Applicant Faking Applicant Faking BehaviorBehavior

Dr. Richard Griffith, Director I/O Psychology

Florida Tech

Industrial Organizational Psychology 150 W. University Blvd. Melbourne, FL. 32901 (321) 674-8104

Personality Tests

 

1. I like using my imagination.

2. It is best to work step-by-step until the task is complete.

3. I enjoy working in teams.

4. Paying attention to minute details of work is important.

5. Working with data and figures is exciting.

6. A loose work structure without deadlines irritates me.

7. I never have read a dirty book or magazines

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Personality Traits

• Personality traits are defined as “pervasive consistencies in thoughts, feelings, and behaviors,” (Costa and McCrae, 1992).

• Development of personality traits began with the “lexical hypothesis.”

• Galton used the dictionary to estimate the number of descriptive terms that could be used to describe individual differences

• 18,000 adjectives

Big Five

• Wide acceptance of the five-factor model, or the “Big Five” (Costa, 1996).

• Model assumes that five broad factors account for most of the common variance in virtually all personality traits.

• Some debate about the number of factors still exists

• Conscientiousness has overall received the greatest attention from personnel researchers.

T App

Faking

• Many factors may contribute to the elevation of applicant scores

– Situational variance– Cognitive biases– Ability– Integrity– Motivation– Faking related constructs

•  Doesn’t make sense to lump “fakers” into a stereotyped category

• Faking behavior is dynamic • May demonstrate considerable

individual differences – Amount individuals “fake”– Why their applicant scores are

elevated– Subsequent performance!!!

The Study Method

• Within Subjects design• Over 1000 participants• Students apply for consulting “position”

– Deception was used to simulate an applicant environment

• Complete NEO-FFI & WPT• Students then asked to respond honestly to

measures– NEO-FFI– Integrity– Locus of Control– BIDR– SCS – past, present, future FOR

The Study

• This study utilized deception• Deception can be used in psychology

experiments if it does not harm the subject, and data can not be collected another way.

• Getting honest baseline results with real applicants may not be possible because they will still be cautious out of fear that their employer may see the results

• Study reviewed by IRB

Results

• People do in fact fake (roughly 30 %)• Difference found between Honest

(baseline) and Applicant scores • How large are these differences?

Measure GENERAL WORK Condition HONEST APPLICANT D Effect HONEST APPLICANT D Effect

Neur 32.15 26.58 .67 28.01 24.51 .47 Extra 40.94 45.29 .63 42.06 44.97 .45 Open 39.14 41.53 .39 38.53 39.52 .17 Agree 42.04 47.33 .72 45.67 49.36 .50 Consc 43.44 50.09 .93 46.60 51.52 .68

Cognitive Biases

• Significant difference was found between the future, present, and past scores

• (F = 16.431; p<.001)

Measure Min Max Mean SD

Past SCS 4.00 6.00 5.34 .65

Present SCS 4.00 7.00 5.59 .67

Future SCS 4.00 7.00 5.88 .58

* Total score differences 106 < 112 < 117

Integrity

• Hypotheses were supported • Correlations ranged from .20 (N) to

-.31 (C) • At least some of the variance in

faking behavior is related to an individuals integrity

• Liars are liars• Makes the effects of applicant

faking even more problematic if employees engage in counter productive behaviors

Locus of Control

• Hypotheses supported• Applicants with an external locus of

control have higher amounts of applicant faking

• Correlations ranged from -.27 (N) to .29 (C)

• LOC related to academic dishonesty.

– (Coleman and Mahaffey, 2000; Leming,1980)

Ability, SDE, & IM

• In the both conditions cognitive ability was not significantly correlated with the amount of applicant faking

• Neither SDE or IM was positively correlated with faking

New Studies

• Examining the influence of relative external need on the prediction of faking

• Faking & Gender

• Is faking just cheating? Academic Dishonesty

New Studies

• Situational determinants of faking

• Job conditions

• Selection ratio

• Type of job– Can assess whether job

knowledge helps faking

Thank you!

• I would like to thank you for participating in our research study

• Your participation has helped graduate students to complete their theses and dissertations

• The knowledge we have gained here will allow us to improve personality measures and help organizations make better decisions when hiring employees