A lab study comparing several faking measures under a simulated selection context
Type of DegreeMaster's Thesis
MetadataShow full item record
Industrial and organizational psychologists have long been aware that faking is a concern in the personnel selection practices. In high-stakes selection context, applicants can be highly motivated to fake good on personality tests. However, researchers have not found a valid strategy to detect or capture applicant faking, and the validities of existing faking measurements have not been thoroughly examined. Meanwhile, researchers are arguing whether faking occurs in the selection context, and whether faking impacts the criterion-related validities of personality measures. The answers to the above two questions have been inconclusive, which is mostly due to the use of inappropriate research design and ineffective faking measures. The present study is aimed to consolidate this literature through a systematic examination of the validities of several faking measures. Through a mixed design (i.e., both within-subjects and between-subjects design) with college students, the present study examines and compares the validity of four faking measures (i.e., the impression management inventory, self-deceptive enhancement inventory, bogus statement inventory and over-claiming questionnaire) under a simulated job application situation. The present study investigates and compares the validities of these faking measures through their correlations with the faking criterion as well as their moderation and suppression effects on the criterion-related validity of personality scores.