The Difference Between Faking an Assessment and Just Being Optimistic
When a job candidate turns in a sales assessment with near-perfect scores, the first instinct for many hiring managers is skepticism. But the research on positive response bias suggests that skepticism, while reasonable, should be applied carefully. There is a meaningful difference between a candidate who genuinely sees themselves as capable and one who set out to manipulate the results.
Two Very Different Motivations
Decades of psychological research have identified positive response bias as a multidimensional phenomenon. On one end of the spectrum, there is conscious, deliberate faking. The individual knows the desired answers, shapes their responses accordingly, and submits a profile that does not reflect reality.
On the other end, there is what researchers call habitual or nonconscious positive bias. This person is not strategically gaming the test. They simply hold an elevated view of their own abilities. That view may be slightly exaggerated, but it is sincere. And as organizational studies have repeatedly shown, socially desirable responding of this type does not reliably alter the underlying factor structure of the assessment or invalidate its predictive value.
Why This Distinction Matters in Hiring
If you treat all positive response bias as deliberate faking, you risk dismissing candidates who are genuinely confident and, as the data suggests, may actually perform at a higher level because of it. You also risk creating a follow-up process that feels accusatory rather than exploratory, which puts good candidates on the defensive.
The more productive question is not did this person try to game the test, but can this person back up what they said? One approach generates suspicion. The other generates information.
What Deliberate Faking Actually Looks Like
Extreme scores are the clearest signal of potential manipulation. On the SPQ/FSA, Brake scores of 10 or below fall into what researchers call the unrealistic range. Only about 1% of the population scores this low. These scores do not represent the absence of call reluctance. They represent a statistical impossibility for most humans, including verified top producers.
Scores in the improbable range of 11 to 15 are also worth noting. They are theoretically achievable but highly unlikely to reflect an honest self-assessment. When combined with high scores on both the Embellishment and Positive Posturing scales, these profiles deserve a structured follow-up.
The Right Way to Follow Up
The guidelines in the SPQ/FSA research are clear: when a candidate's scores are unusually favorable, give them the chance to own those scores. The interview should begin from a place of affirmation, not interrogation. Commend the candidate on their results and ask them to share the specifics behind them.
Ask about the revenue they generated. Ask them to walk through how they prospect for new business. Role-play a scenario where a prospect says no. Listen for specificity, resilience, and a concrete plan. People who have earned their scores can usually demonstrate it. People who fabricated them typically cannot hold up under specific, experience-based questioning.
Know Before You Interview
If you want to get a baseline read on where your candidates or current team members genuinely stand before the full assessment, our free EKG Survey is a fast starting point. Visit callreluctance.com/free-call-reluctance-survey to get a quick pulse on call reluctance levels across your team.
