A survey of assessor beliefs and practices related to faking

Contextual cues as a source of response bias in personality questionnaires: The case of the NEO‐FFI

Two experiments demonstrated the susceptibility of a standard personality inventory to response bias elicited by contextual cues. In Study 1, participants who completed the NEO‐FFI in a simulated application for a job stereotypically associated with extraversion (a journalist) scored higher on the extraversion scale than those who completed it under standard instructions. The increase occurred in response to the job label ‘journalist’ and in response to a job description stressing extraversion‐related qualities. In Study 2, a priming procedure was used to elicit cognitive response distortions. Participants exposed to an extraverted stimulus person scored higher on extraversion than participants completing the NEO‐FFI under standard instructions. No effects were found on the remaining scales of the NEO‐FFI. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Identifying Applicant Faking in Job Interviews

Abstract. Applicants’ use of faking tactics could threaten the validity of employment interviews. We examined criterion-based content analysis (CBCA), an approach used in legal contexts, as a potential indicator of interviewee faking. We also examined the moderating role of storytelling in the faking-CBCA relationship. We conducted one experimental study, with 100 interviewees receiving instructions to respond honestly versus to exaggerate/invent responses, and one mock interview study, with self-reported faking from 111 interviewees. Responses were recorded, transcribed, and coded for CBCA and storytelling. Faking was associated with CBCA when interviewees freely engaged in faking tactics, an overall CBCA indicator was used, and interviewees’ responses contained story features. Additional analyses highlight that CBCA-based assessments of faking/honesty could reach up to 63.4% accuracy.

Behavioral genetics of deception detection performance

Purpose

Deception detection is instrumental in business management but professionals differ widely in terms of deception detection performance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the genetic basis of deception detection performance using the classic twin study design and address the research question: how much variance in individual differences in deception detection performance can be accounted for by the variance in genetics vs environmental influences?

Design/methodology/approach

In total, 192 twins, with 65 pairs of monozygotic (identical) twins and 31 pairs of dizygotic (fraternal) twins participated in an experiment. A series of behavioral genetic analyses were performed.

Findings

The variability in deception detection performance was largely determined by differences in shared and non-shared environments.

Research limitations/implications

The subjects were solicited during the Twins Days Festival so the sample selection and data collection were limited to the natural settings in the field. In addition, the risks and rewards associated with deception detection performance in the study are pale in comparison with those in practice.

Practical implications

Deception detection performance may be improved through training programs. Corporations should continue funding training programs for deception detection.

Originality/value

This is the first empirical study that examines the complementary influences of genetics and environment on people’s ability to detect deception.

The Goldwater Rule: Perspectives From, and Implications for, Psychological Science

When, if ever, should psychological scientists be permitted to offer professional opinions concerning the mental health of public figures they have never directly examined? This contentious question, which attracted widespread public attention during the 1964 U.S. presidential election involving Barry Goldwater, received renewed scrutiny during and after the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, when many mental health professionals raised pointed questions concerning the psychiatric status of Donald Trump. Although the Goldwater Rule prohibits psychiatrists from offering diagnostic opinions on individuals they have never examined, no comparable rule exists for psychologists. We contend that, owing largely to the Goldwater Rule's origins in psychiatry, a substantial body of psychological research on assessment and clinical judgment, including work on the questionable validity of unstructured interviews, the psychology of cognitive biases, and the validity of informant reports and of L (lifetime) data, has been overlooked in discussions of its merits. We conclude that although the Goldwater Rule may have been defensible several decades ago, it is outdated and premised on dubious scientific assumptions. We further contend that there are select cases in which psychological scientists with suitable expertise may harbor a "duty to inform," allowing them to offer informed opinions concerning public figures' mental health with appropriate caveats.

Putting applicant faking effects on personality tests into context

Purpose

Estimates of the effects of faking on personality scores typically represent the difference from one sample mean to another sample mean in terms of standard deviations. While this is technically accurate, it does put faking effects into the context of the individuals actually engaging in faking behavior. The purpose of this paper is to address this deficiency.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper provides a mathematical proof and a computational simulation manipulating faking effect size, prevalence of faking, and the size of the applicant pool.

Findings

The paper illustrates that reported effects of faking are underestimates of the amount of faking that individual test takers are engaging in. Results provide researchers and practitioners with more accurate estimates of how to interpret faking effects sizes.

Practical implications

To understand the impact of faking on personality testing, it is important to consider both faking effect sizes as well as the prevalence of faking.

Originality/value

Researchers and practitioners do not often consider the real implications of faking effect sizes. The current paper presents those results in a new light.

APPLICANTS' STRATEGIC USE OF EXTREME OR MIDPOINT RESPONSES WHEN FAKING PERSONALITY TESTS

Faking, the intentional distortion of answers to personality tests, is likely a complex process. In particular, participants in previous research have mentioned that they used different kind of strategies to appear more hirable, including systematically more extreme or more midpoint responses. However, quantitative evidence is still lacking. An experiment was conducted in which 327 students (173 women, 153 men, 1 not indicated; M age = 22.1 yr., SD = 2.8) were randomly assigned to two groups. Hypothetical job advertisements primed the participants into believing that the hiring company preferred a person with either a "strong" (Strong Character group) or a "well-balanced" character (Well-balanced Character group). The participants filled out 40 items that were chosen from four established questionnaires as neither socially desirable nor undesirable. The responses to these items were used to calculate two extreme response measures and one midpoint response measure. The Strong Character group used extreme scores more often than the Well-balanced Character group (and the midpoint scores less often), independently of mean differences. This suggests that fakers use more sophisticated strategies than is often assumed.

A dynamic model of applicant faking

In the past years, several authors have proposed theoretical models of faking at selection. Although these models greatly improved our understanding of applicant faking, they mostly offer static approaches. In contrast, we propose a model of applicant faking derived from signaling theory, which describes faking as a dynamic process driven by applicants’ and organizations’ adaptations in a competitive environment. We argue that faking depends on applicants’ motivation and capacity to fake, which are determined by individual differences in skills, abilities, and stable attitudes, as well as by perceptions of the competition, but also on applicants’ perceived opportunities versus risks to fake, which are contingent upon organizations’ measures to increase the costs of faking. We further explain how selection outcomes can trigger adaptations of applicants, such as faking in subsequent selection encounters, and of organizations, such as changes in measures making faking costly for applicants in the long term.

Interviewers' perceptions of impression management in employment interviews

Purpose

– Applicants often use impression management (IM) in employment interviews, and such tactics can considerably influence interviewers' evaluations of their performance. Yet, little research has examined interviewers' perceptions of such behaviors. This paper aims to examine if interviewers' perceptions of various IM behaviors converge with applicants' self-reports and the impact of interviewers' IM perceptions on interview outcomes.

Design/methodology/approach

– Findings are based on data from a field study of 164 real employment interviews, conducted in recruiting agencies in Switzerland.

Findings

– Interviewers' perceptions do not converge with self-reported applicant IM. Interviewers' perceptions of self-promotion and perceived applicant transparency are positively related to interview evaluations, while perceptions of slight image creation tactics are negatively related to interview evaluations. Perceptions of deceptive ingratiation, image protection, and extensive image creation were not related to evaluations.

Practical implications

– It may not be that easy for interviewers to identify when applicants use IM, partly because they may be prone to overconfidence in their judgments and may (wrongly) believe they can “see through the applicant”. Also, what may actually matter in interviews is not the impression applicants think they are making, but interviewers' perceptions of applicant IM.

Originality/value

– This study investigates interviewers' perceptions in addition to applicants' self-reports of five types of IM in real employment interviews, and how such perceptions are related to interview outcome.

Applicants’ Self-Presentational Behavior

This study contributes to the literature on self-presentation by comparing recruiters’ expectations about applicants’ self-presentational behaviors in personnel selection settings to applicants’ actual use of these behaviors. Recruiters (N = 51) rated the perceived appropriateness of 24 self-presentational behaviors. In addition, the prevalence of these behaviors was separately assessed in two subsamples of applicants (N1 = 416 and N2 = 88) with the randomized response technique. In line with the script concept, the results revealed that recruiters similarly evaluated the appropriateness of specific self-presentational behaviors and that applicants’ general use of these behaviors corresponded to recruiters’ shared expectations. The findings indicate that applicants who use strategic self-presentational behaviors may just be trying to fulfill situational requirements.

Speeding Personality Measures to Reduce Faking

The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of imposing a time constraint on respondents completing the Big Five personality Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999) based on a self-regulatory model of response distortion. A completely crossed 2 × 2 experimental design was used in which instructions (neutral standard instruction or a job applicant instruction) and speed (with or without a time limit) were manipulated. While speeding personality tests reduced socially desirable responding, consistent with resource allocation theory (Ackerman, 1986), this effect was only seen in low cognitive ability individuals. Speeding was not perceived negatively by participants. This study is the first to find any evidence of a possible influence of speed on impression management and suggests that manipulating time limits for completing personality measures in selection is not advised at the present time as it is likely to have the unintended effect of removing applicants with high cognitive ability from the applicant pool.