Deceptively Simple: Applicant Faking Behavior and Prediction of Job Performance

Measuring Faking on Five-Factor Personality Questionnaires

“…The correlation between the results on SD scales and direct measures of response distortion was still below those expected for identical constructs, although they were in the expected direction and some of them relatively high. This is similar to findings of other studies which tested the relationship between results on SD scales in honest condition and faking on personality questionnaires (Griffith et al, 2006; Mersman & Shultz, 1998). Despite the fact that the main conceptual weakness of these studies, measurement of socially desirable responding in honest condition, was resolved in our research, the relationship between SD and faking was comparatively higher but it is still not high enough.…”

“…They show that correlations between the two constructs are weak. For example, Griffith, Malm, English, Yoshita, and Gujar (2006) correlated the result on the Impression Management (IM) scale (Paulhus, 1984) with the amount of faking on a personality questionnaire between honest responding and simulated selection (student job for a consulting firm). The strongest correlation was observed between IM and response distortion on neuroticism ( r = .20; p < .01).…”

“Sweet Little Lies”

“…So far, many attempts have been made to explain faking behavior by means of these models. Within the group of ability correlates, cognitive ability has been shown to be positively related to faking in many empirical studies (e.g., Griffith, Malm, English, Yoshita, & Gujar, 2006; Nguyen et al, 2005; Pauls & Crost, 2005; Van Iddekinge et al, 2005; Ziegler, 2006). This positive relation could be because more intelligent people may be more successful in identifying what is expected in the testing situation and in recognizing the meaning of the items and the appropriate response.…”

Intentional response distortion on personality tests: Using eye-tracking to understand response processes when faking.

“…Intentional response distortion or faking among job applicants completing measures such as personality and integrity tests continues to be a concern in personnel selection (Griffith, Malm, English, Yoshita, & Gujar, 2006). Faking can be defined as a response bias whereby individuals consciously manipulate their answers as to create an overly positive impression (Komar, Brown, Komar, & Robie, 2008; McFarland & Ryan, 2000).…”

“…These studies, however, almost exclusively operationalized faking using social desirability, impression management, or lie scale scores. Because such self-report scales to assess faking themselves have been found to be sensitive to faking (e.g., Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999; Zickar & Robie, 1999) and because their validity has been questioned (Griffith et al, 2006; Griffith & Peterson, 2008; Stark et al, 2001; see also McFarland & Ryan, 2000), it may be problematic to draw firm conclusions about the effects of faking from studies using such scales (Burns & Christiansen, 2006). Indeed, studies using other paradigms such as comparing applicants with non-applicants (e.g., Griffin, Hesketh, & Grayson, 2004; Rosse, Stecher, Miller, & Levin, 1998; Schmit & Ryan, 1993; Stark et al, 2001) or comparing scores in a faking condition with scores in a responding honestly condition (e.g., Douglas, McDaniel, & Snell, 1996; Holden, Wood, & Tomashewski, 2001; McFarland & Ryan, 2000; Zickar & Robie, 1999) typically conclude that faking does impact both the construct and criterion-related validity.…”