A review of applicant faking in selection interviews

Abstract

Interviews are commonly used for selection but research on interview faking only gained momentum relatively recently. We review both theoretical and empirical work on prevalence, antecedents, processes, and effects of interview faking. Most applicants fake at least to some degree. Personality (e.g., Conscientiousness, Honestyhumility, the Dark Triad) and attitudes toward faking substantially correlate with faking behaviors. Research concerning applicants' ability, interview structure components, or contextual factors is limited. Furthermore, the impact of faking on interview ratings is mixed and effects on criterion-related validity are not consistently negative.Finally, the detection of faking seems hardly possible and there are limited options available to reduce interview faking. Throughout our review, we describe important gaps and derive suggestions and propositions for future research. K E Y W O R D Sfaking, impression management, personnel selection, selection interviews, socially desirable responding

Nonlinearity in the relationship between impression management tactics and interview performance

“…Melchers et al. (2020) suggested that IM might behave as a continuum, with honest tactics at one end, and deceptive at the other. Perhaps excessive honest IM moves the candidate up the continuum such that the tactics start to exceed what the interviewer expects, and thus excessive honest IM starts to have the same small negative effects on interview performance as deceptive IM.…”

“…The previously cited meta‐analyses of the IM‐Interview Performance literature (e.g., Barrick et al, 2009; Levashina et al., 2014: Peck & Levashina, 2017) did not differentiate between honest and deceptive tactics; in many cases, the measures used in the primary studies were a mix of both honest and deceptive tactics. When studies have reported on the relations between specifically deceptive IM and interview outcomes (such as interview performance or hiring outcomes) the correlations have ranged from small and negative to moderate and positive (see Melchers et al., 2020 for a review). In the present study, the linear model we tested was marginally statistically significant in the negative direction.…”

“…As Melchers et al. (2020) point out, observers are rarely able to detect whether a specific IM tactic used during an interview is honest or deceptive—it is really only the interviewee who knows. Thus, although it is a limitation to rely solely on self‐report IM data, it is the best approach when it is important to distinguish honest from deceptive IM.…”

“…Ratings of interview performance have often been used as criteria against which to judge the effect of IM tactics. Research has found that the relationship between honest IM tactics and interview ratings is generally positive; whereas the relationship between deceptive IM tactics tends to be lower (Amaral et al, 2019; Bourdage et al., 2018; Kristof‐Brown et al, 2002; Melchers et al, 2020). It is likely that deceptive IM tactics are less related to interview performance ratings because they are difficult for interviewers to identify (Roulin et al, 2015), or that applicants use them less effectively.…”

Prepared to fake? The relationship between applicants’ job interview preparation and faking

“…First, spending too much time on preparation and using preparation by professional means should be deployed carefully, since both showed potential negative effects on interview success; further research is, however, required to solidify this finding. Second, faking hasn't been unambiguously linked to higher interview success (Melchers et al, 2020). Instead, it inherently features the risk of an applicant getting caught (e.g., Roulin et al., 2016).…”