Who Fakes It Most? Personality Types and Authenticity: A Study

What the Faking It Survey Set Out to Explore

Most people have experienced the feeling of putting on a slightly different version of themselves – smiling when they’re drained, sounding enthusiastic when they’re bored, or nodding along with opinions they don’t share. This kind of behavioral adjustment is so common that it can feel like just another part of daily life. But how much of it do people actually do? And does personality play a role in who fakes it, where they fake it, and how they feel about it? These are surprisingly underexplored questions, especially given how deeply authenticity matters to most people’s sense of well-being.

To find out, we created the "Faking It" survey, asking people across all 16 personality types about the frequency, context, and ethics of faking it – that is, deliberately modifying their behavior or personality for other people. Over 3,800 people responded. The survey covered five life settings: overall, at work, in romantic relationships, with family, and with friends. It also explored why people fake it, how long the act takes to feel genuine, and whether respondents view it as morally equivalent to lying. The results reveal consistent, sometimes striking patterns along personality trait lines, with certain types reporting dramatically more faking than others.

Key Patterns in the Data

The clearest pattern in the data is the consistent prominence of IntrovertedIntuitive types at the top of nearly every faking measure. INTP personalities (Logicians) and INFP personalities (Mediators) consistently ranked at or near the top in faking rates overall, at work, with family, with friends, and in romantic relationships. INFJ personalities (Advocates) and INTJ personalities (Architects) followed closely behind across most contexts. These four types share a tendency toward deep introspection and abstract thinking – qualities that can create a noticeable gap between inner experience and outward social behavior. The types least likely to report faking – people with the ESFJ personality type (Consuls) in particular – tend to be Extraverted and Observant, with social styles that align more naturally with common expectations.

Context plays a significant role in how much faking people do, regardless of type. The workplace is where faking reaches its peak – even types that report low faking rates elsewhere tend to modify their behavior in professional settings. Romantic relationships, by contrast, stand out as the space where faking drops off most sharply. Family falls in the middle, while friendships sit slightly closer to romance. This hierarchy held remarkably consistent across all 16 types, suggesting that the pressures of different social settings matter at least as much as personality in shaping when people put on a different face.

The Thinking and Feeling traits emerge as the clearest dividing line in how faking is experienced. Thinking types – particularly ENTJ personalities (Commanders) and ENTP personalities (Debaters) – tend to view faking as a strategic choice and are far more likely to endorse "fake it until you make it" as a growth tool. Feeling types, on the other hand, are more likely to say they feel forced into faking and find sustaining it over time emotionally draining. This difference extends into the ethical dimension as well: Feeling types are somewhat more inclined to view faking as morally troubling, while Thinking types treat it more comfortably as a practical social mechanism.

Perhaps the most surprising finding is the sheer breadth of agreement that faking is socially necessary. Across every type, at least 68% of respondents said that faking it, at least a little, is an unavoidable part of almost every social interaction. Yet this acceptance coexists with real tension. Most respondents said they wouldn’t appreciate someone else faking it for their benefit, and very few wished they faked it more than they already do. The picture that emerges is one of practical acceptance – most people recognize that total authenticity in every social moment isn’t realistic, but they still value genuine behavior and prefer to keep their faking to whatever minimum feels necessary.

How Often Personality Types Fake It at Work, with Family, and in Love

Our survey asked respondents how often they fake it – that is, modify their behavior for other people – across five different contexts: overall, in romantic relationships, at work, with family, and with friends. The results reveal sharp differences both between types and between life settings. Work consistently stood out as the context prompting the most behavioral modification, while romantic relationships prompted the least. Across every context, the same handful of personality types landed at the top and bottom of the faking spectrum, pointing to deeper, trait-level explanations.

Overall Faking Frequency

When asked how often they feel like they’re faking it overall, INTPs led the way, with 64% saying they fake it "Very often" or "Often." INFPs were close behind at 62%. At the other end, ESFJs reported the lowest rate of any type, with just 23% saying they fake it that often overall. Nearly three times as many INTPs as ESFJs say they regularly modify their behavior for others.

The broader pattern is hard to miss. INFJs followed at 58%, and INTJs at 51% – meaning all four types sharing the Introverted and Intuitive traits topped 50% for faking it "Very often" or "Often" overall. People who are naturally reserved and oriented toward abstract thinking may experience a sharper contrast between their inner world and the social behavior expected of them. Observant and Extraverted types tended to report lower overall faking rates, perhaps because their natural way of engaging with the world fits more closely with common social expectations.

Faking It in Romantic Relationships

Romantic relationships are where people fake it least. The ISFJ personality type (Defender) reported the lowest rate in romantic relationships, with just 7% saying they fake it "Very often" or "Often." Even ENTPs, who tend to score high in other contexts, came in at only about 20% in romantic relationships. Of all the life areas we measured, romance consistently produced the lowest faking rates.

INTPs still ranked highest in faking it in romantic relationships, but at just 23% – a steep drop from their 64% overall rate. This dip suggests that even the most frequent fakers find it easier to be genuine in intimate relationships. Romantic partnerships may simply offer the most room for authentic self-expression across all personality types, though Thinking types still reported somewhat higher faking rates than Feeling types.

Faking It at Work

At work, INTPs reported the highest faking rate of any type, with 60% saying they fake it "Very often" or "Often," closely followed by ESTP personalities (Entrepreneurs) at 58% and INFPs at 57%. These numbers are notably higher than in any other context, confirming what many workers probably already suspect: professional life demands a particular kind of performance.

Not everyone feels the same pressure, though. The ENFJ personality type (Protagonist) reported the lowest workplace faking rate at 25%, with ESFJs close behind. Both types share the Feeling and Judging traits, and their natural orientation toward social harmony and structure may help them align their authentic selves with workplace expectations. ENTJs also reported a relatively moderate workplace rate of 30%, perhaps because their direct, take-charge style leaves less perceived need for self-modification.

Faking It with Family

Family sits between the extremes – more faking than in romantic relationships or friendships, but less than at work. INTPs once again led with 48% saying they fake it "Very often" or "Often" with family members, and INFPs were close behind at 44%. ESFJs, by contrast, reported the lowest family-related rate of any type, with just 13% saying they fake it that often with family.

That family prompted more faking than romance or friendships may seem surprising – after all, these are people most of us have known our whole lives. But familiarity doesn’t always equal freedom. For some, family dynamics create pressure to conform to established roles. ENFP personalities (Campaigners) and ISTP personalities (Virtuosos), for example, both reported family faking rates around 40% despite belonging to very different Roles – Diplomats and Explorers, respectively – suggesting that a shared desire for independence may matter more than broader Role-level differences.

Faking It with Friends

Friendships are another relatively authentic space for most personality types, though not quite as comfortable as romantic partnerships. With friends, INTPs again reported the highest faking rate at 37%, followed by INFPs at 35% and INFJs at 34%. ESFJs, once again, sat at the bottom, with just 10% saying they fake it often with friends. The pattern closely mirrors the overall faking results, with the same Introverted Intuitive types consistently at the top.

The gap between the highest and lowest faking rates here exceeds 25 percentage points – wider than in romance but narrower than at work. What stands out most across all five contexts is the consistency. The personality types who fake it most in one area tend to fake it most everywhere. INTPs ranked first in every single context we measured, and ESFJs ranked last or near last in all of them. For Introverted Intuitive types in particular, the sense of performing for others seems to follow them through every area of life – just at varying levels of intensity.

Why People Fake It: Choice, Social Necessity, and the Personality Types That Struggle Most

Knowing how often people fake it is only half the story. The deeper question is why they do it – and how sustainable the act really is. Our survey explored whether respondents feel forced into faking or choose it willingly, whether they consider it an unavoidable part of social life, and how difficult it becomes when they have to keep it up with the same people over time. The answers reveal that most personality types view faking as a practical social tool rather than a burden – but for some, the long-term toll is real.

Feeling Forced vs. Choosing to Fake It

When asked whether their faking is driven by obligation or preference, respondents were surprisingly split. Overall, most types leaned slightly toward "Prefer to," but the margin was often razor-thin. INFPs and ISFJs were the most likely to say they feel forced – both at about 55%. ISFP personalities (Adventurers), on the other hand, were the least likely to feel forced at just 37%, suggesting that when they do fake it, it’s more of a conscious choice than an external demand.

The Thinking trait seems to play a notable role here. ENTJs and ENTPs chose "Prefer to" at the highest rates – 66% and 65%, respectively – indicating that these types tend to see behavioral modification as a strategic move rather than a concession. By contrast, Feeling types were more evenly divided or leaned toward feeling forced. The split between these groups suggests that whether faking feels like a burden or a tool depends largely on whether someone approaches it through a lens of strategy or emotional authenticity.

Faking as a Social Necessity

A strong consensus emerged on this question: across all types, at least 68% agreed that faking it, at least a little, is a necessary part of almost every social activity. ESTPs agreed most strongly that faking is necessary, at 87%, with ISTPs close behind at 82%. Explorer personality types as a whole were among the most likely to agree, which fits their pragmatic, adaptable reputations. These types tend to be comfortable reading a room and adjusting their behavior accordingly – so it makes sense that they would see a degree of social performance as simply part of how interactions work.

At the other end of the spectrum, ENFPs showed the lowest agreement that faking is necessary, at 68%. For types that prize authenticity and genuine emotional connection, the idea that faking is necessary may feel more uncomfortable to accept – even if they still do it in practice. Still, even at the bottom of the range, more than two-thirds of respondents agreed, a remarkable level of consensus for such a personal topic. Analyst personality types also leaned heavily toward agreement, with INTPs at 81%, reflecting a characteristically analytical view: social norms often demand behavioral adjustment, and acknowledging that is simply practical.

The Long-Term Difficulty of Keeping Up the Act

While most people accept faking as socially necessary, sustaining it over time is another matter. When asked how difficult it is to fake it with the same people over a long period, ENFJs reported the most difficulty, with 53% saying that keeping up the act with the same people over time is "Very difficult" or "Difficult." ESFJs reported nearly identical numbers. Both types share the Judging and Feeling traits, and their deep investment in authentic, harmonious relationships may make prolonged inauthenticity feel especially draining. For these types, the gap between how they truly feel and how they present themselves isn’t just inconvenient – it can feel like a betrayal of their own values.

At the other end, ENTPs found long-term faking the easiest – only about 25% called it difficult, while roughly half said it was "Easy" or "Very easy." Other Thinking types, particularly those with the Prospecting trait, showed similar comfort levels. The pattern is clear: types who approach faking as a practical exercise tend to sustain it with relative ease, while those who see it as an emotional contradiction find it progressively harder to maintain a gap between who they are and who they present themselves to be – a tension that can weigh heavily in workplaces and long-term relationships.

Faking It vs. Lying: Where Personalities Draw the Moral Line

Beyond how often and why people fake it, a deeper ethical question lingers: Is faking it actually dishonest? Our survey explored three facets of this moral question – whether respondents view faking as equivalent to lying, whether the intent behind it shifts that judgment, and whether they would appreciate being on the receiving end of well-intentioned faking. The results reveal a nuanced consensus across personality types. Most people don’t consider faking a form of lying, nearly everyone agrees that motivation matters, but relatively few say they’d welcome it when someone fakes it for their sake.

Moral Equivalence to Lying

For most personality types, faking it and lying are not the same thing. Across the survey, only one type – ESFJs – had a majority (53%) who agreed that faking is morally equivalent to lying. At the other end of the spectrum, ENTPs were the least likely to equate the two, with just 29% agreeing that faking is morally equivalent to lying. The overall picture is clear: most respondents see a meaningful moral gap between adjusting their behavior and outright deception.

Some subtler patterns emerge at the trait level. ISTJ personalities (Logisticians) agreed that faking equals lying at 45%, and INFPs at 44% – two types that, despite very different temperaments, both place a premium on internal consistency. Sentinel personality types as a group leaned higher than other Roles, likely reflecting their emphasis on straightforward honesty. Still, even among the types most inclined to see faking as dishonest, fewer than half equated the two – a telling sign that most people, regardless of type, recognize a real distinction between social adjustment and outright deception.

The Role of Motivation

If most people don’t view faking as lying, what makes the difference? Motivation, overwhelmingly. When asked whether the moral weight of faking depends on the intent behind it, agreement was near-universal. ENFPs agreed most strongly that intent matters, at 89%, with ISFPs close behind at 88%. This was one of the strongest points of consensus in the entire survey, with every single personality type exceeding 77%.

Even the types at the bottom of the range – ISTJs at 77% and ESTPs at 78% – still agreed by wide margins. This is notable when paired with the previous question’s results. Most people don’t equate faking with lying, and the primary reason appears to be that intent changes everything. Adjusting your behavior to make a colleague feel comfortable registers differently, in most respondents’ eyes, from deceiving someone for personal gain. Across personality types and Roles, this belief in the importance of context stands as one of the survey’s clearest findings.

Appreciation for Well-Intentioned Faking

Knowing that motivation matters is one thing – actually welcoming well-intentioned faking is another. When asked if they’d appreciate someone faking it for their benefit, such as making them more comfortable, most personality types said no. ESFP personalities (Entertainers) were the clear exception, with 58% saying they would appreciate well-intentioned faking – the only type where a majority agreed. ESFJs, by contrast, sat at the bottom, with just 40% saying they would welcome it – the type most likely to equate faking with lying was also the least open to receiving it.

The overall ambivalence is revealing. Even among types that overwhelmingly believe motivation changes the moral equation, fewer than half said they’d welcome faking directed at them. This suggests a gap between moral reasoning and emotional preference – people can understand why someone might fake it for their sake while still finding the idea uncomfortable. Explorer personality types ranked the highest as a group, consistent with their pragmatic approach to social life. For most respondents, though, the preference is clear: genuine behavior beats well-meaning performance, even when they accept that faking sometimes serves a good purpose.

Can You Really Fake It Until You Make It?

"Fake it until you make it" is one of the most widely cited pieces of self-improvement advice. But do people across personality types actually believe it works – and what does the process look like in practice? Our final group of questions explored whether respondents endorse faking as a strategy for personal growth, how long it takes before faking stops feeling fake, whether they wish they faked it more, and how intensely they feel they’re faking overall. The answers reveal that belief in faking as self-transformation varies sharply by type, with Thinking and Extraverted types far more receptive than their counterparts.

Belief in Fake It Until You Make It

ENTJs were the strongest endorsers of "fake it until you make it" as a self-improvement strategy – 71% agreed it’s a good approach for becoming the person you want to be. ESTPs (65%) and ENTPs (60%) also showed strong support. At the other end, just 28% of ESFJs endorsed the strategy, making them the most skeptical type, with ISFJs not far behind. The gap between the most and least enthusiastic personality types stretched over 40 percentage points – one of the widest spreads in the survey.

The dividing lines run along two traits. Thinking types broadly outpaced Feeling types, and Extraverted types outpaced Introverted ones. Even within the Analyst Role, ENTJs and ENTPs scored well above INTJs (45%) and INTPs (49%) – suggesting that Extraversion amplifies belief in faking it till you make it. Types that treat social behavior strategically seem to view faking as a legitimate growth tool. Feeling types, particularly Sentinels, tended to resist the idea, perhaps because it conflicts with their emphasis on consistency and genuine behavior. For these personality types, becoming someone different through pretending may feel less like progress and more like self-contradiction.

Timeline for Faking to Feel Real

How long does faking something take before your feelings actually change? For most Introverted types, the answer is a long time. INTPs reported the longest timelines – 67% said it takes months or years before their feelings genuinely shift. INTJs were nearly identical at 66%. The picture looked very different for Extraverted types: 65% of ESFJs said the process takes only days or weeks, making them the fastest to internalize new behaviors among all personality types surveyed.

The Introversion-Extraversion divide was the clearest predictor of adaptation speed, outweighing Role-level differences. ESTPs (57% saying days or weeks) and ENFJs (54%) both reported relatively quick timelines, despite belonging to entirely different Roles. Conversely, ISFPs and ISTPs reported lengthy timelines similar to their Introverted Intuitive counterparts. Introverted personalities tend to be more introspective, which may mean they hold on to the awareness of "performing" long after the behavior itself has become routine. Extraverted types, who draw more energy from their surroundings, may internalize adopted behaviors more quickly once those behaviors start generating positive social feedback.

Desire to Fake It More

Despite the fairly widespread belief that faking is a social necessity, most personality types are not eager to do more of it. ESTPs were the most likely to wish they were more willing to fake it, but even they came in at just 35%. ESFPs followed at 33%. At the other end, ISFJs expressed the least interest at only 13%, followed by ISTJs at 17%.

The overall reluctance is telling. Even among types that endorsed "fake it until you make it" at high rates, relatively few actually wanted to expand how much they fake. This suggests a kind of equilibrium – most people have already settled into whatever level of faking feels manageable for them. The slightly higher desire among Explorer personality types fits their general openness to trying new approaches, while Sentinels’ low interest aligns with their preference for staying true to established patterns. For most respondents, faking it remains something they accept as needed rather than something they actively seek out.

Self-Rated Degree of Faking

When asked to rate their degree of faking on a scale from 1 to 5, the results tracked closely with patterns seen throughout the survey. INTPs reported the highest intensity – 40% placed themselves at a 4 or 5. INFPs followed at 35%, then ENTPs at 34%. At the low end, 55% of ESFJs rated themselves a 1 or 2, with ENFJs close behind at 49%.

The consistency across this entire survey is hard to overlook. The same personality types that reported faking most often across every context – work, family, friends, romance – also rated the highest degree of faking in general. INTPs appeared at or near the top of virtually every measure. This doesn’t necessarily mean they’re being less genuine; it may simply reflect a sharper awareness of the gap between their inner experience and their outward behavior. For Feeling types like ENFJs and ESFJs, lower self-rated faking likely reflects a closer natural alignment between their social behavior and their sense of self – or, perhaps, less of a tendency to scrutinize the distance between the two.

What These Findings Mean for Everyday Authenticity

This survey reveals that faking it – adjusting behavior to meet social expectations – is a near-universal experience, but one that is far from evenly distributed. The frequency, intensity, and emotional weight of faking all vary along consistent personality trait lines. Introverted Intuitive types, particularly INTPs and INFPs, report the most faking across every context we measured, while Extraverted Observant types like ESFJs report the least. Work demands the most behavioral modification from everyone, while romantic relationships offer the most room for authentic self-expression.

The most striking finding may be the coexistence of acceptance and discomfort. The vast majority of respondents across all types agree that some degree of faking is socially necessary – yet most would not welcome well-intentioned faking directed at them, and very few wish they did more of it. This tension suggests that people are not simply performing out of habit or indifference. They’re making ongoing, often uneasy calculations about when authenticity serves them and when adaptation does.

For anyone who has ever wondered whether they’re the only one putting on a front, this data offers reassurance: you’re not. More than two-thirds of respondents across every type acknowledge that social life requires at least a small degree of performance. The key difference isn’t whether people fake it, but how naturally their authentic self aligns with what the world around them expects. Understanding your own personality type can shed light on where that gap exists – and help you make more intentional choices about when to close it and when to simply accept it as part of being human.