Cited by 240Employer Branding and e-HRMPsychological Testing and AssessmentPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicant faking behavior

Griffith, Richard L., Chmielowski, Tom, Yoshita, Yukiko·2007·Personnel Review

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this article is to empirically test whether applicants fake their responses to personality based employment inventories. Design/methodology/approach This study utilized a within subjects design to asses whether applicants elevated their scores in an applicant conditions. Subjects who applied for a job were later contacted and asked to complete the same personality measure under an honest instructional set. The within subjects design allowed the researcher to examine faking behavior at the individual level of analysis rather than draw inferences between applicant and incumbent groups. Findings Results suggest that a significant number of applicants do fake personality based selection measures. Depending on the confidence interval used between 30 and 50 percent of applicants elevated their scores when applying for a job. The results also show that applicant faking behavior resulted in significant rank ordering changes that impacted hiring decisions. Research limitations/implications One limitation of the study is the exclusion of a job performance criterion measure. Without this measure definitive statements regarding the decay in the criterion validity of the measure cannot be made. While the study demonstrated rank ordering changes, decrements in criterion validity cannot be demonstrated without measuring job performance. Practical implications The practical implications of the paper are that personality measures should not be used alone. Rather they sh…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/00483480710731310

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In Griffith et al. (2007), significant within-person differences existed between mean level scores in the applicant condition and mean level scores in the honest condition, F(2,59)=42.32, p<0.001.

    “The researchers found a significant difference between responses across the two conditions: Significant within-person differences existed between mean level scores in the applicant condition and mean level scores in the honest condition, F (2, 59) = 42.32, p &lt; 0.001, suggesting that people can and do intentionally alter their responses in an effort to portray themselves in a more positive light”

    From Assessing Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: Existing Research and Future Directions (2016) · cites this paper as R. L. Griffith, Chmielowski, and Yoshita (2007)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Griffith, R. L., Chmielowski, T., & Yoshita, Y.
Affiliations
Florida Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Personnel Review
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2007-04-17
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
341-355
ISSN
0048-3486 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2085858247
Cited by
240
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 13
FWCI
12.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Personnel Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
applicant faking, personality tests, hiring decisions, criterion validity, test battery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review