Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Received and reviewed by former editor, George Neuman.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
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., 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.
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
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.
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
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.
- Examining the Role of Applicant Faking in Hiring Decisions: Percentage of Fakers Hired and Hiring Discrepancies in Single- and Multiple-Predictor Selection
Mitchell H. Peterson
Richard L. Griffith
Patrick D. Converse
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, Voraussetzungen für wirtschaftliche additive Fertigung/© Marco2811 | Fotolia