The influence of job familiarity and impression management on self-report measure scale scores and response latencies.

Abstract

Two studies were conducted to examine the effects of job familiarity and impression management on response latencies and scale scores for measures of personality and situational judgment. In a laboratory study using university students and a field study using U.S. Border Patrol Agent applicants, impression management was generally associated with faster personality item responses when job familiarity was high and with slower responses when job familiarity was low. Both impression management and job familiarity were associated with personality item responses that were more likely to lead to a job offer. The field study revealed a similar pattern of results for situational judgment scale response latencies, although only impression management was associated with item responses that were more likely to lead to a job offer. The implications for using response latencies to detect impression management on self-report measures are discussed.

Impact of Elaboration on Responding to Situational Judgment Test Items

“…One plausible explanation might be that experience and familiarity with situations lead to the development of strong schemas about the type of behaviors best suited in these situations, as shown by prior social cognitive research (Fiske & Cox, 1979;Klein, Loftus, Trafton, & Fuhrman, 1992). In turn, test-takers possessing relevant job knowledge and/or experience have been found to be better able to fake than inexperienced test-takers (Frei, Griffith, Snell, McDaniel, & Douglas, 1997;Vasilopoulos et al, 2000). Our results for familiarity are also consistent with research that shows that people can better fake more obvious (transparent) items than more subtle ones in personality inventories (e.g., Peterson, Clark, & Bennett, 1989;Posey & Hess, 1984).…”

“…Another strand of research involved field studies, comparing responses from various groups (e.g., students, applicants, and incumbents). These studies aimed to determine the typical and operational level of faking on SJTs in real-world settings (e.g., Ployhart, Weekley, Holtz, & Kemp, 2003;Reynolds, Winter, & Scott, 1999;Vasilopoulos, Reilly, & Leaman, 2000).…”

A process model of self-regulation and leadership: How attentional resource capacity and negative emotions influence constructive and destructive leadership

“…We have developed and tested a simple and practical way to manipulate and measure self-regulation that is impervious to the influence of "response distortion," i.e., attenuation of undesirable traits like anger, and inflation of desirable traits like conscientiousness (see Bolino & Turnley, 2003;Tett & Simonet, 2011;Vasilopoulos, Reilly, & Leaman, 2000). Response distortion can not only confound the interpretation of empirical results (e.g., De Hoogh et al, 2005;Dobson, 2000), but weaken confidence in leadership selection decisions (see Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996;Spillane, 2012).…”

Understanding Faking Behavior Through the Lens of Motivation: An Application of VIE Theory

“…The use of diagnostic techniques such as embedding bogus items within the assessment (Anderson, Warner, & Spencer, 1984;Levashina et al, 2009), evaluating idiosyncratic item response patterns (Kuncel & Borneman, 2007), assessing response latencies (Vasilopoulos, Reilly, & Leaman, 2000), or examining item characteristics through item response theory (Stark, Chernyshenko, Chan, Lee, & Drasgow, 2001) should all function to reduce an individual's ability to fake. These techniques operate to address faking after it has occurred but before test scores are Downloaded by [New York University] at 02:42 14 October 2014 calculated, leaving individuals motivated yet ignorant of the reality of the assessment situation.…”