Faking on personality tests in selection contexts remains a concern for organizations and researchers. Conditional reasoning tests (CRTs) are purported to predict construct-related outcomes and circumvent the faking issue by tapping into subconscious aspects of personality. However, because CRTs are designed to look like inductive reasoning tests, the true purpose of the test may remain hidden from test takers resulting in this reduction in fakeability. In order to investigate these claims, conditional reasoning tests for Extraversion and Agreeableness were developed and the validity and fakeability of these CRTs to traditional, self-report personality tests was compared. Additionally, the current study examines whether any reduction in the ability of test takers to fake the CRTs is due to the implicit nature of the test or the superficial appearance of conditional reasoning items as inductive reasoning items. The results of this study show that participants were not able to fake the CRT if the purpose of the test at a personality measure remains hidden. This finding persists when analyzing the effects on Extraversion and Agreeableness separately or when the true purpose of the test as a personality measure is revealed. This is a positive outcome for proponents of conditional reasoning tests. The results of this study indicate that it is the endorsement of justification mechanisms that prevent test takers from faking, supporting the social cognitive theory on which CRTs are based. However, the CRTs do not predict relevant outcomes as well as traditional personality tests for Agreeableness and Extraversion. The implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.