Examining the Role of Applicant Faking in Hiring Decisions: Percentage of Fakers Hired and Hiring Discrepancies in Single- and Multiple-Predictor Selection
- 527 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of applicant faking on personnel selection outcomes (fakers hired and hiring discrepancies) across single-predictor (conscientiousness alone) and multiple-predictor (combinations of conscientiousness and cognitive ability) selection methods.
Applicant faking was measured using a within-subjects design in which participants completed a conscientiousness measure both under the assumption that they were applying for a job and under honest response instructions. The two selection outcomes (fakers hired and hiring discrepancies) were compared across single- and multiple-predictor scenarios.
Our results indicated that the combinations of conscientiousness and cognitive ability resulted in as much as a 13.50% reduction in hiring fakers (compared to a conscientiousness measure alone); however, most of these differences were not statistically significant. The use of cognitive ability–conscientiousness combinations did, however, result in significant reductions in hiring discrepancies.
The primary implication of the present study is that while the use of multiple predictors is effective in reducing the impact of faking on hiring discrepancies over the use of a personality measure alone, this reduction may not be large enough to eliminate concern over the occurrence of faking.
Most research investigating potential negative effects of applicant faking has focused solely on single-predictor selection scenarios. However, personality measures rarely serve as the sole basis for hiring decisions. The present study sheds light on the impact of faking on selection outcomes when more than one predictor variable plays a role in hiring decisions.
KeywordsApplicant faking Personnel selection Personality measurement Hiring decisions
- Arthur, W., Glaze, R. M., Villado, A. J., & Taylor, J. E. (2009). The magnitude and extent of cheating and response distortion effects on unproctored internet-based tests of cognitive ability and personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment.Google Scholar
- Cascio, W. F. (1991). Applied psychology in personnel management (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R: Professional manual revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
- Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
- Gatewood, R. D., & Field, H. S. (2004). Human resource selection (5th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Thompson Learning.Google Scholar
- Griffith, R. L., Malm, T., Yoshita, Y., English, A., & Gujar, A. (2006). Applicant faking behavior: Teasing apart the influence of situational variance, cognitive biases, and individual differences. In R. L. Griffith & M. H. Peterson (Eds.), A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 149–176). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Haaland, D., & Christiansen, N. D. (1998). Departures from linearity in the relationship between applicant personality test scores and performance as evidence of response distortion. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual International Personnel Management Association Assessment Council Conference, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
- Komar, S., Theakston, J., Brown, D. J., & Robie, C. (2005). Faking and the validity of personality: A monte-carlo investigation. Paper presented at the 20th annual meeting for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
- Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Peterson, M. H., & Griffith, R. L. (2006). Faking and job performance: A muti-faceted issue. In R. L. Griffith & M. H. Peterson (Eds.), A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 231–259). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Wonderlic, E. F. (2002). Wonderlic personnel test & scholastic level exam user’s manual. Libertyville, PA: Wonderlic Personnel Test.Google Scholar
- Wrensen, L. B., & Biderman, M. D. (2005). Factors related to faking ability: A structural equation model application. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
- Zickar, M., Rosse, J. & Levin, R. (1996). Modeling the effects of faking on personality scales. Paper presented at the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar