Melche s, Klaus G.; Kanning, Uwe P.; Ba ends, A d J.; Ohlms, Ma ie L.
A icle — Published Ve sion
Game on, Faking o ? A e Game-Based Assessmen s Less
Suscep ible o Faking Than T adi ional Assessmen s?
Jou nal o Business and Psychology
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Melche s, Klaus G.; Kanning, Uwe P.; Ba ends, A d J.; Ohlms, Ma ie L. (2025) :
Game on, Faking o ? A e Game-Based Assessmen s Less Suscep ible o Faking Than T adi ional
Assessmen s?, Jou nal o Business and Psychology, ISSN 1573-353X, Sp inge US, New Yo k, Vol. 40,
Iss. 6, pp. 1323-1335,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10869-025-10019-6
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/333366
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Vol.:(0123456789)
Jou nal o Business and Psychology (2025) 40:1323–1335
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10869-025-10019-6
ORIGINAL PAPER
Game on, Faking o ? A e Game‑Based Assessmen s Less Suscep ible
oFaking Than T adi ional Assessmen s?
Ma ieL.Ohlms1,2 · KlausG.Melche s1 · UweP.Kanning3 · A dJ.Ba ends4,5
Accep ed: 1 Ap il 2025 / Published online: 9 Ap il 2025
© The Au ho (s) 2025
Abs ac
Game-based assessmen (GBA) in pe sonnel selec ion and assessmen has gained inc easing a en ion among esea che s and p ac-
i ione s in ecen yea s. A pos ula ed ad an age o his newselec ionme hod is i s sugges ed sui abili y o educe applican aking.
Howe e , cu en ly, i is unclea whe he GBAs a e indeed less suscep ible o aking han adi ional assessmen s. To add ess his
ques ion, we conduc ed an expe imen al s udy o examine whe he a GBA measu ing hones y-humili y does indeed educe aking
compa ed o a adi ional pe sonali y es . N = 171 pa icipan s we e andomly assigned o an hones o an applican condi ion
and hen comple ed a GBA and a adi ional es ha bo h measu ed hones y-humili y. Resul s showed ha es ake s we e able o
dis o hei esponses in he GBA and in he adi ional hones y-humili y es . Howe e , he aking e ec in he hones y-humili y
GBA was signi ican ly smalle han in he adi ional es . Thus, ou indings sugges ha using GBAs o measu e pe sonali y can
educe aking compa ed o adi ional es s o some deg ee bu ha GBAs a e no a panacea o comple ely p e en i .
Keywo ds Pe sonnel selec ion· Game-based assessmen · Faking· Gami ica ion· Se ious game· Hones y-humili y·
Pe sonali y
Applican s in a selec ion p ocess usually y o c ea e a posi-
i e imp ession o be pe cei ed as compe en and us wo -
hy, aiming o enhance hei chances o ge ing a job o e
(Ma cus, 2009). To achie e his goal, hey may emphasize
s eng hs, omi nega i e in o ma ion, o e en ab ica e in o -
ma ion abou hei skills o pe sonali y. When applican s
consciously s e ch he u h, lie abou quali ica ions, o
dis o es sco es du ing he selec ion p ocess o mee job
equi emen s, hey a e engaging in aking (Dono an e al.,
2014; Le ashina & Campion, 2007; Te & Simone , 2011).
Faking du ing selec ion p ocesses is a pe sis en conce n
among esea che s and p ac i ione s because i can a ec
applican s’ assessmen pe o mance (e.g., Bi keland e al.,
2006; Hu & Connelly, 2021; Viswes a an & Ones, 1999)
and hus who is ge ing hi ed (Rosse e al., 1998). Rela edly,
he e a e widesp ead conce ns ha aking may impai he
This s udy was p e- egis e ed a : h ps:// asp e dic ed. o g/ 6y4z-
q g7. pd . An ea lie e sion o his manusc ip was used as pa
o he i s au ho ’s doc o al disse a ion (Ohlms, M. L. (2024).
Digi iza ion in pe sonnel selec ion: Adap a ion and enhancemen
o adi ional pe sonnel selec ion ins umen s using gami ica ion
and game-based assessmen [Doc o al disse a ion]. kiz Uni e si ä
Ulm, Ge many).
Addi ional supplemen a y ma e ials may be ound he e by sea ching
on a icle i le h ps:// os . io/ colle c ions/ jbp/ disco e .
* Ma ie L. Ohlms
[email p o ec ed]g.de
Klaus G. Melche s
[email p o ec ed]
Uwe P. Kanning
U.Kanning@hs-osnab ueck.de
A d J. Ba ends
a.j.ba [email protected] .nl
1 Depa men o Psychology andEduca ion, Sec ion Wo k
andO ganiza ional Psychology, Uni e si ä Ulm, Ulm,
Ge many
2 Depa men o Psychology, Sec ion Wo k andO ganiza ional
Psychology, Uni e si y o F eibu g, Engelbe ge s aße 41,
79085F eibu g, Ge many
3 Uni e si y o Applied Sciences Osnab ück, Osnab ück,
Ge many
4 Leiden Uni e si y, Leiden, TheNe he lands
5 V ije Uni e si ei Ams e dam, Ams e dam, TheNe he lands
1324 Jou nal o Business and Psychology (2025) 40:1323–1335
psychome ic p ope ies o an assessmen and hus he quali y
o selec ion decisions (Robie e al., 2021; Salgado, 2016; Te
e al., 2006), pa icula ly o assessmen s ha a e a he easy
o ake, such as pe sonali y es s (Viswes a an & Ones, 1999).
A ela i ely new selec ion me hod ha is claimed o educe
aking is game-based assessmen (GBA, Bha ia & Ryan, 2018).
GBA in ol es he use o games (o en web- o in e ne -based)
speci ically designed o pe sonnel selec ion o assess impo an
job- ela ed cons uc s (A ms ong e al., 2016). GBAs— oge he
wi h gami ied assessmen s— all unde he b oade ca ego y o
game- ela ed assessmen s (Ohlms, 2024;Lande s & Sanchez,
2022). Howe e , while GBAs use a ious game elemen s and
ep esen ac ual games, gami ied assessmen is a edesign s a -
egy ha only adds one o mo e game elemen s o gami y an o h-
e wise adi ional non-gami ied assessmen (e.g., see he gami-
ied assessmen s by Lande s & Collmus, 2022; o by Ohlms
e al., 2025). Thus, a gami ied assessmen lea es he ac ual es
con en unchanged and only adds a limi ed numbe o game
elemen s o he assessmen . Acco dingly, gami ied assessmen s
ypically eel and unc ion much less like a game han a GBA.
Fo akeable cons uc s such as pe sonali y ai s, GBAs may
be less suscep ible o aking han adi ional selec ion es s, as
es ake s may be less awa e ha hey a e being es ed when
hey a e imme sed in a game, and may hus be less mo i a ed
o ake hei esponses (Bha ia & Ryan, 2018). Fu he mo e,
wi hin a GBA, i migh be less anspa en o applican s which
cons uc s measu ed. Thus, aking migh be mo e di icul as he
mos desi able esponse is less appa en o hem which educes
he oppo uni y o ake (Lande s & Sanchez, 2022). Howe e ,
ha dly any esea ch has examined whe he he use o GBAs can
indeed educe aking (Ramos-Villag asa e al., 2022).
To add ess his esea ch gap, we examined whe he a
pe sonali y GBA is less p one o aking han a adi ional
es . Speci ically, we conduc ed an expe imen o compa e
pa icipan s’ hones y-humili y sco es om a GBA and a a-
di ional es in an hones s. an applican condi ion. By doing
so, we ad anced he unde s anding o whe he GBAs, com-
pa ed o adi ional es s, educe aking suscep ibili y. Based
on heo e ical models o aking (e.g., Le ashina & Campion,
2006; Te & Simone , 2011), we posi ha mo i a ional and
si ua ional ac o s a ec he mo i a ion and he oppo uni y
o ake, and ha hese migh con ibu e o educed aking
suscep ibili y o GBAs. Fo o ganiza ions, he p esen s udy
highligh s whe he GBAs can be used o es ic applican s’
in en ional esponse in la ion.
Theo e ical Backg ound andP e ious
Resea ch
Resea ch on aking in selec ion ins umen s has a long his-
o y, especially o pe sonali y in en o ies (e.g., Bi keland
e al., 2006; Hu & Connelly, 2021; Viswes a an & Ones,
1999) bu also o o he selec ion me hods such as in e -
iews (e.g., Melche s e al., 2020) o si ua ional judgmen
es s (SJTs) (e.g., Pee e s & Lie ens, 2005). In he con ex
o pe sonnel selec ion, aking is de ined as “an in en ional
esponse beha io aimed a exe ing a posi i e in luence
on he hi ing decision” (G i i h e al., 2011, p. 345). Fak-
ing esea ch has shown ha he in en ional dis o ion o
esponses may be p oblema ic om bo h a heo e ical and
an applied pe spec i e, as i can in la e pe o mance sco es
(e.g., Bi keland e al., 2006; Hu & Connelly, 2021; Viswes-
a an & Ones, 1999), impac hi ing decisions (Rosse e al.,
1998), and nega i ely a ec he cons uc - (e.g., Boss e al.,
2015; Schmi & Ryan, 1993) and c i e ion- ela ed alidi y o
assessmen s (e.g., Dono an e al., 2014; Jeong e al., 2017;
Pe e son e al., 2011). Consequen ly, esponse dis o ion
emains a conce n o bo h esea che s and p ac i ione s
who con inue o seek e ec i e mi iga ion s a egies (e.g.,
Bill & Melche s, 2022; Dwigh & Dono an, 2003; Ma inez
& Salgado, 2021).
In he li e a u e, i is sugges ed ha GBA educes appli-
can aking, he eby po en ially acili a ing a mo e accu a e
measu emen o he a ge ed cons uc s (e.g., Lande s &
Sanchez, 2022; Woods e al., 2020). Howe e , empi ical
esea ch examining his sugges ion is sca ce. The e o e, we
se up he p esen s udy o e alua e he ex en o which his
claim holds ue. Bu o be e unde s and he po en ial o
pe sonali y GBAs o educe aking, i is i s necessa y o
conside he heo e ical backg ound o aking.
Theo e ical Models o Faking
Di e en heo e ical aking models (e.g., Ellingson &
McFa land, 2011; Le ashina & Campion, 2006; Te &
Simone , 2011) assume ha h ee key ac o s a ec aking
beha io and i s success: (1) applican s’ abili y o ake, (2)
hei mo i a ion o ake, and (3) he oppo uni y o ake in a
speci ic si ua ion. Fi s , aking poses a cogni i ely challeng-
ing ask, as one has o iden i y which esponse o beha io is
conside ed he mos socially desi able in a ce ain si ua ion
(Te & Simone , 2011). Acco dingly, he abili y o ake,
which is usually included as an indi idual di e ence a ia-
ble in he di e en aking models, is needed o e ec i e ak-
ing. In line wi h his, indi iduals sco ing highe on cogni i e
abili y (Geige e al., 2018; Le ashina e al., 2009) and on
he abili y o iden i y c i e ia (Kleinmann e al., 2011) end
o be mo e success ul in in la ing hei esponses because
hey a e be e a disce ning wha an assessmen in ends o
measu e and hen o adjus hei esponses in line wi h hese
a ge ed assessmen dimensions. In line wi h hese sugges-
ions, Buehl e al. (2019) ound ha hese abili ies we e
indeed ela ed o “be e ” aking (i.e., la ge sco e changes)
in simula ed selec ion in e iews. Second, he mo i a ion
o ake is in luenced by applican s’ pe sonali y (e.g., low
1325Jou nal o Business and Psychology (2025) 40:1323–1335
conscien iousness, McFa land & Ryan, 2000, o high sco es
on compe i i e wo ld iews o da k pe sonali y ai s, (Rou-
lin & K ings, 2016) bu can also be a ec ed by si ua ional
aspec s such as he o ganiza ional a ac i eness (Buehl &
Melche s, 2018). Finally, he oppo uni y o ake e e s o
he ex en o which a ce ain si ua ion enables aking o he
ex en o which he con en o an assessmen is akeable.
In he con ex o GBAs, bo h he mo i a ion and he
oppo uni y o success ully ake may be lowe ed. The
a ionale o his is, i s , ha while playing a GBA and
being imme sed in he game en i onmen , applican s migh
become abso bed in gameplay and may be less awa e ha
hey a e being es ed (Bha ia & Ryan, 2018). Consequen ly,
he mo i a ion o po ay hemsel es in a a o able ligh and
o engage in aking beha io may be weake . Addi ionally,
in a GBA, he indi idual i ems can be seamlessly embedded
in he game en i onmen and applican s may ha e o eac
simul aneously o dynamically shi ing scena ios wi hin
he game. Acco dingly, i may be less e iden which beha -
io s a e being assessed in a GBA and hus wha migh be a
socially desi able beha io in his si ua ion. Consequen ly,
he oppo uni y o success ully p esen onesel a o ably in
GBAs may be educed i he cons uc s measu ed a e less
anspa en o applican s (Woods e al., 2020). Fu he mo e,
GBAs may impose a highe cogni i e load compa ed o a-
di ional assessmen s due o hei in e ac i e and dynamic
na u e. The inc eased cogni i e load may u he educe he
oppo uni y o ake, as i equi es applican s o p ocess mul-
iple pieces o in o ma ion simul aneously, making i mo e
di icul o consciously adjus esponses in a socially desi -
able manne .
Re iew o P e ious Resea ch
A la ge body o esea ch on pe sonali y es s has shown ha
es ake s can (Viswes a an & Ones, 1999) and do (Bi -
keland e al., 2006; Hu & Connelly, 2021) posi i ely dis-
o hei sco es in pe sonali y in en o ies o enhance hei
chances o ecei ing a job o e . Speci ically, Viswes a an
and Ones ound ha es ake s ins uc ed o ake good in
lab se ings can in la e hei Big Fi e pe sonali y es sco es
compa ed o hose who esponded hones ly and he co -
esponding e ec sizes we e mode a e o la ge. Simila ly,
s udies on HEXACO pe sonali y in en o ies, which sup-
plemen s he Big Fi e by hones y-humili y (Ash on & Lee,
2007), also ound aking e ec s o he hones y-humili y
ac o (MacCann, 2013). Fu he mo e, s udies ha com-
pa ed sco es om eal applican s (high-s akes se ing) wi h
sco es om non-applican s (low-s akes se ing) o om
ano he low-s akes se ing also ound subs an ial esponse
in la ion e en hough he mean di e ences we e smalle han
lab s udies (Bi keland e al., 2006; Hu & Connelly, 2021).
No ably, esea ch shows ha hones y-humili y is pa icula ly
suscep ible o esponse dis o ion compa ed o he o he
HEXACO pe sonali y ac o s (Anglim e al., 2017; Hol op
e al., 2021). Gi en ha hones y-humili y is a highly alid
p edic o o coun e p oduc i e wo k beha io (Lee e al.,
2019; Ple ze e al., 2019), his migh lead o conce ns abou
nega i e e ec s o aking on he alidi y o applican s’ hon-
es y-humili y sco es.
In addi ion o pe sonali y in en o ies, he e is e idence
ha people can also in la e hei sco es in o he , non-sel -
epo selec ion ins umen s, bu he aking e ec s a e o en
smalle han in pe sonali y es s—e en when hese o he
ins umen s a e also designed o measu e he same pe son-
ali y cons uc s. Thus, es ake s a e able o in la e hei
sco es in o he me hods such as SJTs (Kas en e al., 2020)
and s uc u ed in e iews (Van Iddekinge e al., 2005), bu
he aking- ela ed mean di e ences we e smalle han in he
co esponding pe sonali y es s. In addi ion o his, ecen
esea ch ound ha aking e ec s in in e iews we e s onge
when hese we e less s uc u ed (Bill e al., 2024) which
p o ides u he e idence ha he choice and he design o
an assessmen ins umen can a ec he oppo uni y o ake.
Despi e he pos ula ed ad an age o GBAs o educe ak-
ing (e.g., Bha ia & Ryan, 2018; Woods e al., 2020), esea ch
in his domain emains sca ce and has ound he e ogeneous
esul s. In pa icula , Lande s and Collmus (2022) gami ied
a adi ional conscien iousness and openness es by embed-
ding i in o a s o yline and compa ed i s aking suscep ibil-
i y wi h a adi ional es . The gami ied conscien iousness
es showed dec eased aking suscep ibili y compa ed o
he non-gami ied e sion, whe eas he gami ied openness
es did no . In con as , Ba ends e al. (2019) ound ha
gami ied pe sonali y cues (e.g., choosing one om se en
ca s a ying in hei le el o luxu y) in ended o measu e
hones y-humili y we e as akeable as a adi ional sel -
epo hones y-humili y in en o y. Howe e , bo h Lande s
and Collmus and Ba ends e al. used gami ied assessmen s
ins ead o ully- ledged GBAs. Thus, hei assessmen s had
bo h only used a single game elemen and likely came ac oss
much mo e like a es o a adi ional assessmen a he han
a game.
Al hough Lande s and Collmus (2022) and Ba ends
e al. (2019) p o ide ini ial insigh s in o aking on gami-
ied assessmen s, o he bes o ou knowledge, o da e,
only Ba ends and De V ies (2023) in es iga ed aking in
an ac ual GBA. Speci ically, hey examined he akeabil-
i y o a GBA measu ing hones y-humili y, using a ake
good (S udy 1) and a ake speci ic (S udy 2) ins uc ion,
and compa ed sco es in he aking condi ions wi h hose
in a con ol condi ion. In bo h s udies, Ba ends and De
V ies ound no di e ences in hones y-humili y game
sco es be ween he ake good and con ol condi ions, sug-
ges ing ha es ake s we e unable o ake in he GBA.
Howe e , h ee limi a ions may po en ially es ic he
1326 Jou nal o Business and Psychology (2025) 40:1323–1335
gene alizabili y o hese esul s. Fi s , as no ed in hei
a icle, he aking ea men had only a limi ed e ec ,
as es ake s in he aking and con ol condi ion equally
indica ed answe ing ealis ically (in con as o making
a good imp ession in he aking condi ion). Secondly, as
pa icipan s in he con ol condi ion ecei ed no speci ic
ins uc ion (i.e., no hones y ins uc ion), hey may no ha e
answe ed hones ly, which migh ha e led o in la ed sco es
in he con ol condi ion. Thi dly, o answe he ques ion
o whe he GBAs a e less p one o aking han hei a-
di ional coun e pa s, a di ec compa ison o GBA sco es
in he aking and hones condi ion wi h hose ob ained in
a adi ional es would be necessa y. This is pa icula ly
ele an as compa ing e ec sizes om di e en s udies
would assume ha manipula ions ac oss di e en s ud-
ies a e equally s ong; howe e , his may no be he case.
The e o e, he cu en s udy aims o p o ide a clea e com-
pa ison o aking e ec s in di e en me hods measu ing
he same cons uc s.
Cu en Resea ch
As men ioned abo e, GBA is sugges ed as a coun e meas-
u e o aking. Hence, he p ima y goal o ou s udy was o
de e mine whe he a GBA assessing hones y-humili y does
indeed educe aking compa ed o a adi ional hones y-
humili y es . To answe his ques ion, we used a 2 (be ween-
subjec s ins uc ion: applican s. hones ins uc ion) × 2
(wi hin-subjec s selec ion ins umen : hones y-humili y
GBA s. adi ional hones y-humili y es ) mixed-subjec s
design.
In ou s udy, we ocused on he pe sonali y ai hones y-
humili y because i is a alid p edic o o all h ee majo
dimensions o job pe o mance— ask pe o mance, o gani-
za ional ci izenship beha io , and coun e p oduc i e wo k
beha io (Lee e al., 2019). Fu he mo e, o coun e p o-
duc i e wo k beha io , hones y-humili y was no only he
mos alid pe sonali y p edic o in se e al me a-analyses
bu e en had inc emen al alidi y abo e and beyond he
Big Fi e, cogni i e abili y, and in eg i y (Lee e al., 2019;
Ple ze e al., 2019, 2020). Howe e , as men ioned abo e,
hones y-humili y is pa icula ly p one o aking compa ed
o he o he HEXACO pe sonali y ai s (Anglim e al.,
2017; Hol op e al., 2021). Addi ionally, we also ha e o
acknowledge ha we only had access o a pe sonali y GBA
ha assesses hones y-humili y bu no he o he HEXACO
pe sonali y ai s. None heless, he esul s o he cu en
s udy may iden i y an uppe bound o aking e ec s o o he
pe sonali y GBAs.
Building on his easoning and on esea ch on aking in
pe sonali y es s e iewed abo e, we hypo hesize ha i e-
spec i e o he selec ion ins umen (i.e., adi ional es s.
GBA), assessmen s measu ing hones y-humili y a e p one
o esponse in la ion.
Hypo hesis 1: Pa icipan s in he applican condi ion will
ecei e mo e a o able hones y-humili y es sco es bo h
(a) in a adi ional hones y-humili y es and (b) in an
hones y-humili y GBA han pa icipan s in he hones
condi ion.1
As explained abo e, he use o pe sonali y GBAs, in
con as o adi ional pe sonali y in en o ies, migh po en-
ially limi he o e all deg ee o aking. Speci ically, when
imme sed in a GBA, es ake s migh eel less mo i a ed
o in la e hei esponses, as hey may be less awa e o
being es ed (Bha ia & Ryan, 2018). Fu he mo e, in he
complex, dynamic game en i onmen o a GBA, i may be
less anspa en o es ake s wha cons i u es desi able
beha io . Consequen ly, pe sonali y GBAs may be less
suscep ible o aking compa ed o adi ional pe sonali y
es s in which hey can con enien ly adap hei esponses
on he a ing scale o po ay hemsel es in a posi i e ligh .
Acco dingly, we aim o examine whe he GBAs migh
indeed educe aking suscep ibili y.
Hypo hesis 2: The di e ence in hones y-humili y es
sco es be ween he applica ion condi ion and he hones
condi ion will be la ge o a adi ional es han o a
GBA o hones y-humili y.
Me hod
Sample
We conduc ed an a-p io i powe analysis o de e mine he
sample size o a powe o 0.80 o es ou hypo heses. The
assumed e ec sizes we e based on p e ious aking esea ch
(Viswes a an & Ones, 1999). This analysis e ealed an N o
126 o a 2 × 2 (be ween-subjec s: ins uc ion [i.e., hones s.
applican condi ion] × wi hin-subjec s: selec ion ins umen
[i.e., GBA s. adi ional es ]) mixed analysis o a iance
(ANOVA) o de ec an in e media e-sized wi hin-subjec s
main e ec and a small o in e media e-sized wi hin-be ween
in e ac ion (i.e., = 0.15 o d = 0.30), assuming a co ela-
ion among epea ed measu es o = 0.30 based on p e ious
1 This s udy was p e- egis a ed a : h ps:// asp e dic ed. o g/ 6y4z-
q g7. pd .. Fo he sake o anspa ency, we would like o poin ou
ha in esponse o eedback ecei ed du ing he e iew p ocess, we
ha e made some changes o ou p e- egis e ed analysis plan. These
changes ha e been made o imp o e cla i y and o be e align wi h
he e iewe s’ sugges ions, while main aining he in eg i y o ou
o iginal hypo heses.
1327Jou nal o Business and Psychology (2025) 40:1323–1335
esea ch (Viswes a an & Ones, 1999). To ensu e ha ou
sample was la ge enough o es ou hypo heses a e he
po en ial exclusion o pa icipan s who did no mee ou
inclusion c i e ion o being able o co ec ly answe a
manipula ion check, we aimed o collec da a om 200 pa -
icipan s. Pa icipan s we e ec ui ed ia di ec con ac .
Two hund ed uni e si y s uden s om di e en disciplines
and uni e si ies in Ge many olun a ily pa icipa ed in he
s udy, wi h 100 pa icipan s each in he hones and he applican
condi ion. Due o ailing he manipula ion check (see below),
we excluded 26 pa icipan s be o e da a analyses. Fu he mo e,
due o echnical p oblems wi h he hones y-humili y GBA
se e , he esul s o h ee pa icipan s we e los . The e o e,
we excluded hese h ee pa icipan s o all analyses. Thus, he
o al N was 171 (113 women, 57 men, and 1 di e se pa ici-
pan ), wi h 89 pa icipan s in he hones condi ion and 82 in
he applican condi ion. Age anged om 18 o 41 yea s (M =
22.89, SD = 3.18). The majo i y o he pa icipan s epo ed
a Ge man Abi u ( he inal seconda y-school examina ion in
Ge many quali ying o uni e si y admission) as hei high-
es educa ional deg ee (89.48%), whe eas 7.60% al eady had a
bachelo ’s deg ee, and 2.92% had a mas e ’s deg ee.
P ocedu e andExpe imen al Condi ions
The s udy used a mixed 2 × 2 design wi h ins uc ion (hon-
es s. applican condi ion) as a be ween-subjec s ac o and
selec ion ins umen (a adi ional es s. GBA assessing
hones y-humili y) as a wi hin-subjec s ac o . Da a collec-
ion ook place in uni e si y acili ies. Fi s , we ob ained
pa icipan s’ in o med consen . Then, we andomly assigned
hem o ei he he hones o he applican condi ion.
Pa icipan s in he hones condi ion we e old ha he goal
o he s udy was o alida e wo adi ional es s and a com-
pu e game. They we e asked o answe all i ems hones ly and
we e assu ed ha hei answe s would be kep con iden ial and
be used o esea ch pu poses only. In con as , pa icipan s in
he applican condi ion we e ins uc ed o imagine ha hey
had applied o a ainee p og am a a ic i ious o ganiza ion
and had now been in i ed o a ec ui men e en a he o gani-
za ion as pa o he selec ion p ocess. Speci ically, hey we e
ins uc ed o ac as highly in e es ed and sui able applican s.
Fu he mo e, o simula e a high-s akes se ing and o enhance
hei mo i a ion o pu hei bes oo o wa d, pa icipan s in
he applican condi ion we e old ha he op h ee pa ici-
pan s would each ecei e 50 Eu os.
A e ecei ing ei he he hones o he applican ins uc-
ion, all pa icipan s comple ed a GBA and a pape –pen-
cil es assessing hones y-humili y. To con ol o possible
o de e ec s, he o de in which pa icipan s comple ed hese
assessmen s was andomized. In he las pa o he s udy,
pa icipan s comple ed an online ques ionnai e assessing
hei demog aphics as well as he manipula ion check.
Measu es
Hones y‑Humili y Game‑Based Assessmen
As he pe sonali y GBA, we used he Building Docks web-
based assessmen game designed o assess hones y‐humil-
i y (see Ba ends e al., 2022, o a de ailed desc ip ion o
he GBA). P io s udies on his GBA (Ba ends & De V ies,
2023; Ba ends e al., 2022) ound con e gen co ela ions
o abou 0.33/0.34 be ween hones y-humili y GBA sco es
and sel - epo ed hones -humili y sco es as well as suppo
o he disc iminan alidi y o he GBA in compa ison o
sel - epo s o he o he i e HEXACO ai s and cogni i e
abili y. Fu he mo e, he GBA was also a alid p edic o o
chea ing o inancial gain (Ba ends e al., 2022).
In he Building Docks GBA, es ake s ake on he ole o
a po owne wi h he objec i e o collabo a i ely building a
po oge he wi h h ee compu e -con olled cha ac e s and
u ning i p o i able. The beha io s o he compu e -con olled
cha ac e s we e ixed o make he game as s anda dized as
possible. The GBA is played as a u n-based game whe e
e en s (i.e., i ems e e ing o a speci ic sub ask) a e p esen ed
in a ixed o de o he es ake s and he game con inues un il
all i ems a e comple ed e en hough es ake s gene ally u n
he po p o i able abou hal way h oughou he game ( he
exac iming is dependen on he beha io o he playe ).
This GBA con ains h ee sub asks: economic games, i -
ual cues, and SJT i ems. Mos i ems o he sub asks we e
c ea ed o measu e hones y-humili y, bu he sub asks also
included se e al ille i ems ( a ge ing o he HEXACO ai s,
howe e , oo ew o eliably measu e hese ai s; see Ba ends
e al., 2022). The main game elemen is he economic games,
whe e money is ans e ed be ween cha ac e s and coope a-
i e beha io is associa ed wi h a highe hones y-humili y
sco e. The i ems a e scena io-based adap a ions o well-
known economic games such as he dic a o game and he
public goods game (Van Lange e al., 2014). Fu he mo e,
i ual cues (Ba ends e al., 2019) a e used as ewa ds du -
ing he game, allowing playe s o pe sonalize hei cha ac e
and he po . He e, he choice o less luxu ious i ems (e.g., a
basic au omobile) is coded as highe hones y-humili y han
he choice o mo e luxu ious i ems (e.g., a spo s ca ). Mo eo-
e , he SJT i ems aim o c ea e a sepa a e s o yline wi hin he
GBA, and he answe op ions ep esen di e en deg ees o
hones y-humili y (e.g., whe he o no he playe makes a alse
p omise o ob ain a pe mi o an e en in he po ).2 In e nal
2 We used Ve sion 1.1 o he GBA ha dec eased he leng h and
complexi y o se e al ins uc ions and i ems compa ed o he e -
sion used in he o iginal publica ions. Howe e , he meaning o i em
con en was no changed excep o one SJT i em ha was comple ely
ew i en as i was conside ed oo sub le in he o iginal e sion o he
GBA.
1328 Jou nal o Business and Psychology (2025) 40:1323–1335
consis ency o he o e all hones y-humili y sco e based on
39 i ems was α = 0.85. The in e nal consis encies o he h ee
sub asks we e 0.59 o he SJT i ems, 0.85 o he i ual cues,
and 0.67 o he economic games. Coe icien alpha o he
SJT i ems was compa able o o he SJTs assessing hones y-
humili y (e.g., α = 0.50 by Oos om e al., 2019).
T adi ional Pe sonali y Tes
As he adi ional es measu ing hones y-humili y, we used
he 16 hones y-humili y i ems om he Ge man e sion o
he HEXACO- 100 (Lee & Ash on, 2018). I ems (e.g., “I
would ne e accep a b ibe, e en i i we e e y la ge”) we e
answe ed on 5-poin Like scales om 1 = s ongly disag ee
o 5 = s ongly ag ee (α = 0.88).
Manipula ion Checks
We included wo manipula ion checks. Fi s , a he end o
he s udy, pa icipan s had o answe he ques ion “Which
o he ollowing answe op ions bes desc ibes he
ins uc ions you ecei ed a he beginning o he s udy?”
by choosing one o he ou op ions: “answe hones ly,”
“answe as i I was he mos sui able candida e,” “ he e
was no speci ic ins uc ion,” o “I don’ emembe he
ins uc ion.” As no ed abo e, pa icipan s who ailed o
answe his manipula ion check co ec ly we e excluded
om u he analyses (8 pa icipan s in he hones condi-
ion and 18 in he applican condi ion). And as a second
manipula ion check o assess he e ec i eness o ou
manipula ion in inducing highe aking in he applican
condi ion compa ed o he hones condi ion, we used
i e i ems om he aking a emp scale de eloped by
Ba ends e al. (2019). These i ems used a 5-poin Like
scale anging om 1 = s ongly disag ee o 5 = s ongly
ag ee (α = 0.86, see Table3 om he Appendix o hese
and he ollowing i ems). The i ems we e ansla ed in o
Ge man and checked wi h back- ansla ion.
Video Game Expe ience
Pa icipan s’ ideo game expe ience was measu ed using
i e i ems (α = 0.94) om Bou gonjon e al. (2010) in he
Ge man ansla ion om Ohlms e al. (2024a).
Table 1 Desc ip i e in o ma ion and co ela ions among s udy a iables
No e. N = 89 (hones condi ion) and 82 (applican condi ion). In e co ela ions o he hones condi ion a e p esen ed below he diagonal, and
in e co ela ions o he applican condi ion a e p esen ed abo e he diagonal. Mean sco es o pe o mance in he hones y-humili y GBA and
hones y-humili y es a e p esen ed as z-sco es. Gende is coded as 0 = male, 1 = emale
GBA =game-based assessmen , ad. = adi ional, SJT =si ua ional judgmen es , VC = i ual cues, EG= economic games
a n = 81 ( he di e se pa icipan was d opped o all co ela ions in ol ing gende )
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Va iable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
M22.78 0.74 1.94 0.66 0.45 0.19 0.48 0.22
SD 2.73 0.44 1.04 0.67 0.93 1.04 0.91 0.95
1. Age 22.99 3.56 − 0.05 0.33** 0.03 0.18 0.05 0.14 0.20
2. Gende a0.60 0.49 0.14 − 0.54*** 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.12 − 0.11
3. Video game expe ience 2.32 1.26 − 0.09 − 0.61*** 0.06 0.08 0.04 − 0.05 0.28*
4. Hones y-humili y ad. es o e all − 0.60 0.86 0.15 0.10 − 0.02 0.33** 0.30** 0.24* 0.25*
5. Hones y-humili y GBA o e all − 0.41 0.88 − 0.05 − 0.06 − 0.00 0.43*** 0.64*** 0.88*** 0.67***
6. Hones y-humili y GBA: SJT − 0.17 0.93 − 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.48*** 0.74*** 0.36*** 0.32**
7. Hones y-humili y GBA: VC − 0.45 0.87 − 0.08 − 0.00 − 0.07 0.36*** 0.85*** 0.49*** 0.34**
8. Hones y-humili y GBA: EG − 0.21 1.01 0.08 − 0.15 0.09 0.15 0.60*** 0.37*** 0.15
Table 2 Means, s anda d de ia ions, and e ec sizes o he compa i-
son o sco es in he selec ion ins umen s in he hones s. he appli-
can condi ion
No e. nhones = 89; napplican = 82. Values a e p esen ed as z-sco es pe
ins umen o allow compa ison o sco es ac oss ins umen s
a Values o Cohen’s d e e o he di e ence in independen sample
- es s be ween he hones and applican condi ions; posi i e alues
o Cohen’s d indica e highe means in he applican condi ion
**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Selec ion ins umen Hones Applican Cohen’s da
M (SD)M (SD)
T adi ional es o e all
sco e
− 0.60 (0.86) 0.66 (0.67) 1.62***
GBA o e all sco e − 0.41 (0.88) 0.45 (0.93) 0.95**
GBA:SJT i ems − 0.17 (0.93) 0.19 (1.04) 0.37*
GBA: i ual cues − 0.45 (0.87) 0.48 (0.91) 1.05***
GBA:economic games − 0.21 (1.01) 0.22 (0.95) 0.44**
1329Jou nal o Business and Psychology (2025) 40:1323–1335
Resul s
Means, s anda d de ia ions, in e co ela ions, and eliabili-
ies o he s udy a iables a e shown in Table1. In o ma-
ion o he hones condi ion is p esen ed below he diagonal
and o he applican condi ion abo e he diagonal. Mean
es sco es o he wo assessmen ins umen s a e shown
as z-sco es pe ins umen o allow a compa ison o sco es
ac oss ins umen s.
Compa ed o p e ious s udies by Ba ends and De
V ies (2023) and Ba ends e al. (2022), we ound simi-
la co ela ions be ween he hones y-humili y GBA
and he adi ional hones y-humili y es . The co ela-
ion be ween he wo assessmen ins umen s was also
compa able o Oos om e al. (2019), who de eloped
an hones y-humili y SJT and alida ed i agains sel -
epo ed hones y-humili y. In addi ion, ou esul s a e
also in line wi h me a-analy ic esul s ha ound con e -
gen alidi ies anging om 0.31 o 0.56 be ween di -
e en adi ional pe sonali y sel - epo s measu ing he
same pe sonali y ai (Pace & B annick, 2010). When
compa ed o he me a-analy ic esul s o he concep u-
ally closes Big Fi e ai , ag eeableness, his a e age
co ela ion be ween sel - epo s was = 0.31. Mo eo e ,
he co ela ion be ween sel - epo s and GBA measu es
o he same ai is also expec ed o be somewha lowe
as he e should be less common me hod bias be ween a
GBA and a sel - epo in compa ison o di e en sel -
epo ins umen s as he e a e no sha ed esponse s yles,
common scale o ma s, o iden ical scale ancho s (Pod-
sako e al., 2024) be ween hese wo me hods. Fu he -
mo e, he co ela ion be ween he GBA sco e and he a-
di ional es sco e o hones y-humili y was desc ip i ely
sligh ly weake in he applican condi ion ( = 0.33, p <
0.01) compa ed o he hones condi ion ( = 0.43, p <
0.001). Howe e , a one- ailed S eige ’s (1980) es o
independen g oups showed ha he co ela ions we e
no signi ican ly di e en , z = 0.75, p = 0.45.
In a p elimina y analysis, we assessed po en ial di -
e ences be ween pa icipan s in he hones and applican
condi ions ega ding age and ideo game expe ience using
- es s o independen g oups and ega ding gende using a
χ2- es . Pa icipan s in bo h condi ions we e compa able in
e ms o age, (169) = 0.43, p = 0.67, d = 0.07, and gende ,
χ2(2) = 5.10, p = 0.08. Howe e , g oups di e ed ega ding
hei ideo game expe ience, (166.81) = 2.15, p = 0.03, d =
0.33 (equali y o a iances could no be assumed). The e-
o e, we included ideo game expe ience as a co a ia e o
subsequen analyses.
To es he e ec i eness o ou applican ins uc ion
in p omo ing aking a emp s in he applican condi ion
ela i e o he hones condi ion, we conduc ed an independ-
en samples Welch’s - es (equali y o a iances could no
be assumed) o compa e sco es on he aking a emp scale.
This es con i med ha ou manipula ion was success ul
so ha he aking a emp s we e signi ican ly highe in he
applican condi ion (M = 4.58, SD = 0.49) han in he hon-
es condi ion (M = 2.92, SD = 0.88), (124.20) = 15.07, p <
0.001, d = 2.36.
Tes s o Hypo heses
To assess whe he pa icipan s in he applican condi ion
ecei ed mo e a o able hones y-humili y sco es o he
adi ional es and he GBA han in he hones condi-
ion, we conduc ed a 2 (ins uc ion: hones s. applican
condi ion) × 2 (selec ion ins umen : adi ional hones y-
humili y es s. hones y-humili y GBA) mixed ANCOVA
wi h es sco es on he di e en selec ion ins umen s
as dependen a iables and ideo game expe ience as a
co a ia e. In line wi h Hypo hesis 1, he e was a la ge
signi ican main e ec wi h pa icipan s in he applican
condi ion sco ing highe han pa icipan s in he hones
condi ion, F(1, 168) = 96.01, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.36 (see
Table2 and Fig.1). In con as , he e was no main e ec
o he selec ion ins umen , F(1, 168) = 0.09, p = 0.76,
η2p = 0.001.
Addi ionally, we examined Hypo hesis 2, which p e-
dic ed a la ge di e ence be ween pa icipan s’ hones y-
humili y sco es in he applican s. hones condi ion
o he adi ional es han o he GBA. To do so, we
conside ed he ins uc ion × selec ion ins umen in e ac-
ion o he 2 × 2 ANCOVA, which also u ned ou o be
signi ican , F(1, 168) = 7.07, p = 0.009, η2p = 0.04. This
esul e lec ed a smalle aking e ec in he GBA (d =
0.95, p < 0.001) han in he adi ional es (d = 1.62, p <
0.001).3
Fu he mo e, we examined whe he pa icipan s in he
hones and applican condi ion di e ed in hei sco es on he
h ee ypes o asks included in he hones y-humili y GBA:
SJTs, i ual cues, and economic games ( hese analyses
we e no p e- egis e ed). To do so, we conduc ed a one-way
MANCOVA wi h he ins uc ion (hones s. applican ) as he
independen a iable, he ask ypes as dependen a iables,
and ideo game expe ience as co a ia e. Resul s e ealed
a signi ican mul i a ia e e ec , Wilks’ λ = 0.78, F(3, 166)
3 We also epea ed he analyses wi hou including ideo game expe-
ience as a co a ia e. This did no change he esul s meaning ully;
main e ec ins uc ion: F(1, 169) = 98.05, p <.001, η2p =.37; main
e ec selec ion ins umen : F(1, 169) = 0.01, p =.91, η2p <.001; in e -
ac ion e ec : F(1, 169) = 7.56, p =.007, η2p =.04.
1330 Jou nal o Business and Psychology (2025) 40:1323–1335
= 15.50, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.22. Fu he mo e, sepa a e epea ed
measu es ANCOVAs also e ealed signi ican e ec s o he
SJT i ems, F(1, 168) = 5.83, p = 0.02, d = 0.37, i ual cues,
F(1, 168) = 43.78, p < 0.001, d = 1.05, and economic games,
F(1, 168) = 10.37, p = 0.002, d = 0.44.4 Thus, he i ual cues
yielded a la ge aking e ec han he o he wo ask ypes.5
Discussion
We aimed o examine whe he GBAs, a ela i ely new
me hod in pe sonnel selec ion and assessmen , educe aking
as pos ula ed in he li e a u e (Bha ia & Ryan, 2018; Woods
e al., 2020). Ou esul s e ealed wo impo an hings.
Fi s , we ound ha pa icipan s we e able o dis o hei
hones y-humili y sco es bo h in a sel - epo pape –pencil
hones y-humili y es as well as in a GBA assessing hones y-
humili y. Second, howe e , and in line wi h he claims in he
li e a u e, we ound ha he hones y-humili y GBA was less
suscep ible o aking han a adi ional hones y-humili y es .
Theo e ical andP ac ical Implica ions
Ou s udy ad ances he unde s anding o aking in GBAs
in se e al aspec s. Fi s , in line wi h p e ious me a-ana-
ly ic esul s (Bi keland e al., 2006; Hu & Connelly, 2021;
Fig. 1 Resul s o wo-way
mixed ANCOVA o hones y-
humili y sco es as dependen
a iables, selec ion ins umen
as a wi hin-subjec s ac o , and
expe imen al condi ion as a
be ween-subjec s ac o
No e. nhones = 89; napplican = 82. Values a e p esen ed as z-sco es pe ins umen o allow
compa ison o sco es ac oss ins umen s.
**
p
< .01. ***
p
< .001.
4 Again, an analysis wi hou including ideo game expe ience as a
co a ia e did no change he esul s quali a i ely o he mul i a ia e
es o he subsequen ANOVAs.
5 Addi ionally, we checked whe he he o e all GBA sco e co e ed
all hones y-humili y ace s equally as hese may di e in hei akea-
bili y. We he e o e eanalyzed he Ba ends e al. (2022) S udy 2 da a
ha used he ull-leng h hones y-humili y scale wi h he GBA. The
compa isons we e made using he p ocedu e de eloped by De V ies
e al. (2020) o check o masking and cancela ion e ec s. The epo s
showed he e we e no signi ican di e ences be ween he co ela ions
o he ace s and o e all hones y-humili y o he GBA a e co ec -
ing o mul iple compa isons (see Ba ends e al., 2024, and also see
TableS1 in he online supplemen ).
