Cross‐Cultural Differences in Applicant Faking on Personality Tests: A 43‐Nation Study

Abstract

In a globalised world, more and more organisations have to select from pools of applicants from different cultures, often by using personality tests. If applicants from different cultures were to differ in the amount of faking on personality tests, this could threaten their validity: Applicants who engage in faking will have an advantage, and will put those who do not fake at a disadvantage. This is the first study to systematically examine and explain cross‐cultural differences in actual faking behavior. In N = 3,678 employees from 43 countries, a scenario‐based repeated measures design (faking vs. honest condition) was applied. Results showed that faking differed significantly across countries, and that it was systematically related to countries’ cultural characteristics (e.g. GLOBE's uncertainty avoidance, future orientation, humane orientation, and in‐group collectivism), but in an unexpected way. The study discusses these findings and their implications for research and practitioners.

Examining Cross‐Cultural Differences in Academic Faking in 41 Nations

“…Although these two studies went beyond the previous attempts to describe cross‐cultural differences in faking, there are several reasons why generalising to our context of academic faking is difficult and why a new study is needed. First, although the samples of the previous studies sound large (3,678 in Fell & König; 3,252 in Fell et al, ), they only equate to between 67 and 97 people per country in Fell and König () and between 101 and 110 people per country in Fell et al (). Moreover, the data from both studies came from international market research firms.…”

“…They found that positive attitudes towards applicant faking in interviews at the country level were negatively related to two cultural GLOBE dimensions (i.e., cultural uncertainty avoidance and gender egalitarianism) and positively related to the GLOBE dimensions of power distance, in‐group collectivism, and humane orientation. In a follow‐up study with 3,678 employees from 43 countries (Fell & König, ), the authors used a standard design for studying applicants’ faking on personality tests by comparing participants’ scores on a Big Five personality test within a hypothetical applicant situation (“faking condition”) with scores on the same Big Five measure within an honest condition (in which participants were instructed to respond honestly). They found systematic country‐level correlations with an overlapping set of cultural practices (i.e., GLOBE's uncertainty avoidance, future orientation, and in‐group collectivism).…”

“…Second, the two previous studies used hypothetical scenarios. In Fell and König (), participants were asked to imagine being an applicant and then filled out a Big Five questionnaire; in Fell et al (), participants were asked to imagine that they had overheard two people talking about using faking strategies in job interviews, and then filled out an attitude survey regarding these faking strategies. The PISA study, by contrast, included a non‐intrusive behavioural measure of academic faking (i.e., overclaiming; Paulhus et al, ).…”

“…Third, the results of the two studies do not converge; in fact, they seem to partly contradict one another. For instance, Fell et al () found a positive correlation between the attitude towards applicant faking and in‐group collectivism, whereas Fell and König () found a negative correlation between faking on the Big Five and in‐group collectivism. These inconsistencies might have been caused by the relatively small sample sizes and the questionable representativeness.…”

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

“…This definition is a slightly simplified version of typical faking definitions. For example, Fell and König () define faking as “applicants’ conscious distortion of responses in order to achieve better scores (e.g., on a personality test) and to increase their chances of being hired” (p. 672; for similar definitions see, e.g., McFarland & Ryan, ; Roulin & Krings, ). Such a simplification is necessary because typical faking definitions only capture faking in self‐reports and not faking in other‐reports.…”