Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
F. Schmidt, J. Hunter
SED banding as a test of scientific values in I/O psychology
R.L. Frei, A.F. Snell, M.A. McDaniel, R.L. Griffith
Using a within subjects design to identify the differences between social desirability and faking
R. Hogan, J. Hogan, B. Roberts (1996)
Personality Measurement and Employment Decisions. Questions and Answers.American Psychologist, 51
R.L. Griffith, A.F. Snell, M.A. McDaniel, R.L. Frei
Social desirability as common method bias: a LISREL analysis
A. Snell, Eric Sydell, Sarah Lueke (1999)
Towards a Theory of Applicant Faking: Integrating Studies of DeceptionHuman Resource Management Review, 9
R. Moorman, P. Podsakoff (1992)
A meta‐analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behaviour researchJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65
L.M. Hough, R.J. Schneider
Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications on organizations
Joseph Rosse, M. Stecher, Janice Miller, R. Levin (1998)
The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions.Journal of Applied Psychology, 83
A.A. Sloane
Countering resume fraud within and beyond banking: no excuse for not doing more
M. Ziegler, M. Buehner
Measurement Educational and Psychological Modeling Socially Desirable Responding and Its Effects
Robert Tett, D. Jackson, Mitchell Rothstein, J. Reddon (1994)
META‐ANALYSIS OF PERSONALITY‐JOB PERFORMANCE RELATIONS: A REPLY TO ONES, MOUNT, BARRICK, AND HUNTER (1994)Personnel Psychology, 47
S.L. Rynes
Who's selecting whom? Effects of Selection practices on applicant attitudes and behavior
R.P. Tett, D.N. Jackson, M. Rothstein
Meta‐analysis of personality: job performance relationships
Gregory Hurtz, John Donovan (2000)
Personality and job performance: the Big Five revisited.The Journal of applied psychology, 85 6
Jill Ellingson, P. Sackett, L. Hough (1999)
Social desirability corrections in personality measurement : Issues of applicant comparison and construct validityJournal of Applied Psychology, 84
R. Tett, Neil Christiansen (2007)
Personality tests at the crossroads: A response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt (2007).Personnel Psychology, 60
D.S. Ones, C. Viswesvaran
A meta‐analytic investigation of social desirability influences on integrity test validities: much ado about nothing
M. Zickar
Computer simulation of faking on a personality test
L. Hough (1998)
Effects of Intentional Distortion in Personality Measurement and evaluation of Suggested PalliativesHuman Performance, 11
A. Ryan, P. Sackett (1987)
Pre-employment honesty testing: Fakability, reactions of test takers, and company imageJournal of Business and Psychology, 1
D. Haaland, N.D. Christiansen
Departures in linearity in the relationship in applicant personality test score and performance and evidence of response distortion
D. Ones, C. Viswesvaran, Angelika Reiss (1996)
Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring.Journal of Applied Psychology, 81
Neil Christiansen, R. Goffin, Norman Johnston, Mitchell Rothstein (1994)
CORRECTING THE 16PF FOR FAKING: EFFECTS ON CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITY AND INDIVIDUAL HIRING DECISIONSPersonnel Psychology, 47
Richard Griffith, Mitchell Peterson (2008)
The Failure of Social Desirability Measures to Capture Applicant Faking BehaviorIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, 1
M. Dunnette, Jean McCARTNEY, H. Carlson, W. Kirchner (1962)
A STUDY OF FAKING BEHAVIOR ON A FORCED‐CHOICE SELF‐DESCRIPTION CHECKLISTPersonnel Psychology, 15
Jinyan Fan, Corbin Wong, S. Carroll, Félix López (2008)
An empirical investigation of the influence of social desirability on the factor structure of the Chinese 16PFPersonality and Individual Differences, 45
A. Greenwald (1976)
Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use?Psychological Bulletin, 83
E. Douglas, Michael McDaniel, A. Snell (1996)
THE VALIDITY OF NON-COGNITIVE MEASURES DECAYS WHEN APPLICANTS FAKE., 1996
G. Stokes, J. Hogan, A. Snell (1993)
COMPARABILITY OF INCUMBENT AND APPLICANT SAMPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIODATA KEYS: THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL DESIRABILITYPersonnel Psychology, 46
L. McFarland, A. Ryan (2000)
Variance in faking across noncognitive measures.The Journal of applied psychology, 85 5
L.M. Hough, C. Paullin
Construct‐oriented scale construction: the rational approach
A.F. Snell, M.A. McDaniel
Faking: getting data to answer the right questions
Thomas Becker, Alan Colquitt (2006)
Potential versus actual faking of a biodata form: An analysis along several dimensions of item type.Personnel Psychology, 45
P.S. Edens, W. Arthur
A meta‐analysis investigating the susceptibility of self‐report inventories to distortion
Mark Schmit, A. Ryan (1993)
The Big Five in Personnel Selection: Factor Structure in Applicant and Nonapplicant PopulationsJournal of Applied Psychology, 78
P.L. Stanush
Factors that influence the susceptibility of self‐report inventories to distortion: a meta‐analytic investigation
C. Viswesvaran, D. Ones (1999)
Meta-Analyses of Fakability Estimates: Implications for Personality MeasurementEducational and Psychological Measurement, 59
L.M. Hough
An examination of the structure and usefulness of non‐cognitive constructs for predicting job performance
L. Hough, F. Oswald (2000)
Personnel selection: looking toward the future--remembering the past.Annual review of psychology, 51
L. Hough, Newell Eaton, M. Dunnette, J. Kamp, R. McCloy (1990)
Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validitiesJournal of Applied Psychology, 75
M. Zickar, J. Rosse, R. Levin
Modeling the effects of faking on personality scales
J.K. Wheeler, L.S. Hamill, N.T. Tippins
Warnings against candidate misrepresentations: do they work?
Murray Barrick, M. Mount (1996)
Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs.The Journal of applied psychology, 81 3
R.L. Griffith, K. Rutkowski, A. Gujar, Y. Yoshita, L. Steelman
Modeling applicant faking: new methods to examine an old problem
R.L. Griffith, T. Chmielowski, A.F. Snell, R.L. Frei, M.A. McDaniel
Does faking matter? An examination of rank order changes in applicant data
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to empirically test whether applicants fake their responses to personality based employment inventories. Design/methodology/approach – This study utilized a within subjects design to asses whether applicants elevated their scores in an applicant conditions. Subjects who applied for a job were later contacted and asked to complete the same personality measure under an honest instructional set. The within subjects design allowed the researcher to examine faking behavior at the individual level of analysis rather than draw inferences between applicant and incumbent groups. Findings – Results suggest that a significant number of applicants do fake personality based selection measures. Depending on the confidence interval used between 30 and 50 percent of applicants elevated their scores when applying for a job. The results also show that applicant faking behavior resulted in significant rank ordering changes that impacted hiring decisions. Research limitations/implications – One limitation of the study is the exclusion of a job performance criterion measure. Without this measure definitive statements regarding the decay in the criterion validity of the measure cannot be made. While the study demonstrated rank ordering changes, decrements in criterion validity cannot be demonstrated without measuring job performance. Practical implications – The practical implications of the paper are that personality measures should not be used alone. Rather they should be included in a test battery of measures that are less susceptible to faking behavior. In addition, applied researchers must continue research efforts to address the faking issue. Originality/value – Empirical research has supported the notion that respondents can fake when instructed, however, other research has suggested that applicants do not fake in applied settings. This study is the first to provide substantial evidence that faking does occur in applicant settings and that is disrupts rank ordering of applicants.
Personnel Review – Emerald Publishing
Published: Apr 17, 2007
Keywords: Behaviour; Personality tests; Job applications
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.