IN/that participants_NNS thought_VVD that_IN/that high_JJ scores_NNS on_IN these_DT factors_NNS are_VBP most_RBS desirable_JJ ,_, and_CC that_IN/that these_DT factors_NNS are_VBP easiest_JJS to_TO fake_VV ,_, most_RBS likely_JJ because_IN it_PP is_VBZ relatively_RB clear_JJ what_WP a_DT �good�_JJ response_NN is_VBZ for_IN Conscientiousness_NP and_CC Emotional_NP Stability_NP items_NNS ._SENT Score_NN differences_NNS between_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS were_VBD smallest_JJS for_IN Agreeableness_NN ._SENT Altogether_RB ,_, these_DT findings_NNS demonstrate_VVP that_IN/that participants_NNS have_VHP a_DT relatively_RB accurate_JJ idea_NN of_IN how_WRB to_TO come_VV across_RP as_IN a_DT good_JJ applicant_NN ,_, because_IN Conscientiousness_NP and_CC Emotional_NP Stability_NP have_VHP also_RB been_VBN shown_VVN to_TO be_VB the_DT Big_JJ Five_CD factors_NNS with_IN the_DT strongest_JJS associations_NNS with_IN job_NN performance_NN (_( Barrick_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2001_CD )_) ._SENT 
The_DT results_NNS on_IN response_NN latencies_NNS demonstrated_VVD that_IN/that faking_VVG is_VBZ on_IN average_JJ 0.25_CD s_NNS faster_RBR than_IN answering_VVG honestly_RB ,_, representing_VVG a_DT small_JJ effect_NN size_NN (_( d_LS =_SYM 0.23_CD )_) ._SENT At_IN the_DT personality_NN factor_NN level_NN ,_, the_DT differences_NNS in_IN response_NN time_NN between_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS were_VBD largest_JJS for_IN Emotional_NP Stability_NP and_CC Integrity_NP items_NNS ._SENT For_IN Emotional_NP Stability_NP ,_, the_DT difference_NN between_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS can_MD be_VB explained_VVN by_IN the_DT low_JJ mean_JJ response_NN time_NN in_IN the_DT faking_VVG condition_NN ._SENT More_RBR specifically_RB ,_, when_WRB faking_VVG good_JJ ,_, people_NNS were_VBD fastest_JJS on_IN the_DT Emotional_NP Stability_NP items_NNS (_( about_RB 0.30_CD s_NNS faster_RBR than_IN on_IN the_DT other_JJ Big_NP Five_CD personality_NN items_NNS )_) ._SENT This_DT finding_NN further_RBR suggests_VVZ that_IN/that Emotional_NP Stability_NP items_NNS are_VBP relatively_RB easy_JJ to_TO fake_VV ._SENT For_IN Integrity_NN ,_, the_DT large_JJ difference_NN between_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS can_MD be_VB explained_VVN by_IN the_DT relatively_RB high_JJ mean_JJ response_NN time_NN in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN ._SENT Answering_VVG honestly_RB on_IN Integrity_NN items_NNS takes_VVZ on_IN average_JJ 0.97_CD s_NNS more_RBR compared_VVN to_TO answering_VVG honestly_RB on_IN the_DT Big_JJ Five_CD items_NNS ._SENT However_RB ,_, also_RB faking_VVG good_JJ on_IN Integrity_NN items_NNS takes_VVZ on_IN average_NN longer_RBR than_IN faking_VVG good_JJ on_IN the_DT other_JJ items_NNS (_( about_RB 0.64_CD s_NNS longer_RBR )_) ._SENT The_DT higher_JJR response_NN latencies_NNS on_IN Integrity_NN items_NNS across_IN the_DT conditions_NNS may_MD be_VB caused_VVN by_IN item_NN length_NN ,_, because_IN Integrity_NN items_NNS were_VBD on_IN average_NN longer_RBR than_IN the_DT Big_JJ Five_CD items_NNS (_( 8.8_CD words_NNS compared_VVN to_TO 5.6_CD words_NNS )_) and_CC because_IN item_NN length_NN is_VBZ known_VVN to_TO affect_VV response_NN latencies_NNS (_( Casey_NP &_CC Tryon_NP ,_, 2001_CD ;_: Holden_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 1991_CD )_) ._SENT The_DT finding_NN that_IN/that the_DT difference_NN between_IN the_DT Integrity_NN and_CC Big_JJ Five_CD items_NNS was_VBD larger_JJR in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN than_IN in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_JJ condition_NN suggests_VVZ that_IN/that it_PP is_VBZ somewhat_RB more_RBR difficult_JJ to_TO answer_VV honestly_RB on_IN Integrity_NN items_NNS than_IN on_IN other_JJ personality_NN items_NNS ._SENT Explanations_NNS may_MD relate_VV to_TO the_DT fact_NN that_IN/that the_DT Integrity_NN items_NNS cover_VVP more_JJR extreme_JJ aspects_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, stealing_VVG )_) or_CC induce_VV difficult_JJ thought-provoking_JJ situations_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, it_PP may_MD take_VV some_DT time_NN to_TO decide_VV what_WP to_TO respond_VV to_TO an_DT item_NN such_JJ as_IN �I_NNS am_VBP an_DT honest_JJ person�_NN when_WRB instructed_VVN to_TO respond_VV honestly_RB )_) ._SENT 
The_DT present_JJ study_NN extends_VVZ previous_JJ research_NN by_IN comparing_VVG people_NNS 's_POS eye_NN fixations_NNS when_WRB faking_VVG versus_CC responding_VVG honestly_RB ._SENT The_DT results_NNS demonstrate_VVP that_IN/that faking_VVG is_VBZ associated_VVN with_IN on_IN average_NN almost_RB 1_CD eye_NN fixation_NN less_JJR per_IN item_NN compared_VVN to_TO responding_VVG honestly_RB ._SENT This_DT finding_NN is_VBZ consistent_JJ with_IN our_PP$ results_NNS for_IN response_NN latencies_NNS and_CC aligns_VVZ with_IN previous_JJ studies_NNS reporting_VVG lower_JJR response_NN latencies_NNS when_WRB faking_VVG good_JJ (_( Hsu_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 1989_CD )_) and_CC for_IN items_NNS higher_JJR on_IN social_JJ desirability_NN (_( Holden_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 1985_CD )_) ._SENT Furthermore_RB ,_, the_DT eye_NN fixation_NN data_NNS demonstrated_VVD that_IN/that participants_NNS paid_VVD more_JJR attention_NN to_TO the_DT extreme_JJ response_NN options_NNS in_IN the_DT fake_JJ good_NN than_IN in_IN the_DT honest_JJ condition_NN ._SENT This_DT finding_NN was_VBD qualified_VVN by_IN the_DT item_NN framing_NN ,_, such_PDT that_DT participants_NNS paid_VVD more_JJR attention_NN to_TO the_DT much_RB more_JJR (_( often_RB )_) than_IN others_NNS response_NN option_NN for_IN positively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ,_, and_CC they_PP paid_VVD more_JJR attention_NN to_TO the_DT much_RB less_JJR (_( often_RB )_) than_IN others_NNS response_NN option_NN for_IN negatively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ._SENT In_IN addition_NN ,_, eye_NN path_NN analyses_NNS showed_VVD that_IN/that when_WRB faking_VVG good_JJ ,_, people_NNS 's_POS eyes_NNS more_RBR often_RB moved_VVN directly_RB to_TO the_DT extreme_JJ response_NN option_NN that_WDT corresponds_VVZ to_TO the_DT item_NN framing_NN after_IN having_VHG focused_VVN on_IN the_DT question_NN text_NN ._SENT 
The_DT findings_NNS on_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS were_VBD shown_VVN to_TO be_VB potentially_RB useful_JJ for_IN identifying_VVG faking_VVG behavior_NN ._SENT More_RBR specifically_RB ,_, logistic_JJ regression_NN analyses_NNS demonstrated_VVD that_IN/that eye-tracking_NN data_NNS improved_VVD correct_JJ classification_NN of_IN fakers_NNS beyond_IN response_NN extremity_NN and_CC response_NN latency_NN data_NNS ._SENT The_DT response_NN extremity_NN data_NNS were_VBD able_JJ to_TO distinguish_VV fakers_NNS from_IN honest-responders_NNS with_IN a_DT hit_VVN rate_NN of_IN 77.5_CD %_NN ._SENT Adding_VVG response_NN latency_NN data_NNS resulted_VVN in_IN a_DT 2.3_CD %_NN increment_NN ._SENT Including_VVG data_NNS on_IN the_DT number_NN of_IN eye_NN fixations_NNS on_IN extreme_JJ and_CC middle_JJ response_NN options_NNS leads_VVZ to_TO a_DT further_JJR improvement_NN in_IN distinguishing_VVG fakers_NNS from_IN honest_JJ responders_NNS of_IN 3.1_CD %_NN ,_, up_RB to_TO a_DT hit_VVN rate_NN of_IN 82.9_CD %_NN (_( which_WDT increased_VVD to_TO an_DT average_NN of_IN 93.0_CD %_NN in_IN the_DT bootstrap_NN analyses_NNS )_) ._SENT Eye_NN path_NN data_NNS ,_, however_RB ,_, did_VVD not_RB add_VV over_RP and_CC beyond_IN the_DT eye_NN fixation_NN data_NNS ,_, probably_RB because_IN of_IN the_DT relatively_RB high_JJ intercorrelations_NNS between_IN the_DT response_NN extremity_NN ,_, eye_NN fixation_NN ,_, and_CC eye_NN path_NN metrics_NNS (_( see_VV Table_NP 5_CD )_) ._SENT Nevertheless_RB ,_, the_DT logistic_JJ regression_NN results_NNS suggest_VVP that_IN/that eye-tracking_NN may_MD be_VB a_DT useful_JJ addition_NN for_IN identifying_VVG faking_VVG behavior_NN ._SENT 
Theoretical_JJ Implications_NNS 
As_IN outlined_VVN in_IN the_DT Introduction_NN ,_, several_JJ contrasting_VVG theories_NNS have_VHP been_VBN proposed_VVN regarding_VVG the_DT response_NN processes_VVZ when_WRB faking_VVG (_( e.g._FW ,_, Holden_NP et_CC al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2001_CD ;_: Holtgraves_NP ,_, 2004_CD ;_: Vasilopoulos_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2000_CD )_) ._SENT Our_PP$ results_NNS support_VVP the_DT theoretical_JJ position_NN that_IN/that ,_, compared_VVN to_TO honest_JJ responding_VVG ,_, faking_VVG is_VBZ characterized_VVN by_IN the_DT less_RBR cognitively_JJ complex_JJ response_NN process_NN of_IN direct_JJ retrieval_NN ._SENT That_DT is_VBZ ,_, when_WRB faking_VVG ,_, respondents_NNS do_VVP not_RB try_VV to_TO retrieve_VV accurate_JJ information_NN but_CC rather_RB produce_VV a_DT response_NN solely_RB based_VVN on_IN the_DT fake_JJ instruction_NN combined_VVN with_IN the_DT social_JJ desirability_NN framing_NN of_IN the_DT item_NN ._SENT In_IN other_JJ words_NNS ,_, faking_VVG more_JJR often_RB leads_VVZ to_TO purely_RB semantic_JJ rather_RB than_IN self-referenced_JJ item_NN interpretations_NNS ._SENT More_RBR specifically_RB ,_, replicating_VVG previous_JJ research_NN (_( Holden_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 1985_CD ;_: Hsu_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 1989_CD )_) ,_, our_PP$ response_NN latency_NN data_NNS show_VVP shorter_JJR response_NN times_NNS when_WRB faking_VVG ,_, indicating_VVG lower_JJR cognitive_JJ load_NN ._SENT This_DT lower_JJR cognitive_JJ load_NN may_MD result_VV from_IN differences_NNS in_IN item_NN interpretation_NN between_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS ,_, such_PDT that_DT honest_JJ responding_VVG leads_NNS to_TO self-referenced_JJ interpretations_NNS of_IN the_DT item_NN content_NN ,_, whereas_IN faking_VVG leads_NNS to_TO direct_JJ retrieval_NN or_CC purely_RB semantic_JJ item_NN interpretations_NNS (_( i.e._FW ,_, does_VVZ this_DT item_NN reflect_VVP something_NN positive_JJ or_CC negative_JJ ?_SENT )_) ._SENT Because_IN semantic_JJ item_NN interpretations_NNS take_VVP less_JJR processing_NN time_NN than_IN self-referenced_JJ item_NN interpretations_NNS (_( Rogers_NP ,_, Kuiper_NP ,_, &_CC Kirker_NP ,_, 1977_CD )_) ,_, our_PP$ and_CC previous_JJ response_NN latency_NN findings_NNS indirectly_RB suggest_VVP that_IN/that semantic_JJ item_NN interpretations_NNS are_VBP more_RBR likely_JJ when_WRB faking_VVG ._SENT 
Extending_VVG previous_JJ research_NN ,_, however_RB ,_, our_PP$ eye-tracking_NN data_NNS show_VVP more_RBR direct_JJ evidence_NN for_IN a_DT semantic_JJ item_NN interpretation_NN characterization_NN of_IN the_DT response_NN process_NN when_WRB faking_VVG good_JJ ._SENT That_DT is_VBZ ,_, our_PP$ findings_NNS on_IN eye_NN fixation_NN locations_NNS and_CC eye_NN paths_NNS suggest_VVP that_IN/that compared_VVN to_TO honest_JJ responding_VVG ,_, the_DT response_NN pattern_NN when_WRB faking_VVG good_JJ more_RBR often_RB is_VBZ such_JJ that_IN/that after_IN having_VHG read_VVN the_DT item_NN ,_, people_NNS directly_RB fixate_VVP on_IN the_DT extreme_JJ response_NN option_NN that_WDT aligns_VVZ with_IN the_DT item_NN framing_NN ._SENT Such_JJ eye_NN paths_NNS are_VBP consistent_JJ with_IN a_DT direct_JJ retrieval_NN or_CC semantic_JJ item_NN interpretation_NN description_NN of_IN the_DT response_NN process_NN when_WRB faking_VVG ,_, because_IN respondents_NNS apparently_RB assessed_VVD the_DT item_NN content_NN in_IN terms_NNS of_IN desirable_JJ or_CC undesirable_JJ when_WRB reading_VVG the_DT question_NN ,_, such_JJ that_IN/that they_PP could_MD move_VV immediately_RB to_TO the_DT corresponding_JJ socially_RB desirable_JJ extreme_JJ response_NN option_NN ._SENT In_IN contrast_NN ,_, the_DT pattern_NN of_IN results_NNS for_IN answering_NN honestly_RB (_( i.e._FW ,_, slower_JJR response_NN times_NNS ,_, more_JJR fixations_NNS in_IN general_JJ ,_, more_JJR fixations_NNS on_IN the_DT middle_JJ response_NN categories_NNS ,_, and_CC less_JJR eye_NN paths_NNS from_IN question_NN directly_RB to_TO extreme_JJ response_NN option_NN )_) suggests_VVZ that_IN/that participants_NNS ,_, when_WRB responding_VVG honestly_RB ,_, engage_VV less_JJR in_IN semantic_JJ item_NN interpretations_NNS and_CC make_VV more_RBR considerate_JJ and_CC self-referenced_JJ choices_NNS ._SENT 
Our_PP$ findings_NNS indicate_VVP that_IN/that faking_VVG good_JJ leads_NNS to_TO the_DT adoption_NN of_IN an_DT extreme_JJ response_NN set_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, a_DT disproportionate_JJ favor_NN for_IN the_DT endpoints_NNS or_CC extreme_JJ categories_NNS of_IN the_DT response_NN scale_NN ;_: Lau_NP ,_, 2007_CD ;_: Naemi_NP ,_, Beal_NP ,_, &_CC Payne_NP ,_, 2009_CD )_) ._SENT Previous_JJ research_NN demonstrated_VVD that_IN/that favoring_VVG extreme_JJ responses_NNS is_VBZ related_VVN to_TO individual_JJ differences_NNS such_JJ as_IN intolerance_NN of_IN ambiguity_NN ,_, decisiveness_NN ,_, and_CC simplistic_JJ thinking_NN (_( Naemi_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2009_CD )_) ;_: ethnicity_NN (_( Bachman_NP &_CC O'Malley_NP ,_, 1984_CD )_) ;_: and_CC cultural_JJ differences_NNS such_JJ as_IN power_NN distance_NN and_CC masculinity_NN (_( Johnson_NP ,_, Kulesa_NP ,_, Cho_NP ,_, &_CC Shavitt_NP ,_, 2005_CD )_) ._SENT In_IN addition_NN to_TO characteristics_NNS of_IN the_DT participant_NN ,_, several_JJ studies_NNS examined_VVD contextual_JJ factors_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, item_NN format_NN )_) that_WDT may_MD induce_VV adoption_NN of_IN an_DT extreme_JJ response_NN set_VVN (_( see_VV Lau_NP ,_, 2007_CD )_) ._SENT Our_PP$ findings_NNS suggest_VVP another_DT important_JJ contextual_JJ factor_NN that_WDT induces_VVZ extreme_JJ responding_VVG ,_, that_WDT is_VBZ ,_, a_DT faking_VVG instruction_NN or_CC a_DT high-stakes_JJ situation_NN that_WDT evokes_VVZ faking_VVG behavior_NN ._SENT Future_JJ research_NN is_VBZ needed_VVN to_TO determine_VV the_DT similarities_NNS and_CC differences_NNS between_IN extreme_JJ response_NN styles_NNS (_( ERSs_NP )_) ,_, social_JJ desirability_NN ,_, and_CC faking_VVG ._SENT Lau_NP (_( 2007_CD )_) posed_VVD that_IN/that whereas_IN ERS_NP processes_NNS occur_VVP during_IN the_DT judgment_NN phase_NN in_IN the_DT response_NN process_NN ,_, social_JJ desirability_NN processes_NNS occur_VVP during_IN the_DT editing_VVG phase_NN ._SENT Similarly_RB ,_, Holtgraves_NP (_( 2004_CD )_) concluded_VVD that_IN/that social_JJ desirability_NN leads_VVZ to_TO the_DT operation_NN of_IN a_DT response_NN editing_VVG mechanism_NN ._SENT As_IN demonstrated_VVN by_IN the_DT present_JJ study_NN ,_, deliberate_JJ faking_VVG ,_, in_IN contrast_NN ,_, occurs_VVZ more_RBR immediately_RB during_IN the_DT item_NN interpretation_NN and_CC retrieval_NN phases_NNS ._SENT Combining_VVG these_DT notions_NNS ,_, we_PP propose_VVP that_DT faking_VVG refers_VVZ to_TO response_NN processes_NNS characterized_VVN by_IN semantic_JJ item_NN interpretations_NNS and_CC direct_JJ retrieval_NN ,_, ERS_NP refers_VVZ to_TO response_NN processes_NNS characterized_VVN by_IN self-referenced_JJ item_NN interpretations_NNS combined_VVN with_IN a_DT more_RBR extreme_JJ self-view_NN during_IN the_DT retrieval_NN and_CC judgment_NN phases_NNS ,_, and_CC social_JJ desirability_NN refers_VVZ to_TO self-referenced_JJ item_NN interpretations_NNS and_CC judgments_NNS that_WDT are_VBP checked_VVN for_IN social_JJ desirability_NN during_IN an_DT additional_JJ response_NN editing_VVG phase_NN ._SENT Future_JJ research_NN can_MD apply_VV eye-tracking_NN technology_NN to_TO verify_VV these_DT proposed_VVN differences_NNS by_IN comparing_VVG eye_NN movements_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, eye_NN fixations_NNS ,_, eye_NN paths_NNS )_) between_IN a_DT faking_VVG condition_NN (_( e.g._FW ,_, using_VVG an_DT instruction_NN similar_JJ to_TO the_DT one_CD in_IN the_DT present_JJ study_NN )_) and_CC a_DT heightened_JJ social_JJ desirability_NN condition_NN (_( e.g._FW ,_, instructing_VVG that_IN/that participants_NNS '_POS scores_NNS are_VBP used_VVN to_TO create_VV a_DT personal_JJ profile_NN ;_: Holtgraves_NP ,_, 2004_CD )_) ._SENT 
No_DT support_NN was_VBD found_VVN for_IN Holden_NP et_FW al._FW 's_POS (_( 1992_LS )_) interactive_JJ model_NN of_IN faking_VVG ._SENT For_IN both_DT response_NN latencies_NNS and_CC eye_NN fixations_NNS ,_, in_IN addition_NN to_TO the_DT main_JJ effect_NN for_IN instruction_NN (_( honest_JJ vs._CC fake_JJ good_NN )_) as_IN discussed_VVN above_IN ,_, a_DT main_JJ effect_NN was_VBD found_VVN for_IN item_NN framing_NN (_( positively_RB vs._CC negatively_RB keyed_VVN )_) ,_, such_JJ that_IN/that positively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS were_VBD responded_VVN to_TO faster_RBR and_CC with_IN less_JJR eye_NN fixations_NNS ._SENT This_DT finding_NN corresponds_VVZ with_IN and_CC extends_VVZ previous_JJ research_NN (_( Casey_NP &_CC Tryon_NP ,_, 2001_CD )_) ,_, showing_VVG longer_JJR response_NN latencies_NNS for_IN negatively_RB worded_VVN items_NNS than_IN for_IN positively_RB worded_VVN items_NNS ._SENT No_DT interactions_NNS indicating_VVG that_IN/that the_DT patterns_NNS for_IN honest_JJ responding_VVG on_IN positively_RB and_CC negatively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS were_VBD reversed_VVN from_IN those_DT for_IN faking_VVG good_JJ were_VBD present_JJ ._SENT Although_IN these_DT findings_NNS seem_VVP to_TO contradict_VV Holden_NP et_FW al._FW 's_POS interactive_JJ model_NN of_IN faking_VVG ,_, previous_JJ studies_NNS usually_RB found_VVD support_NN for_IN the_DT model_NN only_RB for_IN fake_JJ good_JJ versus_CC fake_JJ bad_JJ comparisons_NNS ,_, rather_RB than_IN for_IN fake_JJ good_JJ versus_CC honest_JJ comparisons_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, Brunetti_NP et_CC al_NP ._SENT ,_, 1998_CD ;_: Holden_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 1992_CD )_) ._SENT Furthermore_RB ,_, previous_JJ research_NN on_IN the_DT interactive_JJ model_NN is_VBZ mostly_RB based_VVN on_IN personality_NN items_NNS with_IN a_DT dichotomous_JJ true�false_NN response_NN scale_NN ._SENT By_IN using_VVG such_PDT a_DT scale_NN it_PP is_VBZ clear_JJ which_WDT alternative_NN is_VBZ the_DT socially_RB desirable_JJ response_NN and_CC which_WDT alternative_NN is_VBZ the_DT socially_RB undesirable_JJ response_NN ._SENT For_IN items_NNS with_IN a_DT 5-point_JJ response_NN scale_NN as_IN used_VVN in_IN the_DT present_JJ study_NN ,_, the_DT social_JJ desirability_NN of_IN the_DT response_NN alternatives_NNS is_VBZ more_RBR ambiguous_JJ ._SENT For_IN example_NN ,_, research_NN by_IN Kuncel_NP and_CC Tellegen_NP (_( 2009_CD )_) indicates_VVZ that_IN/that the_DT most_RBS socially_RB desirable_JJ response_NN is_VBZ not_RB always_RB the_DT extreme_JJ response_NN option_NN that_WDT corresponds_VVZ with_IN the_DT item_NN framing_NN ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, based_VVN on_IN these_DT findings_NNS ,_, future_JJ research_NN should_MD investigate_VV whether_IN Holden_NP et_FW al._FW 's_POS interactive_JJ model_NN of_IN faking_VVG may_MD hold_VV for_IN items_NNS with_IN 5-point_JJ Likert_NP scales_NNS when_WRB adjusting_VVG for_IN response_NN option_NN desirability_NN ,_, as_RB demonstrated_VVN by_IN Kuncel_NP and_CC Tellegen_NP ._SENT 
One_CD remarkable_JJ inconsistency_NN in_IN the_DT present_JJ study_NN findings_NNS is_VBZ that_IN/that ,_, on_IN the_DT one_CD hand_NN ,_, the_DT response_NN latency_NN and_CC eye-tracking_NN data_NNS clearly_RB suggest_VVP that_IN/that faking_VVG is_VBZ cognitively_RB less_RBR complex_JJ and_CC easier_JJR than_IN responding_VVG honestly_RB ,_, whereas_IN ,_, on_IN the_DT other_JJ hand_NN ,_, the_DT results_NNS on_IN the_DT perceived_VVN task_NN difficulty_NN items_NNS suggest_VVP that_IN/that participants_NNS found_VVD faking_VVG significantly_RB more_RBR difficult_JJ than_IN answering_VVG honestly_RB ._SENT Although_IN this_DT finding_NN remains_VVZ intriguing_JJ ,_, a_DT possible_JJ explanation_NN may_MD be_VB that_IN/that participants_NNS felt_VVD that_IN/that faking_VVG was_VBD not_RB so_RB much_RB difficult_JJ in_IN the_DT sense_NN of_IN being_VBG cognitively_RB complex_JJ but_CC more_JJR in_IN terms_NNS of_IN being_VBG ethically_RB difficult_JJ ._SENT Another_DT possible_JJ explanation_NN might_MD be_VB social_JJ desirability_NN responding_VVG on_IN the_DT task_NN difficulty_NN items_NNS ,_, such_JJ that_IN/that the_DT participants_NNS thought_VVD that_IN/that it_PP would_MD not_RB be_VB good_JJ to_TO find_VV faking_VVG very_RB easy_JJ ._SENT 
Limitations_NNS and_CC Boundary_NP Conditions_NPS 
Several_JJ boundary_NN conditions_NNS and_CC limitations_NNS have_VHP to_TO be_VB taken_VVN into_IN account_NN when_WRB interpreting_VVG the_DT present_JJ findings_NNS ._SENT An_DT important_JJ boundary_NN condition_NN is_VBZ the_DT study_NN setting_NN ,_, using_VVG instructed_VVD faking_VVG ._SENT Because_IN people_NNS were_VBD instructed_VVN to_TO fake_VV ,_, they_PP probably_RB did_VVD not_RB have_VH any_DT concern_NN with_IN the_DT accuracy_NN of_IN their_PP$ responses_NNS and_CC needed_VVD not_RB to_TO fear_VV that_IN/that their_PP$ faking_VVG behavior_NN was_VBD detected_VVN and_CC /_SYM or_CC punished_VVN ._SENT This_DT situation_NN likely_RB differs_VVZ from_IN actual_JJ selection_NN situations_NNS ,_, in_IN which_WDT participants_NNS may_MD have_VH more_JJR concerns_NNS with_IN the_DT accuracy_NN of_IN their_PP$ responses_NNS (_( thus_RB increasing_VVG self-referenced_JJ interpretations_NNS )_) and_CC may_MD fear_VV that_DT faking_VVG behavior_NN is_VBZ detected_VVN and_CC has_VHZ negative_JJ consequences_NNS ._SENT Such_JJ situations_NNS could_MD cause_VV people_NNS to_TO engage_VV in_IN less_RBR extreme_JJ and_CC more_RBR considerate_JJ faking_VVG behavior_NN ,_, characterized_VVN by_IN more_JJR complex_JJ response_NN processes_NNS ,_, resulting_VVG in_IN higher_JJR cognitive_JJ load_NN ,_, slower_JJR processing_NN ,_, and_CC probably_RB more_JJR eye_NN fixations_NNS ._SENT These_DT aspects_NNS may_MD explain_VV the_DT differences_NNS between_IN the_DT present_JJ results_NNS and_CC some_DT previous_JJ studies_NNS ._SENT For_IN example_NN ,_, our_PP$ findings_NNS might_MD be_VB viewed_VVN as_RB inconsistent_JJ with_IN the_DT literature_NN on_IN lying_VVG and_CC deceiving_VVG (_( e.g._FW ,_, DePaulo_NP et_CC al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2003_CD )_) ,_, which_WDT suggests_VVZ that_IN/that lying_VVG is_VBZ cognitively_RB more_JJR complex_NN (_( Vrij_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2001_CD ;_: Zuckerman_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 1981_CD )_) ._SENT However_RB ,_, in_IN the_DT present_JJ study_NN ,_, participants_NNS were_VBD not_RB so_RB much_RB asked_VVN to_TO lie_VV but_CC to_TO respond_VV to_TO the_DT test_NN items_VVZ such_JJ that_IN/that they_PP came_VVD across_RP as_IN the_DT ideal_JJ employee_NN ._SENT Also_RB ,_, our_PP$ response_NN latency_NN findings_NNS differed_VVD from_IN those_DT as_RB reported_VVN by_IN McDaniel_NP and_CC Timm_NP (_( 1990_CD )_) and_CC Holtgraves_NP (_( 2004_CD )_) ,_, which_WDT probably_RB can_MD be_VB explained_VVN by_IN the_DT type_NN of_IN manipulation_NN used_VVN to_TO induce_VV faking_VVG ._SENT Whereas_IN in_IN the_DT present_JJ study_NN participants_NNS were_VBD asked_VVN to_TO respond_VV such_JJ that_IN/that they_PP would_MD come_VV across_RP as_IN the_DT most_RBS suitable_JJ job_NN applicant_NN (_( cf_NN ._SENT McFarland_NP &_CC Ryan_NP ,_, 2000_CD ;_: Vasilopoulos_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2000_CD ;_: Zickar_NP &_CC Robie_NP ,_, 1999_CD )_) ,_, McDaniel_NP and_CC Timm_NP asked_VVD participants_NNS to_TO answer_VV the_DT questions_NNS exactly_RB the_DT same_JJ way_NN that_IN/that they_PP would_MD if_IN they_PP were_VBD taking_VVG the_DT test_NN for_IN a_DT job_NN they_PP were_VBD interested_JJ in_IN obtaining_VVG ,_, and_CC Holtgraves_NP instructed_VVD participants_NNS that_IN/that their_PP$ scores_NNS would_MD be_VB used_VVN to_TO create_VV a_DT personal_JJ profile_NN ._SENT These_DT latter_JJ instructions_NNS both_CC include_VVP elements_NNS that_WDT likely_RB induce_VV more_RBR self-referenced_JJ item_NN interpretations_NNS and_CC response_NN editing_VVG mechanisms_NNS ,_, which_WDT may_MD explain_VV the_DT longer_JJR response_NN times_NNS ._SENT Although_IN it_PP can_MD be_VB debated_VVN which_WDT instruction_NN is_VBZ best_JJS ,_, it_PP is_VBZ probably_RB likely_JJ that_IN/that both_DT types_NNS of_IN response_NN processes_VVZ (_( i.e._FW ,_, faking_VVG in_IN terms_NNS of_IN purely_RB semantic_JJ item_NN interpretations_NNS vs._IN social_JJ desirability_NN responding_VVG in_IN terms_NNS of_IN more_JJR self-references_NNS item_NN interpretations_NNS combined_VVN with_IN a_DT response_NN editing_VVG mechanism_NN )_) will_MD occur_VV in_IN test_NN settings_NNS ._SENT Consistent_JJ with_IN this_DT idea_NN ,_, Zickar_NP ,_, Gibby_NP ,_, and_CC Robie_NP (_( 2004_CD )_) found_VVD that_IN/that among_IN actual_JJ job_NN applicants_NNS ,_, one_PP can_MD distinguish_VV between_IN a_DT slight_JJ faking_VVG group_NN and_CC an_DT extreme_JJ faking_VVG group_NN ,_, in_IN addition_NN to_TO honest_JJ responders_NNS ._SENT Future_JJ research_NN should_MD therefore_RB distinguish_VV between_IN several_JJ degrees_NNS /_SYM types_NNS of_IN response_NN distortion_NN and_CC compare_VV the_DT effects_NNS of_IN different_JJ faking_VVG or_CC social_JJ desirability_NN instructions_NNS on_IN response_NN latencies_NNS and_CC eye_NN behavior_NN ._SENT 
With_IN the_DT exception_NN of_IN the_DT logistic_JJ regression_NN analyses_NNS for_IN distinguishing_VVG between_IN fakers_NNS and_CC honest-responders_NNS ,_, we_PP analyzed_VVD our_PP$ data_NNS using_VVG a_DT within-participants_NNS design_NN ._SENT Although_IN such_PDT a_DT design_NN likely_RB is_VBZ the_DT most_RBS appropriate_JJ for_IN understanding_VVG differences_NNS in_IN response_NN processes_NNS between_IN faking_VVG and_CC honest-responding_VVG ,_, because_IN it_PP removes_VVZ possible_JJ effects_NNS of_IN individual_JJ differences_NNS in_IN response_NN latencies_NNS and_CC eye_NN behavior_NN ,_, it_PP may_MD be_VB argued_VVN to_TO reduce_VV the_DT generalizability_NN of_IN the_DT findings_NNS to_TO operational_JJ settings_NNS ._SENT Therefore_RB ,_, we_PP repeated_VVD all_PDT our_PP$ analyses_NNS in_IN a_DT between-participants_NP design_NN ,_, using_VVG the_DT data_NNS from_IN the_DT first_JJ test_NN administration_NN only_RB ._SENT These_DT analyses_NNS demonstrated_VVD similar_JJ patterns_NNS regarding_VVG the_DT differences_NNS between_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS ,_, illustrating_VVG the_DT robustness_NN of_IN our_PP$ findings_NNS ._SENT 
Before_IN the_DT test_NN sessions_NNS started_VVD ,_, participants_NNS were_VBD told_VVN that_IN/that their_PP$ eye_NN movements_NNS were_VBD tracked_VVN ,_, which_WDT could_MD be_VB argued_VVN to_TO have_VH affected_VVN our_PP$ findings_NNS ._SENT Although_IN we_PP cannot_MD completely_RB rule_VV out_RP this_DT possibility_NN ,_, we_PP think_VVP it_PP is_VBZ unlikely_JJ ._SENT That_DT is_VBZ ,_, participants_NNS completed_VVD 105_CD test_NN items_NNS under_IN a_DT fake_JJ good_JJ and_CC under_IN an_DT honest_JJ instruction_NN ._SENT Participants_NNS were_VBD not_RB aware_JJ of_IN the_DT study_NN purpose_NN and_CC hypotheses_NNS or_CC of_IN the_DT reasons_NNS for_IN the_DT eye-tracking_NN ._SENT Although_IN people_NNS can_MD control_VV their_PP$ eye_NN movements_NNS to_TO some_DT extent_NN ,_, it_PP takes_VVZ considerable_JJ self-regulatory_JJ effort_NN (_( Everling_NP &_CC Fisher_NP ,_, 1998_CD )_) ._SENT For_IN these_DT reasons_NNS ,_, we_PP regard_VVP it_PP unlikely_JJ that_IN/that our_PP$ results_NNS are_VBP caused_VVN by_IN participants_NNS consciously_RB manipulating_VVG their_PP$ eye_NN movements_NNS differentially_RB between_IN the_DT two_CD conditions_NNS and_CC consistently_RB over_IN 105_CD test_NN items_NNS ._SENT 
Future_JJ research_NN is_VBZ needed_VVN to_TO cross-validate_VV and_CC examine_VV the_DT robustness_NN of_IN our_PP$ findings_NNS in_IN actual_JJ selection_NN settings_NNS ._SENT For_IN example_NN ,_, research_NN should_MD examine_VV the_DT generalizability_NN of_IN our_PP$ findings_NNS to_TO different_JJ samples_NNS ,_, different_JJ personality_NN measures_NNS ,_, and_CC different_JJ response_NN scales_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, ipsative_JJ tests_NNS ,_, true�false_NN items_NNS )_) ._SENT Although_IN we_PP could_MD have_VH cross-validated_VVN our_PP$ logistic_JJ regression_NN findings_NNS using_VVG the_DT second_JJ test_NN administration_NN ,_, future_JJ research_NN with_IN a_DT fresh_JJ sample_NN of_IN participants_NNS who_WP are_VBP not_RB influenced_VVN by_IN a_DT previous_JJ test_NN session_NN is_VBZ deemed_VVN preferable_JJ ._SENT Regarding_VVG the_DT robustness_NN of_IN our_PP$ findings_NNS in_IN actual_JJ selection_NN settings_NNS ,_, as_IN we_PP explicitly_RB instructed_VVD the_DT participants_NNS to_TO fake_VV good_JJ ,_, the_DT response_NN processes_NNS may_MD have_VH been_VBN different_JJ from_IN the_DT response_NN processes_VVZ of_IN fakers_NNS in_IN actual_JJ selection_NN contexts_NNS ._SENT Participants_NNS may_MD have_VH been_VBN less_RBR tense_JJ ,_, as_IN there_EX was_VBD no_DT threat_NN of_IN being_VBG caught_VVN on_IN faking_VVG ._SENT Future_JJ research_NN on_IN eye_NN movements_NNS and_CC faking_VVG should_MD study_VV differences_NNS in_IN eye_NN movement_NN between_IN job_NN applicants_NNS and_CC job_NN incumbents_NNS ._SENT Also_RB ,_, manipulations_NNS may_MD be_VB used_VVN that_RB better_RBR mimic_VV actual_JJ faking_VVG conditions_NNS ,_, for_IN example_NN ,_, by_IN warning_VVG participants_NNS in_IN the_DT faking_VVG condition_NN that_IN/that they_PP should_MD try_VV to_TO fake_VV without_IN getting_VVG caught_VVN ._SENT 
In_IN the_DT present_JJ study_NN ,_, test_NN items_NNS were_VBD categorized_VVN into_IN positively_RB and_CC negatively_RB keyed_JJ items_NNS ,_, because_IN item_NN framing_NN affects_VVZ response_NN latencies_NNS and_CC eye_NN behavior_NN ._SENT Recent_JJ work_NN by_IN Kuncel_NP and_CC Tellegen_NP (_( 2009_CD )_) indicates_VVZ that_IN/that items_NNS can_MD be_VB further_RBR classified_VVN based_VVN on_IN the_DT socially_RB desirability_NN profile_NN of_IN the_DT response_NN options_NNS ._SENT Whereas_IN some_DT items_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, �I_NNS am_VBP punctual�_NN )_) showed_VVD a_DT linear_JJ profile_NN indicating_VVG that_IN/that more_JJR endorsement_NN is_VBZ more_RBR socially_RB desirable_JJ ,_, other_JJ items_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, �I_NNS am_VBP talkative�_NN )_) were_VBD found_VVN to_TO show_VV inverted_JJ U-shape_NP patterns_NNS indicating_VVG that_IN/that the_DT middle_JJ response_NN options_NNS were_VBD most_RBS socially_RB desirable_JJ ._SENT An_DT interesting_JJ avenue_NN for_IN future_JJ research_NN relates_VVZ to_TO examining_VVG whether_IN using_VVG such_JJ item_NN characteristics_NNS may_MD lead_VV to_TO more_JJR specific_JJ insight_NN in_IN the_DT response_NN processes_VVZ when_WRB faking_VVG by_IN studying_VVG people_NNS 's_POS eye_NN behavior_NN per_IN item_NN type_NN ._SENT 
Lastly_RB ,_, future_JJ research_NN should_MD investigate_VV moderators_NNS in_IN the_DT relationship_NN of_IN faking_VVG /_SYM answering_VVG honestly_RB with_IN response_NN latencies_NNS and_CC eye_NN behavior_NN ._SENT For_IN example_NN ,_, previous_JJ faking_VVG research_NN demonstrated_VVD that_IN/that Integrity_NP ,_, Conscientiousness_NP ,_, and_CC Emotional_NP Stability_NP are_VBP negatively_RB related_VVN to_TO faking_VVG behavior_NN (_( McFarland_NP &_CC Ryan_NP ,_, 2000_CD )_) and_CC that_DT job_NN familiarity_NN affects_VVZ how_WRB impression_NN management_NN relates_VVZ to_TO response_NN latencies_NNS (_( Vasilopoulos_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2000_CD )_) ._SENT Extending_VVG these_DT studies_NNS ,_, future_JJ research_NN could_MD investigate_VV to_TO what_WP extent_NN cognitive_JJ ability_NN ,_, personality_NN ,_, job_NN familiarity_NN ,_, knowledge_NN of_IN and_NP /_SYM or_CC previous_JJ experience_NN with_IN personality_NN tests_NNS ,_, emotional_JJ arousal_NN ,_, and_CC item_NN content_NN influence_VVP the_DT effects_NNS of_IN faking_VVG on_IN response_NN latencies_NNS and_CC eye_NN behavior_NN ._SENT 
Practical_JJ Implications_NNS and_CC Conclusion_NN 
As_RB far_RB as_IN we_PP know_VVP ,_, this_DT study_NN is_VBZ the_DT first_JJ study_NN on_IN eye-tracking_NN and_CC faking_VVG on_IN personality_NN and_CC integrity_NN measures_NNS ._SENT The_DT eye-tracking_NN and_CC response_NN latency_NN findings_NNS were_VBD supportive_JJ of_IN the_DT idea_NN that_WDT instructed_VVD faking_VVG on_IN personality_NN tests_NNS is_VBZ characterized_VVN by_IN a_DT faster_JJR and_CC less_RBR cognitively_RB demanding_VVG response_NN pattern_NN ,_, characterized_VVN by_IN semantic_JJ item_NN interpretations_NNS and_CC direct_JJ retrieval_NN ._SENT Furthermore_RB ,_, differences_NNS in_IN eye_NN behavior_NN between_IN honest_JJ responding_VVG and_CC faking_VVG good_JJ were_VBD found_VVN to_TO be_VB useful_JJ in_IN identifying_VVG faking_VVG behavior_NN ._SENT For_IN example_NN ,_, having_VHG many_JJ fixations_NNS on_IN extreme_JJ response_NN categories_NNS (_( directly_RB after_IN having_VHG read_VVN the_DT question_NN )_) and_CC fewer_JJR fixations_NNS on_IN middle_JJ response_NN categories_NNS may_MD be_VB signs_NNS of_IN faking_VVG ._SENT Although_IN future_JJ research_NN is_VBZ needed_VVN to_TO replicate_VV these_DT results_NNS ,_, based_VVN on_IN the_DT present_JJ findings_NNS ,_, it_PP may_MD be_VB useful_JJ to_TO develop_VV faking_VVG indicators_NNS based_VVN on_IN eye-tracking_NN measures_NNS ._SENT However_RB ,_, the_DT development_NN of_IN such_JJ indicators_NNS should_MD be_VB based_VVN on_IN tailor-made_JJ research_NN for_IN the_DT particular_JJ personality_NN test_NN that_WDT is_VBZ used_VVN ._SENT Furthermore_RB ,_, in_IN addition_NN to_TO global_JJ indicators_NNS across_IN groups_NNS of_IN test_NN items_NNS (_( as_IN we_PP used_VVD )_) ,_, it_PP may_MD be_VB valuable_JJ to_TO examine_VV whether_IN identification_NN of_IN faking_VVG can_MD be_VB improved_VVN by_IN developing_VVG indicators_NNS based_VVN on_IN specific_JJ items_NNS that_WDT differentiate_VVP strongly_RB between_IN fakers_NNS and_CC honest_JJ responders_NNS ._SENT 
A_DT possible_JJ factor_NN that_WDT may_MD limit_VV the_DT practical_JJ applicability_NN of_IN eye-tracking_NN is_VBZ the_DT eye-tracking_NN equipment_NN ._SENT Although_IN the_DT technology_NN that_IN/that we_PP used_VVD is_VBZ much_RB less_RBR intrusive_JJ than_IN older_JJR eye-tracking_NN devices_NNS ,_, it_PP may_MD still_RB be_VB considered_VVN impractical_JJ ._SENT Other_JJ eye-tracking_NN devices_NNS are_VBP available_JJ that_WDT use_VVP a_DT laptop_JJ computer_NN with_IN a_DT built-in_JJ eye-tracking_NN camera_NN ,_, which_WDT may_MD be_VB relatively_RB easy_JJ to_TO use_VV in_IN operational_JJ settings_NNS ._SENT However_RB ,_, because_IN of_IN calibration_NN ,_, respondents_NNS will_MD always_RB be_VB aware_JJ of_IN the_DT fact_NN that_IN/that their_PP$ eye_NN behavior_NN is_VBZ recorded_VVN ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, similar_JJ to_TO using_VVG response_NN latencies_NNS or_CC social_JJ desirability_NN scales_NNS to_TO detect_VV faking_VVG ,_, test-takers_NNS may_MD potentially_RB be_VB able_JJ to_TO influence_VV their_PP$ eye_NN movements_NNS ,_, although_IN it_PP would_MD demand_VV considerable_JJ test_NN knowledge_NN and_CC self-regulation_NN to_TO consistently_RB influence_VV one_CD 's_POS own_JJ eye_NN movements_NNS over_IN an_DT entire_JJ test_NN session_NN ._SENT Nevertheless_RB ,_, this_DT is_VBZ an_DT important_JJ issue_NN that_WDT has_VHZ to_TO be_VB examined_VVN in_IN greater_JJR detail_NN before_IN applying_VVG eye-tracking_NN in_IN practice_NN ._SENT 
In_IN conclusion_NN ,_, despite_IN potential_JJ limitations_NNS regarding_VVG the_DT external_JJ validity_NN ,_, the_DT present_JJ study_NN contributes_VVZ to_TO the_DT literature_NN on_IN faking_VVG by_IN demonstrating_VVG differences_NNS in_IN eye_NN behavior_NN when_WRB faking_VVG good_JJ on_IN personality_NN test_NN items_NNS compared_VVN to_TO answering_VVG honestly_RB ,_, using_VVG innovative_JJ eye-tracking_NN technology_NN ._SENT Eye-tracking_NN may_MD be_VB promising_VVG for_IN the_DT field_NN of_IN personality_NN and_CC personnel_NNS selection_NN ,_, as_IN it_PP was_VBD demonstrated_VVN to_TO be_VB useful_JJ in_IN identifying_VVG faking_VVG behavior_NN over_IN and_CC beyond_IN using_VVG response_NN extremity_NN and_CC latency_NN data_NNS ._SENT In_IN addition_NN to_TO detecting_VVG faking_VVG behavior_NN ,_, eye-tracking_NN may_MD be_VB an_DT interesting_JJ tool_NN for_IN developing_VVG non-self-report_JJ personality_NN tests_NNS for_IN traits_NNS such_JJ as_IN optimism_NN or_CC anxiety_NN ,_, as_IN previous_JJ research_NN demonstrated_VVD that_IN/that eye_NN movements_NNS when_WRB looking_VVG to_TO visual_JJ stimuli_NNS relate_VVP to_TO trait_NN optimism_NN (_( Isaacowitz_NP ,_, 2005_CD )_) and_CC trait_NN anxiety_NN (_( Calvo_NP &_CC Avero_NP ,_, 2005_CD )_) ._SENT 

