Top

Journal of Business and Psychology

Published in:

01-12-2009

Examining the Role of Applicant Faking in Hiring Decisions: Percentage of Fakers Hired and Hiring Discrepancies in Single- and Multiple-Predictor Selection

Authors: Mitchell H. Peterson, Richard L. Griffith, Patrick D. Converse

Published in: Journal of Business and Psychology | Issue 4/2009

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of applicant faking on personnel selection outcomes (fakers hired and hiring discrepancies) across single-predictor (conscientiousness alone) and multiple-predictor (combinations of conscientiousness and cognitive ability) selection methods.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Applicant faking was measured using a within-subjects design in which participants completed a conscientiousness measure both under the assumption that they were applying for a job and under honest response instructions. The two selection outcomes (fakers hired and hiring discrepancies) were compared across single- and multiple-predictor scenarios.

Findings

Our results indicated that the combinations of conscientiousness and cognitive ability resulted in as much as a 13.50% reduction in hiring fakers (compared to a conscientiousness measure alone); however, most of these differences were not statistically significant. The use of cognitive ability–conscientiousness combinations did, however, result in significant reductions in hiring discrepancies.

Implications

The primary implication of the present study is that while the use of multiple predictors is effective in reducing the impact of faking on hiring discrepancies over the use of a personality measure alone, this reduction may not be large enough to eliminate concern over the occurrence of faking.

Originality/Value

Most research investigating potential negative effects of applicant faking has focused solely on single-predictor selection scenarios. However, personality measures rarely serve as the sole basis for hiring decisions. The present study sheds light on the impact of faking on selection outcomes when more than one predictor variable plays a role in hiring decisions.

previous article Workplace Romance: A Justice Analysis

next article Assessment Centers: Current Practices in the United States

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this distinction.

Alliger, G. M., Lillianfield, S. O., & Mitchell, K. E. (1996). The susceptibility of overt and covert integrity tests to coaching and faking. Psychological Science, 7, 32–39.CrossRef

Arthur, W., Glaze, R. M., Villado, A. J., & Taylor, J. E. (2009). The magnitude and extent of cheating and response distortion effects on unproctored internet-based tests of cognitive ability and personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.CrossRef

Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007a). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424.CrossRefPubMed

Berry, C. M., Sackett, P. R., & Wiemann, S. (2007b). A review of recent developments in integrity test research. Personnel Psychology, 60, 271–301.CrossRef

Bobko, P., Roth, P. L., & Potosky, D. (1999). Derivation and implications of a meta-analytic matrix incorporating cognitive ability, alternative predictors, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 52, 561–589.CrossRef

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99–109.CrossRef

Cascio, W. F. (1991). Applied psychology in personnel management (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Christiansen, N. D., Goffin, R. D., Johnston, N. G., & Rothstein, M. G. (1994). Correcting the 16PF for faking: Effects on criterion-related validity and individual hiring decisions. Personnel Psychology, 47, 847–860.CrossRef

Converse, P. D., Peterson, M. H., & Griffith, R. L. (2009). Faking on personality measures: Implications for selection involving multiple predictors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 47–60.CrossRef

Cortina, J. M., Goldstein, N. B., Payne, S. C., Davison, H. K., & Gilliland, S. W. (2000). The incremental validity of interview scores over and above cognitive ability and conscientiousness scores. Personnel Psychology, 53, 325–351.CrossRef

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R: Professional manual revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

De Corte, W., Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Combining predictors to achieve optimal trade-offs between selection quality and adverse impact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1380–1393.CrossRefPubMed

Donovan, J. J., Dwight, S. A., & Hurtz, G. M. (2003). An assessment of the prevalence, severity, and verifiability of entry-level applicant faking using the randomized response technique. Human Performance, 16, 81–106.CrossRef

Gatewood, R. D., & Field, H. S. (2004). Human resource selection (5th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Thompson Learning.

Griffith, R. L., Chmielowski, T. S., & Yoshita, Y. (2007). Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicant faking behavior. Personnel Review, 36, 341–355.CrossRef

Griffith, R. L., Malm, T., Yoshita, Y., English, A., & Gujar, A. (2006). Applicant faking behavior: Teasing apart the influence of situational variance, cognitive biases, and individual differences. In R. L. Griffith & M. H. Peterson (Eds.), A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 149–176). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135–164.CrossRef

Haaland, D., & Christiansen, N. D. (1998). Departures from linearity in the relationship between applicant personality test scores and performance as evidence of response distortion. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual International Personnel Management Association Assessment Council Conference, Chicago, IL.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51, 469–477.CrossRef

Hough, L. M. (1998). Effects of intentional distortion in personality measurement and evaluation of suggested palliatives. Human Performance, 11, 209–244.CrossRef

Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581–595.CrossRef

Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.CrossRefPubMed

Komar, S., Brown, D. J., Komar, J. A., & Robie, C. (2008). Faking and the validity of conscientiousness: A Monte Carlo investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 140–154.CrossRefPubMed

Komar, S., Theakston, J., Brown, D. J., & Robie, C. (2005). Faking and the validity of personality: A monte-carlo investigation. Paper presented at the 20th annual meeting for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 812–821.CrossRefPubMed

Mersman, J. L., & Schultz, K. S. (1998). Individual differences in the ability to fake on personality measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 217–227.CrossRef

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.

Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60, 683–729.CrossRef

Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C., I. I. I. (2003). Faking and selection: Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 348–355.CrossRef

Peterson, M. H., & Griffith, R. L. (2006). Faking and job performance: A muti-faceted issue. In R. L. Griffith & M. H. Peterson (Eds.), A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 231–259). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Potosky, D., Bobko, P., & Roth, P. L. (2005). Forming composites of cognitive ability and alternative measures to predict performance and reduce adverse impact: Corrected estimates and realistic expectations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(4), 304–315.CrossRef

Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response distortion on pre-employment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 634–644.CrossRef

Ryan, A. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Friedel, L. A. (1998). Using personality testing to reduce adverse impact: A cautionary note. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 298–307.CrossRef

Sackett, P. R., & Ellingson, J. E. (1997). The effects of forming multiple-predictor composites on group differences and adverse impact. Personnel Psychology, 50, 707–721.CrossRef

Sackett, P. R., & Roth, L. (1996). Multi-stage selection strategies: A Monte Carlo investigation of effects on performance and minority hiring. Personnel Psychology, 49, 549–572.CrossRef

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.CrossRef

Schmitt, N., & Oswald, F. L. (2006). The impact of corrections for faking on the validity of noncognitive measures in selection settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 613–621.CrossRefPubMed

Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Chan, K., Lee, W. C., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Effects of the testing situation on item responding: Cause for concern. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 943–953.CrossRefPubMed

Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Meta-analysis of personality-job performance relationships. Personnel Psychology, 47, 157–172.CrossRef

Vasilopoulos, N. L., Cucina, J. M., Dyomina, N. V., Morewitz, C. L., & Reilly, R. R. (2006). Forced-choice personality tests: A measure of personality and cognitive ability. Human Performance, 19, 175–199.CrossRef

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197–210.CrossRef

Wonderlic, E. F. (2002). Wonderlic personnel test & scholastic level exam user’s manual. Libertyville, PA: Wonderlic Personnel Test.

Wrensen, L. B., & Biderman, M. D. (2005). Factors related to faking ability: A structural equation model application. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

Zickar, M., Rosse, J. & Levin, R. (1996). Modeling the effects of faking on personality scales. Paper presented at the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.

Title: Examining the Role of Applicant Faking in Hiring Decisions: Percentage of Fakers Hired and Hiring Discrepancies in Single- and Multiple-Predictor Selection
Authors: Mitchell H. Peterson
Richard L. Griffith
Patrick D. Converse
Publication date: 01-12-2009
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Business and Psychology / Issue 4/2009
Print ISSN: 0889-3268
Electronic ISSN: 1573-353X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9121-5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Design/Methodology/Approach

Findings

Implications

Originality/Value

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 4/2009

The Moderating Effect of Personality on Employees’ Reactions to Procedural Fairness and Outcome Favorability

Workplace Romance: A Justice Analysis

Assessment Centers: Current Practices in the United States

The Influence of Social Regard on the Customer–Service Firm Relationship: The Moderating Role of Length of Relationship

Cognitive Style and Entrepreneurial Drive of New and Mature Business Owner-Managers

Intraperson Consistency in Financial Risk Tolerance Assessment: Temporal Stability, Relationship to Total Score, and Effect on Criterion-related Validity