Abstract
Interviews are a prevalent technique for selection and admission purposes. However, interviews are also viewed as potentially fakeable, raising the question of whether interviewees’ faking behavior impairs the quality of selection decisions. To address these concerns, our study examined whether interviewees can actually improve their interview score by faking and the role that interviewee ability factors play in interview faking. We also explored the effect of faking on criterion-related validity with regard to successfully predicting interviewees’ task and contextual performance. We conducted simulated interviews in an honest and an applicant instruction condition using a within-subjects design. In line with our hypotheses, interviewees were able to improve their interview scores when asked to respond as an applicant. The size of the improvement of these interview scores correlated with interviewees’ cognitive ability and their ability to identify the targeted interview dimensions. Concerning the effects of faking on criterion-related validity, we found that academic performance was better predicted in the applicant instruction condition whereas contextual performance was better predicted in the honest condition. Thus, it appears that claims that “faking impairs criterion-related validity” are too simplified and that we have to consider the kind of criterion predicted.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In the interest of transparency, we want to acknowledge that we have recently published an article in which one of the studies used the same sample as the present paper but with a decidedly different focus, different research questions, and hypotheses. In this other article (Buehl & Melchers, 2017), we described two studies that focused on individual difference variables as antecedents of the occurrence and effectiveness of interview faking. Data from the present study were used for Study 2 in that article. Specifically, we used the same indicator of faking (the regression-adjusted difference score that is described later in this section) and interview performance in the applicant condition as our DVs and tested GMA as a moderator for the effect of self-reported faking behavior (used as a manipulation check in the present article) on faking and on interview performance. However, neither the difference score between the two interview conditions nor any of the criterion variables from the present article were used in the other article nor were any issues related to criterion-related validity investigated.
References
Abele-Brehm, A. (2017). Zur Lage der Psychologie [The state of psychology]. Psychologische Rundschau, 68, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042/a000346
Allen, T. D., Barnard, S., Rush, M. C., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). Ratings of organizational citizenship behavior: Does the source make a difference? Human Resource Management Review, 10, 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00041-8
Allen, T. D., Facteau, J. D., & Facteau, C. L. (2004). Structured interviewing for OCB: Construct validity, faking, and the effects of question type. Human Performance, 17, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1701_1
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902935878
Barrick, M. R., Shaffer, J. A., & DeGrassi, S. W. (2009). What you see may not be what you get: Relationships among self-presentation tactics and ratings of interview and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1394–1411. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016532
Berry, C. M., Sackett, P. R., & Landers, R. N. (2007). Revisiting interview-cognitive ability relationships: Attending to specific range restriction mechanisms in meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 837–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00093.x
Birkeland, S. A., Manson, T. M., Kisamore, J. L., Brannick, M. T., & Smith, M. A. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of job applicant faking on personality measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00354.x
Blackman, M. C. (2002). Personality judgment and the utility of the unstructured employment interview. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2403_6
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. M. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Buehl, A.-K., & Melchers, K. G. (2017). Individual difference variables and the occurrence and effectiveness of faking behavior in interviews. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00686
Burns, G. N., & Christiansen, N. D. (2011). Methods of measuring faking behavior. Human Performance, 24, 358–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.597473
Carpenter, N. C., Berry, C. M., & Houston, L. (2014). A meta-analytic comparison of self-reported and other-reported organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 547–574. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1909
Cataldi, A. E. (1996). Cognitive activity and deception: Target, referent, and the chance of detection. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 56, 6460.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Converse, P. D., Peterson, M. H., & Griffith, R. L. (2009). Faking on personality measures: Implications for selection involving multiple predictors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00450.x
Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1997). Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-ratings. Human Performance, 10, 331–360. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1004_2
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74
DePaulo, B. M., Stone, J. I., & Lassiter, G. D. (1985). Deceiving and detecting deceit. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 323–370). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Donovan, J. J., Dwight, S. A., & Schneider, D. (2014). The impact of applicant faking on selection measures, hiring decisions, and employee performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 479–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9318-5
Ellingson, J. E., & McFarland, L. A. (2011). Understanding faking behavior through the lens of motivation: An application of VIE theory. Human Performance, 24, 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.597477
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00639.x
Gilmore, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (1989). The effects of applicant impression management tactics on interviewer judgments. Journal of Management, 15, 557–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638901500405
Goffin, R. D., & Boyd, A. C. (2009). Faking and personality assessment in personnel selection: Advancing models of faking. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 50, 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015946
Goffin, R. D., Jelley, R. B., Powell, D. M., & Johnston, N. G. (2009). Taking advantage of social comparisons in performance appraisal: The relative percentile method. Human Resource Management, 48, 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20278
Gonzalez-Mulé, E., Mount, M. K., & Oh, I.-S. (2014). A meta-analysis of the relationship between general mental ability and nontask performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1222–1243. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037547
Griffin, B. (2014). The ability to identify criteria: Its relationship with social understanding, preparation, and impression management in affecting predictor performance in a high-stakes selection context. Human Performance, 27, 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2014.882927
Griffith, R. L., Lee, L. M., Peterson, M. H., & Zickar, M. J. (2011). First dates and little white lies: A trait contract classification theory of applicant faking behavior. Human Performance, 24, 338–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.597475
Hattrup, K., O'Connell, M. S., & Wingate, P. H. (1998). Prediction of multidimensional criteria: Distinguishing task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 11, 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1104_1
Hogue, M., Levashina, J., & Hang, H. (2013). Will I fake it? The interplay of gender, Machiavellianism, and self-monitoring on strategies for honesty in job interviews. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1525-x
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.581
Huffcutt, A. I., Roth, P. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (1996). A meta-analytic investigation of cognitive ability in employment interview evaluations: Moderating characteristics and implications for incremental validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 459–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.459
Ingold, P. V., Kleinmann, M., König, C. J., & Melchers, K. G. (2015a). Shall we continue or stop disapproving of self-presentation? Evidence on impression management and faking in a selection context and their relation to job performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.915215
Ingold, P. V., Kleinmann, M., König, C. J., Melchers, K. G., & Van Iddekinge, C. H. (2015b). Why do situational interviews predict job performance? The role of interviewees’ ability to identify criteria. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9368-3
Jansen, A., Melchers, K. G., Lievens, F., Kleinmann, M., Brändli, M., Fraefel, L., & König, C. J. (2013). Situation assessment as an ignored factor in the behavioral consistency paradigm underlying the validity of personnel selection procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 326–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031257
Klehe, U.-C., König, C. J., Richter, G. M., Kleinmann, M., & Melchers, K. G. (2008). Transparency in structured interviews: Consequences for construct and criterion-related validity. Human Performance, 21, 107–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280801917636
Kleinmann, M., Ingold, P. V., Lievens, F., Jansen, A., Melchers, K. G., & König, C. J. (2011). A different look at why selection procedures work: The role of candidates’ ability to identify criteria. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386610387000
Komar, S., Brown, D. J., Komar, J. A., & Robie, C. (2008). Faking and the validity of conscientiousness: A Monte Carlo investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.140
König, C. J., Melchers, K. G., Kleinmann, M., Richter, G. M., & Klehe, U.-C. (2007). Candidates' ability to identify criteria in nontransparent selection procedures: Evidence from an assessment center and a structured interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00388.x
Krammer, G., Sommer, M., & Arendasy, M. E. (2017). The psychometric costs of applicants' faking: Examining measurement invariance and retest correlations across response conditions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99, 510–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1285781
Latham, G. P., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1995). Criterion-related validity of the situational and patterned behavior description interviews with organizational citizenship behavior. Human Performance, 8, 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959289509539857
Law, S. J., Bourdage, J. S., & O'Neill, T. A. (2016). To fake or not to fake: Antecedents to interview faking, warning instructions, and its impact on applicant reactions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01771
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34
Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2006). A model of faking likelihood in the employment interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00353.x
Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2007). Measuring faking in the employment interview: Development and validation of an interview faking behavior scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1638–1656. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1638
Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employment interview: Narrative and quantitative review of the research literature. Personnel Psychology, 67, 241–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12052
Levashina, J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2009). They don't do it often, but they do it well: Exploring the relationship between applicant mental abilities and faking. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00469.x
Marcus, B. (2006). Relationships between faking, validity, and decision criteria in personnel selection. Psychology Science, 48, 226–246.
Marcus, B. (2009). Faking' from the applicant's perspective: A theory of self-presentation in personnel selection settings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00483.x
Martin, C. L., & Nagao, D. H. (1989). Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.72
McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 812–821. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.812
McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2006). Toward an integrated model of applicant faking behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 979–1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00052.x
Melchers, K. G., Bösser, D., Hartstein, T., & Kleinmann, M. (2012). Assessment of situational demands in a selection interview: Reflective style or sensitivity? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 475–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12010
Melchers, K. G., Klehe, U.-C., Richter, G. M., Kleinmann, M., König, C. J., & Lievens, F. (2009). “I know what you want to know”: The impact of interviewees' ability to identify criteria on interview performance and construct-related validity. Human Performance, 22, 355–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280903120295
Melchers, K. G., Lienhardt, N., von Aarburg, M., & Kleinmann, M. (2011). Is more structure really better? A comparison of frame-of-reference training and descriptively anchored rating scales to improve interviewers’ rating quality. Personnel Psychology, 64, 53–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01202.x
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mueller-Hanson, R. A., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C., III. (2006). Individual differences in impression management: An exploration of the psychological processes underlying faking. Psychology Science, 48, 288–312.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679–703. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.679
Oostrom, J. K., Melchers, K. G., Ingold, P. V., & Kleinmann, M. (2016). Why do situational interviews predict performance? Is it saying how you would behave or knowing how you should behave? Journal of Business and Psychology, 31, 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9410-0
Peeters, H., & Lievens, F. (2005). Situational judgment tests and their predictiveness of college students’ success: The influence of faking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 70–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404268672
Peterson, M. H., Griffith, R. L., Isaacson, J. A., O'Connell, M. S., & Mangos, P. M. (2011). Applicant faking, social desirability, and the prediction of counterproductive work behaviors. Human Performance, 24, 270–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.580808
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013079
Preckel, D., & Schüpbach, H. (2005). Zusammenhänge zwischen rezeptiver Selbstdarstellungskompetenz und Leistung im Assessment Center [Correlations between receptive self-presentation competence and performance in an assessment center]. Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 4, 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1026/1617-6391.4.4.151
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.612
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2005). Kurzversion des Big Five Inventory (BFI-K) [Short version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-K)]. Diagnostica, 51, 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.51.4.195
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R. T., & Toit, M. (2011). HLM 7: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
Reinhard, M.-A., Scharmach, M., & Müller, P. (2013). It's not what you are, it's what you know: Experience, beliefs, and the detection of deception in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 467–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2013.01011.x
Roch, S. G., Woehr, D. J., Mishra, V., & Kieszczynska, U. (2012). Rater training revisited: An updated meta-analytic review of frame-of-reference training. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 370–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02045.x
Roulin, N., & Bourdage, J. S. (2017). Once an impression manager, always an impression manager? Antecedents of honest and deceptive impression management use and variability across multiple job interviews. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00029
Roulin, N., Bangerter, A., & Levashina, J. (2014). Interviewers' perceptions of impression management in employment interviews. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-10-2012-0295
Roulin, N., Bangerter, A., & Levashina, J. (2015). Honest and deceptive impression management in the employment interview: Can it be detected and how does it impact evaluations? Personnel Psychology, 68, 395–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12079
Roulin, N., Krings, F., & Binggeli, S. (2016). A dynamic model of applicant faking. Organizational Psychology Review, 6, 145–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386615580875
Salgado, J. F. (2016). A theoretical model of psychometric effects of faking on assessment procedures: Empirical findings and implications for personality at work. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 24, 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12142
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
Schmitt, N., Keeney, J., Oswald, F. L., Pleskac, T. J., Billington, A. Q., Sinha, R., & Zorzie, M. (2009). Prediction of 4-year college student performance using cognitive and noncognitive predictors and the impact on demographic status of admitted students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1479–1497. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016810
Schmitt, N., & Oswald, F. L. (2006). The impact of corrections for faking on the validity of noncognitive measures in selection settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 613–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.613
Snell, A. F., Sydell, E. J., & Lueke, S. B. (1999). Towards a theory of applicant faking: Integrating studies of deception. Human Resource Management Review, 9, 219–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00019-4
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.245.
Tett, R. P., & Simonet, D. V. (2011). Faking in personality assessment: A “multisaturation” perspective on faking as performance. Human Performance, 24, 302–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.597472
Townsend, R. J., Bacigalupi, S. C., & Blackman, M. C. (2007). The accuracy of lay integrity assessments in simulated employment interviews. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 540–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.010
Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Ployhart, R. E. (2008). Developments in the criterion-related validation of selection procedures: A critical review and recommendations for practice. Personnel Psychology, 61, 871–925. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00133.x
Van Iddekinge, C. H., Raymark, P. H., & Roth, P. L. (2005). Assessing personality with a structured employment interview: Construct-related validity and susceptibility to response inflation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 536–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.536
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131649921969802
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.557
Wedler, B., Troche, S., & Rammsayer, T. (2008). Studierendenauswahl – Eignungsdiagnostischer Nutzen von Noten aus Schule und Studium [Student selection at colleges and universities: The significance of grades in aptitude diagnosis]. Psychologische Rundschau, 59, 123–125. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042.59.2.123
Weiss, B., & Feldman, R. S. (2006). Looking good and lying to do it: Deception as an impression management strategy in job interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1070–1086. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00055.x
Wonderlic Inc. (2002). Wonderlic personnel test and scholastic level exam: User's manual. Libertyville, IL: Author.
Zettler, I. (2011). Self-control and academic performance: Two field studies on university citizenship behavior and counterproductive academic behavior. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.002
Acknowledgements
We thank Barbara Körner, Karin Eigenseer, Jan-Philipp Schulz, Sina Bulling, Evelyn Schuwerk, Tina Gösel, and Cora Grässle for help with the data collection and/or coding of the videotapes.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Appendix
Appendix
Items from the short form of the Interview Faking Behavior Scale from Levashina and Campion (2007) in the German translation from Ingold et al. (2015a) which we adapted to the university context:
-
I have overstated or embellished answers beyond a reasonable description of the truth.
-
I have modified or adapted answers to fit the degree program.
-
I have created the impression of a fit with the degree program or university in terms of beliefs, values, or attitudes.
-
I built stories by combining or arranging study experiences to provide better answers.
-
I cooked up better answers.
-
I answered based on the experiences or accomplishments of others.
-
I did not mention some things in order to improve answers.
-
I disguised or concealed aspects of my background to create better answers.
-
I improved answers by separating from negative events or experiences.
-
I expressed beliefs, values, or attitudes held by the interviewer or the university.
-
I insincerely praised or complimented the interviewer or organization.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buehl, AK., Melchers, K.G., Macan, T. et al. Tell Me Sweet Little Lies: How Does Faking in Interviews Affect Interview Scores and Interview Validity?. J Bus Psychol 34, 107–124 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9531-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9531-3