TELL ME SOME MORE: EXPLORING HOW VERBAL ABILITY AND ITEM VERIFIABILITY INFLUENCE RESPONSES TO BIODATA QUESTIONS IN A HIGH‐STAKES SELECTION CONTEXT

Although self‐rated or self‐scored selection measures are commonly used in selection contexts, they are potentially susceptible to applicant response distortion or faking. The response elaboration technique (RET), which requires job applicants to provide supporting information to justify their responses, has been identified as a potential way to minimize applicant response distortion. In a large‐scale, high‐stakes selection context (N= 16,304), we investigate the extent to which RET affects responding on a biodata test as well as the underlying reasons for any potential effect. We find that asking job applicants to elaborate their responses leads to overall lower scores on a biodata test. Item verifiability affects the extent to which RET decreases faking, which we suggest is due to increased accountability. In addition, verbal ability was more strongly related to biodata item scores when items require elaboration, although the effect of verbal ability was small. The implications of these findings for reducing faking in personnel selection are delineated.     

Applicant reactions and faking in real-life personnel selection

Faking may affect hiring decisions in personnel selection. All the antecedents of faking are still not known. The present study investigates the association between applicants' reactions about the selection procedure and their tendency to fake. The subjects (N = 180) were real-life applicants for a fire and rescue personnel school. After completing the selection process, the applicants filled out a questionnaire about their test reactions (Chan, Schmitt, Sacco & DeSohon, 1998b) and a faking scale, the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (Paulhus, 1991). The results based on Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) indicated that the more positive reactions applicant had about the selection procedure the more impression management they had. The applicant reactions were not associated with self-deception.     

Do Applicants Fake Their Personality Questionnaire Responses and How Successful are Their Attempts? A Case of Military Pilot Cadet Selection

This paper presents the results of three interrelated studies investigating the occurrence of response distortion on personality questionnaires within selection and the success of applicants in faking situations. In Study 1, comparison of the Big Five personality scores obtained from applicants in a military pilot cadet selection procedure with participants responding honestly, faking good, and faking an ideal candidate revealed that applicants responded more desirable than participants responding honestly but less desirable than respondents under fake instructions. The occurrence of faking within the military pilot selection process was replicated in Study 2 using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and another comparison group. Finally, in Study 3, comparison of personality profiles obtained in selection and ‘fake job’ situations with experts' estimates indicated that participants were partially successful in faking the desirable profile.     

FAKING IN PERSONNEL SELECTION: TRADEOFFS IN PERFORMANCE VERSUS FAIRNESS RESULTING FROM TWO CUT-SCORE STRATEGIES

Most faking research has examined the use of personality measures when using top-down selection. We used simulation to examine the use of personality measures in selection systems using cut scores and outlined a number of issues unique to these situations. In particular, we compared the use of 2 methods of setting cut scores on personality measures: applicant-data-derived (ADD) and nonapplicant-data-derived (NADD) cut-score strategies. We demonstrated that the ADD strategy maximized mean performance resulting from the selection system in the face of applicant faking but that this strategy also resulted in the displacement of deserving applicants by fakers (which has fairness implications). On the other hand, the NADD strategy minimized displacement of deserving applicants but at the cost of some mean performance. Therefore, the use of the ADD versus NADD strategies can be viewed as a strategic decision to be made by the organization, as there is a tradeoff between the 2 strategies in effects on performance versus fairness to applicants. We quantitatively outlined these tradeoffs at various selection ratios, levels of validity, and amounts of faking in the applicant pool.     

Using Blatant Extreme Responding for Detecting Faking in High‐stakes Selection: Construct validity,relationship with general mental ability,and subgroup differences

Although there has been a steady growth in research and use of self‐report measures of personality in the last 20 years, faking in personality testing remains as a major concern. Blatant extreme responding (BER), which includes endorsing desirable extreme responses (i.e., 1 and 5 s), has recently been identified as a potential faking detection technique. In a large‐scale (N = 358,033), high‐stakes selection context, we investigate the construct validity of BER, the extent to which BER relates to general mental ability, and the extent to which BER differs across jobs, gender, and ethnic groups. We find that BER reflects applicant faking by showing that BER relates to a more established measure of faking, an unlikely virtue (UV) scale, and that applicants score higher than incumbents on BER. BER is (slightly) positively related to general mental ability whereas UV is negatively related to it. Applicants for managerial positions score slightly higher on BER than applicants for nonmanagerial positions. In addition, there was no gender or racial differences on BER. The implications of these findings for detecting faking in personnel selection are delineated.     

What is in Applicants' Minds When They Fill Out a Personality Test? Insights from a qualitative study

Many practitioners fear that applicants will fake if they are asked to fill out a personality test. Although this fear has inspired much research, it remains unknown what applicants think when they fill out a questionnaire. Thus, we conducted a qualitative interview study that was guided by grounded theory principles. We interviewed (a) real applicants directly after filling out a personality test; (b) real applicants who had filled out a personality test in their past job hunt; (c) hypothetical job applicants whom we asked to imagine being an applicant and to fill out a personality test; and (d) hypothetical applicants who had much experience with personality tests. Theoretical saturation was achieved after interviewing 23 people. A content analysis showed that much is going on in applicants' minds – that which is typically subsumed under the expression ‘faking’ actually consists of many facets. In particular, participants assumed that the interpretation of their responses could be based on (a) the consistency of their responses; (b) the endorsement of middle versus extreme answers; and (c) a certain profile, and these assumptions resulted in corresponding self‐presentation strategies. However, these strategies were not used by all participants. Some answered honestly, for different reasons ranging from honesty as a personality trait to the (false) belief that test administrators can catch fakers. All in all, this study questions whether measuring mean changes in classical faking studies captures all important facets.     

The Impact of Applicant Faking on Selection Measures,Hiring Decisions,and Employee Performance

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of applicant faking and its impact on the psychometric properties of the selection measure, the quality of hiring decisions, and employee performance.

Design/Methodology/Approach

This study utilized a within-subjects design where responses on a self-report measure were obtained for 162 individuals both when they applied for a pharmaceutical sales position, and after they were hired. Training performance data was collected at the completion of sales training and sales data was collected 5 months later.

Findings

Applicant faking was a common occurrence, with approximately half of the individuals being classified as a faker on at least one of the dimensions contained in the self-report measure. In addition, faking was found to negatively impact the psychometric properties of the selection measure, as well as the quality of potential hiring decisions made by the organization. Further, fakers exhibited lower levels of performance than non-fakers.

Implications

These findings indicate that past conclusions that applicant faking is either uncommon or does not negatively impact the selection system and/or organizational performance may be unwarranted.

Originality/Value

Remarkably few studies have examined applicant faking using a within-subjects design using actual job applicants, which has limited our understanding of applicant faking. Even fewer studies have attempted to link faking to criterion data to evaluate the impact of faking on employee performance. By utilizing this design and setting, the present study provides a unique glimpse into both the prevalence of faking and the significant impact faking can have on organizations.     

The relationship between cognitive ability and personality scores in selection situations: A meta‐analysis

Several faking theories have identified applicants’ cognitive ability (CA) as a determinant of faking—the intentional distortion of answers by candidates—but the corresponding empirical findings in the area of personality tests are often ambiguous. Following the assumption that CA is important for faking, we expected applicants with high CA to show higher personality scores in selection situations, leading in this case to significant correlations between CA and personality scores, but not in nonselection situations. This meta‐analysis (66 studies, k = 115 individual samples, N = 46,265) showed this pattern of results as well as moderation effects for the study design (laboratory vs. field), the response format of the personality test, and the type of CA test.     

Willingness to fake: Examining the impact of competitive climate and hiring situations

Applicants may be willing to fake in job interviews with the aim of creating a positive impression. In two vignette‐based experiments, we examined if a competitive—versus noncompetitive—climate (Study 1) and hiring situation (Study 2) increased participants' willingness to fake. We also examined if Honesty–Humility and Competitive Worldviews moderated the relation between willingness to fake and how competitive participants believed they must be in order to secure the job. Results demonstrated that a competitive climate and hiring situation increased willingness to fake. Honesty–Humility and Competitive Worldviews were related to willingness to fake, but these relations did not change substantially at different levels of perceived need for competitiveness. Overall, results lend some theoretical support to propositions about applicant faking.     

Are observer ratings of applicants’ personality also faked? Yes,but less than self‐reports

Although self‐report personality tests are a comparatively cheap and easy‐to‐administer personnel selection tool, researchers have criticized them for not predicting enough criterion‐related variance. Researchers have suggested using observer‐ratings of personality (e.g., as part of a reference check from a supervisor) because observer‐ratings have been reported to be more predictive. However, it is theoretically and empirically unclear whether supervisors also engage in faking (the intentional distortion of responses). Study 1 explored faking among managers who were first asked to imagine that a subordinate had to leave his/her job for private reasons and then to rate the personality of the subordinate. A week later, managers rated their subordinates honestly. A repeated‐measures MANOVA indicated that managers did fake. Study 2 (among supervisors of working students) replicated the above findings but also showed that there is less faking in supervisor‐ratings than in self‐ratings. Furthermore, we found no evidence that the validity of personality scales for predicting academic performance depends on self‐ versus observer‐ratings or on an applicant versus an honest condition. These two studies thus show that practitioners should not equate personality ratings obtained from observers in a selection context with honest personality ratings.     

A Prototype Matching Approach to Understanding the Role of Applicant Gender and Age in the Evaluation of Job Applicants1

This research uses a prototype matching approach to understand how job applicant evaluations are made and the role that applicant gender and age play in these evaluations. It is hypothesized that raters represent information about jobs and jobholders in person-in-job prototypes. Raters evaluate applicants by matching information about applicants to the person-in-job prototype associated with the job for which the applicant is applying. Person-in-job prototypes are comprised of features that are more (i.e., central) or less (i.e., peripheral) strongly associated with the prototype. Three laboratory studies examined several hypotheses derived from a prototype matching approach. Results indicated that applicants who matched on more central features were evaluated more favorably than applicants who matched on fewer central features of person-in-job prototypes. In addition, applicants who matched on age were evaluated more favorably than applicants who did not match on age when age was a central but not a peripheral feature of a person-in-job prototype. However, applicants who matched on gender were not evaluated differently from applicants who did not match on gender when gender was a central or a peripheral feature of a person-in-job prototype. Finally, there was some evidence that raters used applicant gender in a complex manner when evaluating applicants. Implications for theory and research on bias in selection are discussed.     

人才甄选中的人格测验作假研究的深入与拓展

企业人才甄选情境下求职者很容易在人格测验中作假。至今有关作假的研究已包含作假的内涵、来源和识别等多个方面,也诞生了多种心理模型尝试解释作假产生的心理机制,如作假动机与作假能力交互作用理论、作假计划行为理论、作假整合模型、一般作假行为模型以及作假的VIE模型,为后续理论研究点明方向。此外,作假应用领域中新兴的网络人格测验作假受到关注,在此介绍网络与纸笔测验两种形式下,人格测验作假行为、作假意向的不同。     

Thou Shalt not Lie! Exploring and testing countermeasures against faking intentions and faking in selection interviews

Many applicants use faking in interviews to present themselves more favorably than they really are. There is widespread concern that this may affect interview validity. As previous research on countermeasures is sparse, we conducted an exploratory study to identify the most promising countermeasures. For technology-mediated interviews, these were warnings referring to a criterion-based content analysis and lie detection algorithms focusing on nonverbal or paraverbal cues. For face-to-face interviews, these were objective questions and a personable interviewer. We then investigated the effects of these countermeasures on faking intentions in two experimental vignette studies and on faking in another simulated interview study. However, none of the countermeasures could reduce faking intentions or faking. Additionally, in the vignette studies, warnings impaired applicant reactions.     

Item placement on a personality measure: effects on faking behavior and test measurement properties

Although personality tests are widely used to select applicants for a variety of jobs, there is concern that such measures are fakable. One procedure used to minimize faking has been to disguise the true intent of personality tests by randomizing items such that items measuring similar constructs are dispersed throughout the test. In this study, we examined if item placement does influence the fakability and psychometric properties of a personality measure. Study participants responded to 1 of 2 formats (random vs. grouped items) of a personality test honestly and also under instructions to fake or to behave like an applicant. Results indicate that the grouped item placement format was more fakable for the Neuroticism and Conscientiousness scales. The test with items randomly placed fit the data better within the honest and applicant conditions. These findings demonstrate that the issue of item placement should be seriously considered before administering personality measures because different item presentations may affect the incidence of faking and the psychometric properties of the measure.     

The Overclaiming Questionnaire: A good way to measure faking?

We evaluated the validity of the Overclaiming Questionnaire (OCQ) as a measure of job applicants’ faking of personality tests. We assessed whether the OCQ (a) converged with an established measure of applicant faking, Residualized Individual Change Scores (RICSs); (b) predicted admission of faking and faking tendencies (Faking Frequency, Minimizing Weaknesses, Exaggerating Strengths, and Complete Misrepresentation); and, (c) predicted the aforementioned measures as strongly as RICSs did. First, 261 participants were instructed to respond honesty to an extraversion measure. Next, in a mock job application, they filled out the extraversion measure again, as well as the OCQ. The OCQ only weakly predicted RICSs (r = .17), Faking Admission (r = .18), and Faking Frequency (r = .15), and it failed to correlate significantly with Minimizing Weaknesses, Exaggerating Strengths, and Complete Misrepresentation. Moreover, the OCQ performed significantly worse than RICS in predicting Faking Admission, Faking Frequency, Minimizing Weaknesses, Exaggerating Strengths, and Complete Misrepresentation. We urge caution in using the current version of the OCQ to measure faking, but speculate that the innovative approach taken in the OCQ might be more effectively exploited if the OCQ content were tailored to the specific job that applicants are being tested for.     

Toward an Integrated Model of Applicant Faking Behavior1

The present research tested a model that integrated the theory of planned behavior (TPB) with a model of faking presented by McFarland and Ryan (2000) to predict faking on a personality test. In Study 1, the TPB explained sizable variance in the intention to fake. In Study 2, the TPB explained both the intention to fake and actual faking behavior. Different faking measures (i.e., difference scores and social desirability scales) tended to yield similar conclusions, but the difference scores were more strongly related to the variables in the model. These results provide support for a model that may increase understanding of applicant faking behavior and suggest reasons for the discrepancies in past research regarding the prevalence and consequences of faking.     

Gender Bias in Asylum Adjudications: Evidence for Leniency toward Token Women

Gender is one of the most frequently studied variables in the literature on judicial decision-making. We add to this literature by hypothesizing that the impact of applicant gender is conditional on the gender balance in a judge’s caseload. We expect that female applicants receive more favorable decisions from judges whose caseload skews strongly male. Analyzing over 40,000 rulings by the Austrian Asylum Court between 2008 and 2013, we find support for direct gender effects for applicants and judges (yet no significant interaction between the two). We also show that gender balance in the caseload is a strong moderator of applicant gender. Judges with predominantly male caseloads are strongly biased toward female applicants, whereas judges facing a gender-balanced set of applicants display hardly any gender bias at all. These findings tackle essential questions of democratic rule of law and human rights. They indicate that applicants’ fundamental rights to a fair and equal trial may have been compromised. We discuss institutional remedies to reduce the potential for gender bias in Austrian asylum adjudication.

     

Economic Predictors of Differences in Interview Faking Between Countries: Economic Inequality Matters,Not the State of Economy

Many companies recruit employees from different parts of the globe, and faking behavior by potential employees is a ubiquitous phenomenon. It seems that applicants from some countries are more prone to faking compared to others, but the reasons for these differences are largely unexplored. This study relates country-level economic variables to faking behavior in hiring processes. In a cross-national study across 20 countries, participants (N = 3,839) reported their faking behavior in their last job interview. This study used the random response technique (RRT) to ensure participants’ anonymity and to foster honest answers regarding faking behavior. Results indicate that general economic indicators (gross domestic product per capita [GDP] and unemployment rate) show negligible correlations with faking across the countries, whereas economic inequality is positively related to the extent of applicant faking to a substantial extent. These findings imply that people are sensitive to inequality within countries and that inequality relates to faking, because inequality might actuate other psychological processes (e.g., envy) which in turn increase the probability for unethical behavior in many forms.     

Smiling in a Job Interview: When Less Is More

Two studies examined the effect of applicants’ smiling on hireability. In a pre-test study, participants were asked to rate the expected behavior for four types of applicants. Newspaper reporter applicants were expected to be more serious than applicants for other jobs. In Study 1, participants were randomly assigned to be an applicant or interviewer for a newspaper reporting job. Smiling was negatively related to hiring, and smiling mediated the relation between applicants’ motivation to make a good impression and hiring. Hiring was maximized when applicants smiled less in the middle of the interview relative to the start and end. In Study 2, participants watched Study 1 clips and were randomly assigned to believe the applicants were applying to one of four jobs. Participants rated more suitability when applicants smiled less, especially for jobs associated with a serious demeanor. This research shows that job type is an important moderator of the impact of smiling on hiring.     

Effects of Applicant Personality on Resume Evaluations

Purpose

This study examined the extent that personality information in resumes impacts hiring judgments through applicant’s resumes. Study 1 examined lay theories regarding relationships between resume cues and the applicant’s personality and hireability. Study 2 examined how the applicant’s personality impacted hiring judgments through resumes.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Data for both studies were collected in the context of a managerial position. For Study 1, participants assessed resume cues in regards to their relationship with personality and hireability. For Study 2, Human Resource personnel evaluated each resume in regards to personality and hireability.

Findings

Results for Study 1 highlight several connections between applicants’ personality and resumes, with strong links between resume content and perceptions of conscientiousness and agreeableness. Results for Study 2 indicate that personality was largely unrelated to ratings of hireability but perceptions of personality were strongly linked to hireability; actual personality was linked to the variability in cue information related to hireability, and conscientiousness was indirectly related to hireability through judgments of conscientiousness.

Implications

Results from these studies suggest that personality and perceptions of personality play a greater role in resume development and screening than has been previously suggested. The pattern of results reported suggest that there are a number of resumes cues that accurately reflect an applicant’s personality and influence perceptions of hireability.

Originality/Value

By taking an exploratory approach, the current studies were able to explore a large variety of cues linked to personality and ratings of hireability. Results have implications for both applicants and HR personnel evaluating resumes.