Abstract
In this article, we examine how recruiters and applicants talk about personality tests, reflecting presuppositions about personality and its accessibility. Using video-recorded data from 21 Finnish job interviews, we show how the personality test functions as a discursive object for managing stakes in the recruitment process. When applicants referred to the test after receiving positive evaluations, they emphasized its ability to reveal their personality, thus reinforcing the evaluation. In these moments, both recruiters and applicants treated the test as structured and purposeful. When test talk occurred before receiving results, applicants highlighted the test’s limitations in accessing their personality, creating space to reinterpret outcomes. Recruiters, in contrast, treated the test as a reliable tool, emphasizing its role in identifying inconsistencies in applicants’ conduct. Our findings show that personality tests can both enable and constrain participants’ ability to manage stakes, contributing to the impression of objectivity and truth-finding during job interviews.
Keywords
Introduction
In cognitive psychology, personality is a central explanatory construct for understanding behavior and predicting success in the workplace. Personality is therefore understood as a relatively stable outcome of an individual’s cognitive processes, memory, attitudes, motives, behaviors, and feelings (Pervin, 2003: 447). This paradigm has been widely adopted in psychological research and has influenced broader societal reasoning, particularly via the dominance of personality tests, which are widely used in recruitment contexts in public and private organizations to predict human behavior and success at work (see also Morgeson et al., 2007).
Earlier psychologists researching personality tests primarily focused on developing tests and evaluating their use in various contexts. The key areas of their studies included the validity and reliability of the tests, the extent to which personality theories accurately capture human behavior across different environments, and challenges in interpreting test results (Bunchaft and Krüger, 2010). Additionally, researchers have addressed obstacles related to test taking, such as poor understanding of the task, careless answers (Ward et al., 2017), and impression management related to the accuracy of the answers (Henry and Raju, 2006). One of the most frequently cited challenges in test taking is faking, which occurs when applicants tailor their responses to align with the specific interests and goals at hand (Birkeland et al., 2006; Tett and Christiansen, 2007). Although applicants often report feeling morally obliged to respond honestly (McFarland and Ryan, 2000; Robie et al., 2007), their honesty may be influenced by their potential desire to stand out from a perceived average group of applicants.
In recent decades, discursive psychologists (Edwards, 1994, 1995, 1997; Potter and Wetherell, 1987) have challenged the cognitive paradigm, highlighting the active role of human participants’ social interactions and agency in constructing their personalities in situ (Edwards, 2007). They emphasized that speakers manage their psychological states, such as attitudes (Potter and Wetherell, 1987), identities (Stokoe and Edwards, 2009), dispositions (Edwards, 2006), and subjectivities (Edwards, 1997), and construct personalities through their ways of talking with others in everyday life (Alexander and Stokoe, 2020).
In this article, we examine a personality test as a discursive object, focusing on the situated practices that make the discussion and negotiation of personality test results meaningful in recruitment interviews. We assert that personality tests reflect various cultural presuppositions that are explicitly referred to or inferred during interactions (Grundy and Hatton, 1995; van Dijk, 2006). We assume that talk about personality tests reveals a great deal about how personality is understood and what kinds of means are available to different individuals. By investigating such talk, we contribute to knowledge about how personality tests mediate social processes in real-life encounters and shape the construction of shared realities.
Using personality tests in recruitment interviews
Recruitment interviews are “high-stakes” interactions (Haddington and Stokoe, 2023) involving many diverse interests. First, the stakes are high for recruiters whose primary goal is to objectively identify the most suitable applicants for jobs in terms of skills, personality, and team fit. Recruiters also aim to maintain strong employer brands to attract high-quality applicants by efficiently managing recruitment processes in terms of time, resources, and decision-making structures (De Dijn and Van De Mieroop, 2024). Furthermore, employers must align their hiring decisions with their organizations’ strategies, values, and principles of procedural justice and fairness (Hausknecht et al., 2004). The stakes are so high in recruitment settings because poor hiring decisions not only result in financial losses and damaged employer reputations but also weaken the credibility of recruitment processes and jeopardize recruiters’ perceived professionalism.
Second, the stakes are particularly high for applicants: they may or may not be hired, with potential effects on their future opportunities and financial security. Recruitment processes and recruiters’ assessments of how applicants’ personalities, skills, and values “fit” with certain jobs challenge applicants’ self-images and identities. Applicants aim to present positive impressions of themselves by appearing credible and trustworthy (Kerekes, 2006; Lipovsky, 2008) and demonstrating cohesive alignment between their personal traits and job expectations (Campbell and Roberts, 2007) while avoiding apparent overinvestment in their self-presentations (regarding “stake inoculation,” see Potter, 1996). The assumptions about applicants’ stakes and interests lead to inherent skepticism in job interviews (see also Ferraz de Almeida, 2022) since recruiters may doubt whether applicants are presenting themselves authentically or merely aligning their self-presentations with perceived role expectations. Thus, the evaluation of an applicant’s authenticity is primarily managed by the recruiter, who occupies the position to define what counts as credible within the interactional and institutional frame of the interview.
Recruitment processes have grown increasingly complex with the introduction of personality testing. Recruiters use personality tests with the aim of improving their assessments of applicants’ personalities (Ahopelto et al., 2024), personality tests serving as resources for recruiters by revealing the “true” personalities of applicants in recruitment interviews (Ahopelto et al., 2025). During such interviews, recruiters may, for example, evaluate, confirm, or challenge the authenticity of applicants’ self-presentations and highlight any discrepancies in personality test results (Ahopelto et al., 2024). From this perspective, personality tests function as knowledge-bearing objects that contribute to the production of professional vision (Goodwin, 1994)—to recruiters’ expert perspectives on applicants’ personalities and suitability for jobs—thus serving to legitimize recruiters’ decisions.
However, personality tests may be challenging for applicants: they know only the questions they were asked and the answers they provided, but they lack insight into how the results are produced and how recruiters interpret them. What applicants do possess is first-hand knowledge of themselves and their own personality—knowledge to which recruiters, who only have generic expertise in human behavior, do not have direct access to. The situation thus involves bidirectional epistemic asymmetry, which has been shown to create tension in various institutional settings (see e.g. Weston and Tranekjær, 2023). Such tension becomes manifest when these epistemic rights are challenged or negotiated in the course of the interview, which happens particularly when applicants respond to test-based assessments by asserting their own epistemic authority (Ahopelto et al., 2024) and managing their stakes (Ahopelto et al., 2025). The negotiation of the epistemological and ontological status of the personality test as discursive object is therefore central to recruitment. This process occurs whenever participants discuss the test, as such talk reveals their presuppositions about personality and its accessibility through the test.
Although stakes are high for both recruiters and applicants in recruitment interviews, they may be particularly high for applicants whose careers may be shaped by the results of personality assessments. How personality tests influence participants’ stakes (Potter, 1996) is therefore an important question for understanding the social consequences of the use of psychological constructs in recruitment. In this article, we examine how applicants’ and recruiters’ talk about personality tests reflect presuppositions about personality and its accessibility, and how such tests, as discursive objects, are intertwined with applicants’ distinct stakes in recruitment interviews.
Data and methods
We drew the data for this study from 21 video-recorded recruitment interviews conducted in a Finnish recruitment company. The recorded interviews represented a hybrid format, combining conventional recruitment questions with elements of suitability assessment. All job interviews were conducted in Finnish over a 1-year period, from 2020 to 2021, and the data collection complied with the recommendations of the Finnish Advisory Board on Ethical Integrity. All participants gave their written informed consent according to the Declaration of Helsinki.
We drew the data extracts analyzed in this article from a collection of 40 cases in which the status of the personality test was a topic of conversation. Preliminary analysis of this data demonstrated that recruiters, who were trained psychologists, generally initiated test talk and routinely did so at the beginning of the interviews when introducing the interview protocol. However, here we focus on the more rare cases (N = 11) where the applicants referred to the test, evaluating either the test itself or their performance in it, as these seemed to specifically relate to the management of their stakes and interests in the interviews.
We transcribed the Finnish data using Jeffersonian conventions (Jefferson, 1984) and analyzed the transcripts using a combination of ideas and tools drawn from discursive psychology (DP) and conversation analysis (CA). CA was used to guide the identification of sequences for analysis, while our analytical focus on cultural presuppositions and stakes was inspired by DP. During our analysis, we realized that the presuppositions differed according to whether the job applicants talked about the test before (N = 9) or after (N = 2) receiving personality feedback. Thus, in the analysis section, we deal with these cases separately.
The extracts analyzed in the next section were translated into English for this publication. Due to space limitations, grammatical glosses are provided only for those parts of the original Finnish utterances that were critical for our analysis. All identifying material has been pseudonymized, removed, or altered. This also concerns the personality test, for which no further details can be disclosed.
Analysis
We analyzed the applicants’ and recruiters’ ways of talking about the personality test during the job interviews and their presuppositions about the test. To demonstrate how applicants used the personality test as a discursive object to manage their stakes, the analysis section is organized according to two distinct local contexts in which applicants discussed the test. First, we present two extracts in which applicants, after receiving positive evaluations based on the test, considered the test capable of evaluating their traits. Second, we introduce two extracts in which applicants, before the revelation of the test results, doubted the ability of the personality test to assess their personalities accurately. We also show that the recruiters managed the applicants’ test talk by maintaining their professionalism, asserting the appropriateness of the personality testing procedures, and emphasizing the test’s ability to reveal the applicants’ “true” personalities. Throughout our analysis, we demonstrate that the personality test served as a discursive object that facilitated or hindered applicants’ and recruiters’ management of their distinct stakes in the interviews.
Shared pre-suppositions: Personality tests as structured and purposeful
The following two extracts demonstrate that recruiters and applicants considered the test structured and suitable for revealing applicants’ personalities. In both examples, the recruiters assessed the applicants positively, which led to the applicants attributing positive evaluations to the test’s design.
In Extract 1, the applicant (A) is applying for a managerial position. Previously, the recruiter (R) had assessed the applicant’s cognitive capacity as strong and attributed it to A’s self-described tendency to seek challenges and deliberate on tasks. Now, R connects this positive evaluation to the personality test profile, underscoring its alignment with the other sources of personality knowledge established in earlier interactions.
In R’s turns (lines 1–2 and 4–5), the various sources of personality assessment are depicted as conveying a consistent message. The parallel status of these sources is highlighted by R’s use of the additive particles myös (“also”) and -kin (“also”) to mark a new source of information (i.e. the personality test profile, line 5) parallel to an older one (i.e. the interactionally established assessment of A’s strong cognitive capacity). Thus, R highlights the coherence of A’s self-presentation. In our focus turn (lines 6–7, 9, 11, and 13), A emphasizes the uncertainties encountered while completing the test, depicting the task as “funny” (line 6). A further elaborates on this challenge in a humorous way, highlighting the test’s ambiguous nature and the sense of uncertainty it can provoke (“After completing it, one cannot be certain of what one has answered”: lines 7, 9, 11, and 13). In response, R smiles (line 11) and laughs (line 13), thus displaying affiliation with A’s stance toward the test. Next, A highlights the test’s intentionally complex design as the cause of the confusion (line 15). In doing so, A orients to the test as structured and purposeful, thereby legitimizing the validity of the test design. Such attribution of credit to the design of the test aligns with prior studies on the use of referent shifts as a way of receiving compliments (Etelämäki et al., 2013; Pomerantz, 1978).
Subsequently, R demonstrates a professional understanding of the test’s operational logic and objectives (lines 17 and 19–21), using them to explain the challenges experienced by A. By noting that applicants may attempt to provide “socially acceptable” answers (lines 19 and 20), R emphasizes the test’s capacity to prevent such attempts (lines 15 and 17–19), thus highlighting that the test reveals not only applicants’ personalities but also their situational attempts to deceive. This way, R presents the test as supporting truth finding in recruitment interviews.
In Extract 2, the applicant and recruiter share an orientation to the test as a reliable source of knowledge about the applicant’s personality. The interaction follows the same pattern as in Extract 1: the recruiter first gives a positive assessment, which the applicant then receives in a way that balances delicate compliment reception with reinforcement of the test’s credibility and positive results. However, whereas Extract 1 focused on coherent self-presentation, this case involves the specific personality traits the test attributes to the applicant. In Extract 2, these traits relate to power and motivation—some (e.g. “growth-mindedness”) are socially acceptable, while others (e.g. “desire for status”) are culturally undesirable (McClelland, 1970, 1975; Winter, 1973). At the start of the extract, R informs A that the test results indicate the presence of socially acceptable traits and the absence of problematic ones (lines 1–3 and 5), making R’s overall evaluation of A’s personality clearly positive.
A acknowledges the positive evaluation with joo (“Yeah”; line 4). Thereafter, however, A claims that the experience of answering this part of the personality test was “awful” (line 7). The assessment is accompanied by laughter, a head shake, and eye closure—exaggerated expressions through which the applicant may display orientation to the awkwardness of the situation in which one’s latent aspirations for power are exposed to someone else’s interpretation. As in Extract 1, A shifts the referent for praise to the features of the test, which aligns with how the delicacy of compliment deception is commonly managed (Etelämäki et al., 2013; Pomerantz, 1978). R acknowledges A’s turn by joining in the laughter with a “yes” particle, signaling recognition of the difficulties of the test. In lines 8, 9, and 11, R reaffirms A’s personality traits according to the test, emphasizing that A is driven more by the “social pole” of power motivation (including impact: desire for self-growth, challenges, and development).
In the previous two extracts, after receiving positive evaluations, the job applicants highlighted the challenges they faced with the personality test. In doing so, they redirected the praise, attributing the positive assessments to the test itself (Etelämäki et al., 2013; for referent shift, see Pomerantz, 1978). The confusion caused by the personality test’s unconventional and challenging logic may suggest that it cannot be manipulated for personal gain. This way, applicants present themselves as honest and trustworthy candidates while managing their stakes related to being perceived as reliable and suitable for the role (see Edwards, 2007). Reinforcing positive feedback in this indirect manner—rather than through direct affirmation—may reflect the applicants’ desire to be seen as genuine and humble (traits that are highly valued in Finnish culture).
Divergent view: Personality tests as justified or flawed?
Next, we present two examples of applicants awaiting the results of the personality test and expressing uncertainty about both the test outcomes and R’s interpretation of them. We demonstrate how the applicants highlighted the test’s limitations to manage their stakes in the recruitment interviews and how the recruiters countered these concerns by defending the appropriateness of the evaluation process, including the use of the personality test.
Test logic disconnected from reality, or a judicious evaluation tool?
In Extract 3, the applicant (A) describes the test logic as simplistic and detached from the complexities of real life, and the recruiter (R) responds by emphasizing the judiciousness of the test design. Here, A is being considered for a management position, which makes questions about people versus goal orientation particularly relevant (see line 8 in the extract). Prior to the extract, the participants discussed A’s long-term career goals. The extract begins as R makes the first move to close this topic.
A’s turn (line 3) includes hesitation markers—delays, repeated adverbs (ehkä (“maybe”)), and audible sighs—indicating uncertainty and ongoing consideration (Sorjonen, 1997). R, however, contributes to the completion of A’s turn (line 4). In the overlap with R, A refers to their own thoughts (line 5) and reveals that something has been on their mind ever since they took the test. Our focus turn begins when A acknowledges their unawareness of the personality test results (line 6). A articulates that this concern stems from their personal experience of the test-taking situation. By referring to “a kind of feeling” that emerged (line 7), A grounds the concern within the private domain, making it less open to dispute. However, there are several signs of hesitation in A’s turn, such as pauses and filler words, which may indicate sensitivity to forthcoming test talk.
In line 8, A references specific statements from the test that have caused them to ponder, demonstrating an awareness of the test’s logic, which positions goals and people as opposing features (lines 8–10). However, A’s turn subtly critiques the coercive nature of the test’s logic, which enforces an either/or dichotomy between these two aspects (line 11) and does not accurately reflect their personal reality (line 13). Thus, A directly criticizes the test by referring to the private domain (“in my life”) and stating that the test logic is not applicable to it. However, A somewhat softens this critique by framing it as a personal perception (Raymond and Heritage, 2006) and using mitigating expressions such as “kind of” (line 8) and “kind of either/or” (line 11). In overlapping with A, R responds to this critique with nii (“yeah”; line 12), claiming some recognition of the experience talked about (Sorjonen, 2001: 141–143). Following this, we observe that R further handles A’s critique by emphasizing the judiciousness of the test design.
R manages A’s talk by adopting a professional stance, first referring to the test with the pronoun se (“it”) and then constructing the subsequent utterance in the passive form (“has been structured”; line 16). Thus, R implies that the test is, in a sense, a distant and independent object developed elsewhere by unknown actors that is independent from the recruiter’s perspective (see se “it” vs tämä “this”; Etelämäki, 2006). However, in lines 19, 21, and 22, R uses zero-person formulations (here translated as “one V”), demonstrating sharedness and sensitivity toward A’s experience and implying that A’s emotions about the test situation are recognizable and valid but do not provide new information (Laitinen, 1995). R acknowledges that the test logic is intentionally designed to make it difficult to answer certain questions and implies that the choices presented in the test are not literal; they simply reflect the test’s logic. R exemplifies this logic by juxtaposing two undesirable traits using the humorous layperson’s term “lazy or goofy” (line 22). By using the first-person singular pronoun “I” as the subject in the utterance, R frames themselves as also being in a situation in which the test forces them into make an unfair or reductive binary choice. By using layman’s terms, R acknowledges A’s perspective, explicitly indicating that the choices presented by the test are difficult, if not impossible, to make. However, by framing these difficulties as universal, R indirectly suggests that A’s critique of the test is not entirely valid: the test treats all test-takers similarly (including R if they were to take the test), making the test judicious in that sense. Doing this however, R distances themselves from the potential problems in the test logic.
A acknowledges R’s judgments of the personality test and joins in the humor (lines 20, 22, and 24). However, A reframes their thoughts concerning the test by explicitly declaring that they are a “human leader despite appreciating clear goals” (line 25). Thus, A establishes that these two traits—people orientation and goal orientation—coexist rather than being mutually exclusive, implying that the test does not entirely reflect their personality. R does not engage further with A’s personality formulation but rather acknowledges it with doubled “yes” particles, which function as cues to close the topic and transition to the next subject (Hakulinen et al., 2008; VISK §799)—in this case, the personality evaluation.
In this example, A claims that the test oversimplifies, generalizes, and does not reflect their more complex personality. By highlighting the test’s disconnectedness from reality, A asserts their self-knowledge, claiming that certain traits coexist rather than being mutually exclusive. In this specific case, in which A applies for a managerial position, navigating binary combinations of personality traits can pose a particular dilemma, as a leadership position requires the capacity to effectively balance and manage both sets of qualities. This indicates a tension between the test’s reductionist approach and the applicant’s need to present a more nuanced and adaptable leadership profile. In criticizing the test, A asserts that they can employ the opposite traits, if necessary. R acknowledges A’s perspective: they admit that the test is difficult, complex, and even unfair. However, they still frame it as a judicious tool that treats everyone equally—including the recruiter themselves, were they to take it. In this way, any potential flaws or inaccuracies are attributed to the test itself rather than to the recruiter’s role in the interview process. This ambivalent distancing strategy also functions as a way for the recruiter to manage their own stakes and interest (Potter, 1996), positioning themselves as an objective and fair evaluator.
Easily manipulated results—or a system that reveals inconsistencies?
In Extract 4, the applicant considers the test logic susceptible to manipulation, and R responds by emphasizing the assessment process’s ability to detect such attempts. Here, A is applying for a managerial position. We join the interaction as R initiates a transition toward a more evaluative phase of the interview, inviting A to reflect on their experience of completing the self-assessment (lines 1–2).
A’s turn (line 4) is delayed and prefaced with indicators of thinking, after which A describes the test as “quite interesting” (line 4), presenting the test-answering process as somewhat unusual, unique, or thought-provoking. However, A subsequently adopts a more evaluative stance, shifting the focus from their subjective experience during the test to the test itself. Furthermore, A explicitly marks a limit on their ability to elaborate on the test (line 5).
Following this, A shifts the focus to their own conduct during the test, acknowledging their attempt to be “quite honest” when answering the questions (line 6). In this way, the applicant implies that fully honest responding may not have been entirely possible. The implication is that something about the test situation itself—possibly the nature of the test—may have hindered complete honesty. Immediately afterward, A accounts for this honesty by framing it as being for R’s benefit: “I thought that it would be beneficial to you.” By explicitly presenting their effort to answer honestly as serving R’s interests, A simultaneously posits honesty as a strategic choice, marking the decision to answer truthfully as a way to grant voluntary access to their personality.
R acknowledges A’s turn with the particle joo (“yeah”), accompanied by a strongly rising intonation—a typical feature in Finnish highlighting that the information provided by the other participant needs further elaboration. The response particle is followed by ja sulle (“and to you”). Through this response, R implies a misalignment in A’s framing of honesty as benefiting only the recruiter, instead suggesting that honesty also serves the applicant’s interests. Following this, R accounts for their claim by highlighting the assessment process in general and their own expertise in detecting inconsistencies in applicants’ conduct (lines 12, 14, and 15). This account can be understood as R implying that any attempt by A to deceive the personality test would become readily apparent to R during the interview process.
Although A acknowledges and aligns with R’s idea that cheating on the test would likely be recognizable (lines 11 and 13), they still reinforce their volunteered honesty in the testing situation (lines 17 and 19) by explicitly framing their decision to answer honestly as a deliberate choice. Furthermore, A makes a distinction between two areas of knowledge: knowledge about their own personality that only they have access to, and the type of personality knowledge that the recruiter has with reference to the job requirements (lines 19–20). Thus, the final hiring decision is framed not as a judgment of A’s personality but as the recruiter’s interpretation of the information that A voluntarily provides, which R compares with the job requirements.
In this case, A oriented to a presupposition that the personality test’s ability to assess their traits depends on their honesty in the test situation. Thus, A constructed themselves as not merely a testee but as an active participant whose collaboration is needed during the course of the evaluation. However, A also highlights the possibility that test logic may prevent honest answers, thus shifting the responsibility for possible discrepancies in the test results to the test itself. By orienting to the test as being easily manipulated, A presents themselves as a cooperative and compliant participant, reinforcing their trustworthiness (Kerekes, 2006) and their agency in the test-taking process (Stokoe and Edwards, 2008). Thus, A implies that the test’s ability to reveal a “true” personality depends on the honesty of the test-taker and is constrained by the weaknesses of its own logic. However, R orients to the recruitment process as structured to uncover applicants’ attempts to manipulate the test, regardless of how applicants seek to manage their self-presentations.
Conclusion
In this article, we focused on the presuppositions underlying talk about the personality test and examined how they reflected personality and its accessibility. We studied two distinct contexts in which the participants started to talk about the personality test—after and before receiving the test results—highlighting the distinct stakes associated with test talk in these contexts for both the recruiters and the applicants in the recruitment interview. Our aim was to contribute to research on which psychological constructs can be studied in real-life encounters (Alexander and Stokoe, 2020) and to shed light on how personality tests may shape the construction of shared realities.
It is no surprise that, after receiving positive evaluations on the test, the applicants oriented to presuppositions about the test being structured and purposeful. By crediting the positive evaluations to the test design (), the applicants reinforced the idea that the test is not easily manipulated and thus a valuable tool in recruitment interviews. In doing so, they also indirectly affirmed the positive evaluations of their personalities. In addition, highlighting the test’s ability to reveal the truth about their personalities enabled them to present themselves as honest and trustworthy candidates (see also Kerekes, 2006; Lipovsky, 2008). In other words, they managed their stakes (Potter, 1996) by presenting themselves as reliable and suitable for the roles they were applying for (Campbell and Roberts, 2007). The idea of the test as structured and purposeful also served the recruiter’s stake as a psychologist engaging in reliable and objective assessment practices (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998). Recruiters perceive personality tests as mechanisms for detecting inconsistencies and tools for revealing whether applicants strategically adjust their self-presentations (Birkeland et al., 2006; Tett and Christiansen, 2007) to serve their purposes during recruitment interviews. These instances were generally unproblematic when the stakes of the applicants and the recruiters were compatible.
In the examples where applicants evoked test talk before learning about the test results, a clear distinction between the recruiters’ and applicants’ stakes became apparent. In these instances, the applicants’ presuppositions rested on the idea that the knowledge produced by the test could be flawed. By preemptively highlighting potential limitations of the test, they “bought” freedom for themselves—on demand—to reinterpret the test results in line with their stakes in the recruitment interviews. They implied that their personalities were more nuanced than the personality test results might suggest (Extract 3) and that their willingness to collaborate with the testing process reflected their general trustworthiness (Extract 4). In contrast, the recruiters in these cases highlighted the test as a judicious tool. They acknowledged the reality described by the applicant, acknowledging the difficulty and complexity of the test, but still considered it as a tool that treats everyone equally (Extract 3), or they highlighted that such tests are precisely designed to detect inconsistencies and deception (Extract 4). By positioning the evaluation process as objective, fair, and truth-revealing, the recruiters cast the test as an instrument beyond both the applicants’ and their own control (Birkeland et al., 2006; Henry and Raju, 2006; Tett and Christiansen, 2007).
By discursively distancing themselves from the test, the recruiters managed their stakes, presenting themselves as objective and impartial evaluators and reinforcing their alignment with institutional norms (Arminen, 2017: 31–57) that emphasized fair and objective decision-making (see also Iversen and Wirtzén, 2025, in press). This distancing strategy also allowed the recruiters to minimize their personal accountability for the test outcomes if the applicants questioned the relevance or fairness of the results. Therefore, the recruiters’ talk reflected a broader institutional imperative to uphold the legitimacy and neutrality of recruitment practices while simultaneously protecting themselves from potential contestation or critique.
We acknowledge that our study has certain limitations. We cannot rule out the possibility that a different personality test might have been discussed in a different way, oriented to with somewhat different presuppositions. At the same time, while our data offered insights into the strategic use of personality tests in recruitment interviews and to the way in which psychological constructs permeate actions in assessment situations, we acknowledge that the small sample size and focus on specific psychologist-led recruitment encounters may limit the generalizability of our findings.
Despite these limitations, we believe that to understand social interactions, it is necessary to understand the presuppositions that underpin and influence them. This is highly important in “high-stakes” interactional situations where the human mind is under the microscope, specifically in contexts that are prone to asymmetries. Our findings suggest that recruiters’ presuppositions about personality tests arise from a priori cognitive models of personality. Such epistemological presuppositions reflect an understanding of personality as a relatively stable entity—one that is hidden, must be objectively uncovered through testing (regarding faking, see Birkeland et al., 2006; Tett and Christiansen, 2007), and serves to differentiate individuals from each other (Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham, 2010; Roberts and Yoon, 2022). Our findings reinforce the notion that recruitment interviews are truth-seeking processes to which the use of personality tests adds an extra layer of complexity that applicants must manage during recruitment interviews. The applicants’ explicit talk about the test was part of such management. When applicants referred to the test, their presuppositions reflected a more situational view on personality. Their talk did not function as a straightforward evaluation of the test itself. Instead, such references served the construction of situationally coherent self-presentation—both in relation to the personality test results and to the interpretations derived from them. Instead of always being similar, the applicants highlighted the consistent ways in which they responded to the challenges arising from different situations.
Given the growing use of personality tests as psychological assessment tools, there is a need to critically examine the concepts of “truth” and “objectivity” that underpin assessment practices. The need to understand the complexity of personality in interactions, in turn, lands us in what Edwards and Potter (1992) described as “deep epistemological waters,” prompting a critical question: “How do psychologists determine truth as distinct from yet simultaneously serving as a criterion for measuring how individuals understand it?” This issue warrants further examination in the context of real-life interactions in which the construction and negotiation of psychological knowledge unfold dynamically.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Sanni Tiitinen for her helpful comments on draft version of this article.
Ethical considerations
The study obtained ethical approval from the Humanities Ethics Committee of the Tampere Region, Tampere University, approval number 31/2019.
Consent to participate
All participants gave written informed consent to participate in the study.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research for this paper was funded by the Kone Foundation grant 201905603.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability statement
The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly, so due to the sensitive nature of the research supporting data is not available.