Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T04:19:36.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual Differences in Intention to Fake Job Interviews: Personality, Self-Monitoring, and the Theory of Planned Behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2015

Candice Lester ,
Jeromy Anglim  and
Christie Fullarton
Candice Lester
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Jeromy Anglim*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Christie Fullarton
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Jeromy Anglim, School of Psychology, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, 3125 Victoria, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

When job applicants lie in job interviews, they can deprive a more honest candidate of a job and deprive an organisation of the best employees. To better understand job interview faking, the present study examined the effect of general dispositions and domain-specific beliefs on the intention to fake job interviews. A community sample of 313 participants completed measures of personality (i.e., extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness) and self-monitoring, and a domain-specific measure of beliefs about faking job interviews based on the theory of planned behaviour, which measured attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. Results indicated that the measure of attitudes was the strongest predictor of intention to fake. In line with the compatibility principle, the domain-specific measures based on the theory of planned behaviour correlated much more strongly with intentions to fake job interviews than did the general measures of personality or self-monitoring. Of the dispositional measures, lower conscientiousness, higher neuroticism, and higher self-monitoring was associated with greater intention to fake job interviews. The findings support a model whereby the effect of personality on intentions is partially mediated by domain-specific beliefs.

Keywords

theory of planned behaviourpersonalityfakingselection and recruitmentjob interviews
Type
Articles
Information
The Australasian Journal of Organisational Psychology , Volume 8 , 2015 , e8
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Psychological Society Ltd 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Heidelberg: SpringerGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-TGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behaviour: McGraw-Hill International.Google Scholar
Ashton, M.C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S.V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion? Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 245–252. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.245Google Scholar
Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.xGoogle Scholar
Barrick, M.R., Parks, L., & Mount, M.K. (2005). Self-monitoring as a moderator of the relationships between personality traits and performance. Personnel Psychology, 58, 745–767.Google Scholar
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. doi:10.1037/a0016532Google Scholar
Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 285–301. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(91)90021-HGoogle Scholar
Berry, C.M., Ones, D.S., & Sackett, P.R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410Google Scholar
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. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00354.xGoogle Scholar
Carless, S.A. (2007). Graduate recruitment and selection in Australia. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 153–166. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00377.xGoogle Scholar
Carver, C.S., & White, T.L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319Google Scholar
Costa, P.T. Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1989). Personality continuity and the changes of adult life. In Storandt, M. & VandenBos, G.R. (Eds.), The adult years: Continuity and change. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Costa, P.T., & MacCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Courneya, K.S., Bobick, T.M., & Schinke, R.J. (1999). Does the theory of planned behavior mediate the relation between personality and exercise behavior? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 317–324. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2104_5Google Scholar
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. doi:10.1080/08959285.2011.597477Google Scholar
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Ford, R.C., & Richardson, W.D. (1994). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 205–221. doi:10.1007/BF02074820Google Scholar
Goffin, R.D., & Boyd, A.C. (2009). Faking and personality assessment in personnel selection: Advancing models of faking. Canadian Psychology, 50, 151–160. doi:1037/a0015946Google Scholar
Griffith, R.L., Chmielowski, T., & Yoshita, Y. (2007). Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicant faking behavior. Personnel Review, 36, 341–355. doi:10.1108/00483480710731310Google Scholar
Griffith, R.L., & Peterson, M.H. (2011). One piece at a time: The puzzle of applicant faking and a call for theory. Human Performance, 24, 291–301. doi:10.1080/08959285.2011.597474Google Scholar
Hogan, J., Barrett, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1270–1285. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1270Google Scholar
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118Google Scholar
Ingold, P.V., Kleinmann, M., König, C.J., & Melchers, K.G. (2014). 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, 2, 420–432.Google Scholar
Joormann, J., & Gotlib, I.H. (2010). Emotion regulation in depression: Relation to cognitive inhibition. Cognition and Emotion, 24, 281–298. doi:10.1080/02699930903407948Google Scholar
Judge, T.A., Higgins, C.A., Thoresen, C.J., & Barrick, M.R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00174.xGoogle Scholar
Kashy, D.A., & DePaulo, B.M. (1996). Who lies? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1037–1051. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.1037Google Scholar
Levashina, J., & Campion, M.A. (2006). A model of faking likelihood in the employment interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 299–316. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00353.xGoogle Scholar
Little, T.D., Cunningham, W.A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K.F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1Google Scholar
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. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00483.xGoogle Scholar
McFarland, L.A., & Ryan, A.M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 812–821. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.812Google Scholar
McFarland, L.A., & Ryan, A.M. (2006). Toward an integrated model of applicant faking behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 979–1016. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00052.xGoogle Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J.M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415Google Scholar
Mueller-Hanson, R.A., Heggestad, E.D., & Thornton, G. (2006). Individual differences in impression management: An exploration of the psychological processes underlying faking. Psychology Science, 48, 288–312.Google Scholar
O'Reilly, C.A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.492Google Scholar
Paulhus, D.L. (1991). Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR). In Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., & Wrightsman, L.S. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 37–41). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Posthuma, R.A., Morgeson, F.P., & Campion, M.A. (2002). Beyond employment interview validity: A comprehensive narrative review of recent research and trends over time. Personnel Psychology, 55, 1–81. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570. 2002.tb00103.xGoogle Scholar
Rees, C.J., & Metcalfe, B. (2003). The faking of personality questionnaire results: Who's kidding whom? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 156–165. doi:10.1108/ 02683940310465045Google Scholar
Rhodes, R.E., Courneya, K.S., & Hayduk, L.A. (2002). Does personality moderate the theory of planned behavior in the exercise domain? Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 120–132.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R.E., Courneya, K.S., & Jones, L.W. (2005). The theory of planned behavior and lower-order personality traits: Interaction effects in the exercise domain. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 251–265. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.04.005Google Scholar
Robie, C., Tuzinski, K.A., & Bly, P.R. (2006). A survey of assessor beliefs and practices related to faking. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 669–681. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690204Google Scholar
Robson, S.M., Jones, A., & Abraham, J. (2007). Personality, faking, and convergent validity: A warning concerning warning statements. Human Performance, 21, 89–106. doi:10.1080/08959280701522155Google Scholar
Rothstein, M.G., & Goffin, R.D. (2006). The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support? Human Resource Management Review, 16, 155–180. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.004Google Scholar
Roulin, N., Bangerter, A., & Levashina, J. (2014). Interviewers’ perceptions of impression management in employment interviews. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 141–163. doi:10.1108/JMP-10-2012-0295Google Scholar
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. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00019-4Google Scholar
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526–537. doi:10.1037/h0037039Google Scholar
Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 125–139. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.125Google Scholar
Stone, T.H., Jawahar, I., & Kisamore, J.L. (2010). Predicting academic misconduct intentions and behavior using the theory of planned behavior and personality. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 35–45. doi:10.1080/01973530903539895Google Scholar
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D.S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197–210. doi:10.1177/00131649921969802Google Scholar
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. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00055.xGoogle Scholar