Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicant faking behavior

Abstract

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.

Influence of Context on Item Parameters in Forced-Choice Personality Assessments

“…Response biases and distortions arise due to differences in interpretation of the rating scale (Friedman & Amoo, 1999); individual response styles such as central/extreme tendency, acquiescence, socially desirable responding (Paulhus, 1991;Paulhus & Vazire, 2007), and faking (e.g., Donovan, Dwight, & Hurtz, 2003;Griffith, Chmielowski, & Yoshita, 2007). Forcing choice between personality items has emerged as an approach to prevent biases and distortions (Nederhof, 1985;Zavala, 1965).…”

The use of personality test norms in work settings: Effects of sample size and relevance

“…Some (e.g. Arthur, Woehr, & Graziano, 2000;Hogan, Barrett, & Hogan, 2007;Hough & Schneider, 1996;Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998;Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999) downplay the effects of voluntary faking, whereas others (Griffith, Chmielowski, & Yoshita, 2007;Rosse, Stecher, Miller, & Levin, 1998;Stark, Chernyshenko, Chan, Lee, & Drasgow, 2001;Tett & Christiansen, 2007) argue that it is indeed problematic. Summarizing the 'do-fake' literature in selection contexts, Tett et al (2006) report a meta-analytic mean d effect size of .35, averaging across the Big Five (excluding Openness, whose effect is close to 0, yields a mean of 0.52).…”

Aplikasi Uji Keberfungsian Diferensial Untuk Menguji Ketahanan Butir Skala Psikologi Terhadap Respons Tipuan Pada Konteks Seleksi Kerja

“…Sekitar 30 hingga 50 persen pelamar dapat meningkatkan skor pengukuran psikologi mereka ketika melamar pekerjaan (Griffith, Chmielowski, & Yoshita, 2007). Dari ukuran efek analisis diperlihatkan bahwa respons tipuan mem-berikan peranan yang cukup besar terhadap skor perolehan dari pengukuran faktor keuletan bekerja.…”