First Dates and Little White Lies: A Trait Contract Classiﬁcation …people.uncw.edu/hakanr/documents/fakingandwhitelies.pdf · 2016. 2. 11. · First Dates and Little White Lies:

Human Performance, 24:338–357, 2011Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0895-9285 print/1532-7043 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08959285.2011.597475

First Dates and Little White Lies: A Trait ContractClassification Theory of Applicant Faking Behavior

Richard L. Griffith and Lindsey M. LeeFlorida Institute of Technology

Mitchell H. PetersonGlobe University/Minnesota School of Business

Michael J. ZickarBowling Green State University

Many theories propose Individual × Situation interactions to explain the presence and magnitudeof applicant faking behavior. However, these theories fail to account for the likelihood that fakingbehavior is expressed in several forms and may be accomplished through different processes. Wepropose the trait contract classification theory that seeks to refine prior theoretical work in this areaby integrating empirical findings regarding traits related to differing forms of deceptive behavior.Following prior faking theories, the trait contract classification theory suggests that these individ-ual traits interact with the situation to produce faking behavior. Our theory, specifically, offers theanticipatory psychological contract to globally capture the situational variance in faking. Analyticstrategies are presented that will help researchers better uncover the diversity of faking behaviors.

Many young men and women have worked hard to make a good impression on the first date.Few things are as exhilarating as a new relationship, and part of the fun is the concerted effort tomake a favorable impression. However, a few months into the relationship the initial excitementoften wears off and behaviors start to normalize. One day the couple might wake up and discovera partner who exhibits very different behavior than he or she did on the first encounter. It isnot likely that the couple intended to be deceptive on the first date; they were just trying tomake a good impression. If the “new” behavior is not too shocking, they may get over a fewlittle white lies and develop a long relationship. However, the consequences of early-relationshipdeception are occasionally much worse. Sometimes, the lies are not so little and can have harmfulconsequences. That form of deception can either quickly end a relationship or stagnate into adysfunctional liaison full of nasty surprises.

Organizations and applicants go through a similar dating game. Companies do their best toattract top candidates, and they may “oversell” in an effort to land the best employees (Highhouse,Brooks, & Gregarus, 2009). Applicants also have a chance to alter their appearance to land the

Correspondence should be sent to Richard L. Griffith, College of Psychology and Liberal Arts, Florida Institute ofTechnology, 150 West University Boulevard, Melbourne, FL 32901. E-mail: [email protected]

TRAIT CONTRACT CLASSIFICATION THEORY 339

job. For example, roughly 30% of applicants engage in faking behavior and manage their impres-sions on pre-employment screening tools like personality tests (Griffith & Converse, 2011). Butnot all faking is created equal. Certain forms of deception are more harmful than others andmay have different consequences for the organization. Some applicants are just doing their bestto impress, and some of them are liars and thieves (Peterson, Griffith, Isaacson, O’Connell, &Mangos, in press).

Employers view honesty and integrity as essential employee characteristics (Coyne &Bartram, 2000) and may be concerned that applicant deception may generalize to the subsequentemployment setting. Thus, applicant faking behavior, the intentional manipulation of self-relevantinformation, has been a concern for practitioners and researchers almost as long as there havebeen personality tests (Zickar & Gibby, 2006). However, there is still much to learn about theprocess of faking behavior and its effect on important organizational outcomes.

Several theories of faking have been proposed, which include individual difference and situ-ational variables (e.g., Marcus, 2009; McFarland & Ryan, 2006; Snell, Sydell, & Lueke, 1999).Our goal is to refine some of the central contributions of these theories and propose a moreparsimonious mechanism of action. Specifically, we propose a taxonomy of faking, in whichapplicants differ in motivation and the cognitive processes underlying faking behavior. We alsodefine in greater detail the individual differences that interact with situational variables to leadto faking behavior, and we provide justification for their inclusion in the model. These vari-ables include self-monitoring (SM), narcissism, impulsivity, integrity/honesty-humility, locus ofcontrol (LOC), and self-esteem (SE). In addition, we present an argument for the inclusion ofa summary situational variable, the anticipatory psychological contract (APC), which refers toan applicant’s beliefs, expectations, and perceptions of reciprocal obligations between himselfor herself and the organization that predate the formal employment relationship (De Vos, DeStobbelier, & Meganck, 2009). We propose that motivation to fake will be explained by theinteraction of the applicant’s individual differences and his or her APC in addition to reappraisalsregarding the organization’s susceptibility of deception that are formed once the selection processbegins. Finally, we propose that commonly used methods for studying faking may miss importantdifferences among respondents and advocate specific methodologies that combine latent classmodeling with qualitative methods.

THE THEORY’S ASSUMPTIONS

Kuncel and Borneman (2007) defined applicant faking behavior (AFB) as “an individual’s con-scious attempt to present misleading and deceptive information about his or her personality,interests, experiences, past behaviors, and attitudes with the goal of influencing others” (p.221). Previous research has defined faking as a construct (e.g., Martin, Bowen, & Hunt, 2002)largely stemming from the historical view of faking as a form of socially desirable respond-ing. However, we view faking as a set of related behaviors rather than a unitary (or two-factor)latent construct. Key assumptions to our theory are that AFB is an individual-level phenomenon,is multidimensional in nature,1 and is distinct from its outcomes. First, although faking has

1The framing of our assumptions shares key features with J. D. Campbell et al. (1996) discussion of work perfor-mance. Just as the socialization process starts prior to entry in the organization, applicant behavior can be viewed aspre-entry “performance.”

340 GRIFFITH, LEE, PETERSON, ZICKAR

frequently been studied by examining group-level applicant/incumbent differences in personal-ity assessment scores (e.g., Hough, 1998), our theory conceptualizes AFB as an individual-levelvariable. Rather than considering “applicants” as a stereotyped collective, our theory proposesthat individual applicants behave in distinctively idiosyncratic ways, driven by the interaction ofindividual differences and unique construals of situational variables (Ziegler & Buehner, 2009).Aggregating across individuals who use different response processes to fake may obscure thiscomplex phenomenon.

Second, like other human behaviors, faking likely occurs for different reasons. When fakinga personality assessment, two individuals may choose to enhance their responses to a positiveitem. One individual may elevate his or her score in a deceptive fashion based on what he orshe believes the organization is “looking for, ” even if the response is inaccurate. The other maysimply be putting his or her “best foot forward.” Thus, AFB may have multiple determinants,multiple motivations, and varied processes that lead to variations in the form and magnitude ofthe behavior. We propose several forms of faking that reflect these various underlying applicantmotives. Although we view faking as an intentional act (as opposed to an unconscious act), we donot equate intentional with rational. The separation of conscious and unconscious motives is notas clean as suggested in previous research (e.g., Paulhus, 1998), and we believe that intentionalfaking has passive influences.

Third, AFB should be examined independently from its consequences. A common researchquestion in the personality literature, either explicitly or implicitly, is whether faking presents anegligible, beneficial, or harmful influence on organizations (Griffith, Chmielowski, & Yoshita,2007; Johnson & Hogan, 2006; Komar, Brown, Komar, & Robie, 2008; Zickar & Drasgow, 1996).The answer to that question may be “yes.” Depending on the motives of the applicant, it is likelythat faking may have differential effects on the organization and the applicant. In terms of thehiring decision, faking may (or may not) be detrimental to the extent that the behavior has aneffect on the soundness of the inferences drawn from a score. In addition, subsequent task andextrarole performance may be affected by the individual differences influencing AFB.

Several researchers have proposed theories that explain an applicant’s motivation to fake (e.g.,Goffin & Boyd, 2009; Marcus, 2009; McFarland & Ryan, 2000; Mueller-Hanson, Heggestad, &Thornton, 2006; Snell et al., 1999). Our goal in theory development is to refine several of thepreviously proposed theories while adding several significant contributions. First, we discuss atheoretically supported set of traits, explain why they are related to faking, and offer some detailin terms of explanatory mechanisms. Second, we propose a more realistic view of how applicantperceptions are formed, which is less mechanical, less conscious, and more affect driven thanprevious theories. Third, we offer a more parsimonious vehicle for the examination of situationalvariables that is more consistent with the applicant experience. Finally, in addition to detailingthe theory itself, we also offer an analytic strategy for testing our propositions.

OVERVIEW OF THE THEORY

Trait contract classification theory proposes that individual differences play a role in anapplicant’s motivation to fake. We included traits with theoretical and empirical linkages to self-enhancement and deception: SM, SE, narcissism, impulsivity, integrity/honesty-humility, andLOC. The levels of these traits predispose individuals to engage in communication tactics thatmay lead to mean-level score shifts on personality items under motivated conditions. Although


all of these tactics may result in score change, there may be substantial differences in the under-lying motives and response tactics of the applicant. These differences also influence the cognitiveprocesses applicants undertake when responding to items. Thus, several “forms” of faking arelikely to occur.

Our theory also includes the applicant’s appraisal of situational variables thought to influencefaking behavior. Similar to other theories of deceptive behavior, we suggest the most influ-ential situational factors are the strength of relationship with the target and the likelihood ofgetting caught (Griffith & McDaniel, 2006). We propose that applicants make global appraisalsof the organization based on incomplete information (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003) and that theseappraisals lead to pre-employment schema regarding their perceived future relationship with thecompany. This pre-employment construal, referred to as the APC, operates by subsuming manyof the situational variables related to job desirability. Returning to our analogy of the first date,when romantic relationships are viewed as short term, as in a one-night stand, neither party mayfeel an obligation to be truthful because of the fleeting nature of the relationship. Therefore, oneor more parties may lie to achieve the goal of immediate gratification. When the anticipated rela-tionship is viewed as being more long term, both parties are more likely to refrain from deception.We propose that when applicants are considering their future relationship with the company, thesethoughts play a part in the decision to engage in faking behavior.

As suggested by McFarland and Ryan (2006), once involved in the selection process, appli-cants may make reappraisals regarding their intentions to fake. These reappraisals are based ontheir perceived ability to successfully fake, the valence of the behavior, the likelihood of gettingcaught, and the trade-off between a strong situational press to deceive and their trait standingon deception-related constructs. We believe both primary and reappraisals will impact fakingintentions through activation or suppression of the individual differences. Thus, we can expectto see differential levels of faking depending on the trait standing of the applicant, their primaryappraisal of the organization (APC), and their reappraisal of the selection process. The overviewof the theoretical model can be found in Figure 1.

Forms of Faking

Previous research has demonstrated considerable variability in faking (Griffith, Malm, English,Yoshita, & Gujar, 2006). Several descriptions of faking behavior have been proposed, whichdiffer in how applicants fake and what information they attend to when doing so. Researchershave proposed that applicants “fake good” and uniformly endorse positive traits (e.g., Rees &Metcalfe, 2003), fake in a job-desirable manner by endorsing traits they perceive to be relevant tothe job they are applying for (e.g., Dalen, Stanton, & Roberts, 2001), or fake by accessing occu-pational stereotypes (Mahar et al., 2006). Yet, until recently, most research explicitly or implicitlydiscussed faking as a relatively uniform phenomenon (for an exception, see Kuncel & Borneman,2007). A key difference in our theory is that we view the behavior of faking as qualitatively dif-fering in motivation and underlying response processes. These differences lead to different formsof faking.

Our thinking regarding the multidimensional nature of faking was influenced by Levin andZickar (2002), who offered a conceptual consideration of separate classes of faking behavior,which include self-presentation, lies, and bullshit. Levin and Zickar differentiated the classes offaking in terms of both processes and likely outcomes. In support of this finding, Zickar, Gibby,


Individual Differences

Self-MonitoringSelf-EsteemNarcissismImpulsivity

Honesty-HumilityLocus of Control

Anticipatory Psychological Contract

TransactionalRelational

Deception Construal

Primary Appraisal Re-Appraisal

Applicant Faking Behavior

Self-PresentationExaggeration

Reactive RespondingDeceptive Responding

FIGURE 1 The trait contract classification theory of applicant faking behavior.

and Robie (2004) found qualitatively different latent classes in a sample of fakers, suggesting thatpeople use different strategies when faking. In the trait contract classification theory of faking,we offer a taxonomy of four qualitatively distinct forms of faking: self-presentation, exaggera-tion, reactive responding, and fraudulent responding. The following sections detail each of theseelements of our theory (Figure 2).

Self-Presentation

Self-presentation involves individual efforts to maintain a particular reputation in front of aspecific audience (Johnson & Hogan, 2006). The self-presentation viewpoint is rooted in socio-analytic theory (Hogan & Holland, 2003), which suggested that faking has been misconstruedas a threat to the validity of personality assessments (Marcus, 2009). That is, what is typicallytermed faking is thought to be a sign of social competence. Johnson and Hogan (2006) suggestedthat the way an individual portrays himself or herself on a personality assessment reflects hisor her evaluation of how other individuals view him or her. Essentially, personality assessments


FIGURE 2 Categories of faking and associated individual differences.

are viewed as a vehicle through which an individual conveys his or her reputation. According toJohnson and Hogan, this implies that personality items are most valid under conditions that allowan individual to effectively convey an image that is congruent with the reputation he or she willwork to maintain in the organization.

In terms of the process that underlies faking, applicants engaging in self-presentation willreference their self-schema and an ideal applicant schema (Vasilopoulos, Cucina, Dyomina,Morewitz, & Reilly, 2006). Applicants will then modify reports of their self-self-schema to reflectthe ideal schema where necessary. This leads to a more nuanced process of faking in whichapplicants balance enhancement with being true to oneself (see Kuncel et al., this issue). Froma socioanalytic perspective, self-presentation has the potential to be beneficial to the organiza-tion by enhancing the validity of personality assessments. Under the assumptions of this theory,validity should be maximized when the self-image conveyed by respondents corresponds to thereputation they maintain within the organization. In addition, individuals who are successful intheir attempts at self-presentation in the application process are more likely to be successful atsubsequent attempts after hire. We propose that high self-monitors will engage in this form offaking, and, to some extent, those with high stable SE may engage in self-presentation via goalprojection (Willard & Gramzow, 2009).

Exaggeration

Previous research (see Griffith & Converse, 2011) has found that many applicants elevate theircurrent or past standing on important traits or attributes. This routine elevation has generally been


referred to as exaggeration (Willard & Gramzow, 2009). Exaggeration involves overstating a factor creating an impression that exceeds the truth (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein,1996). Exaggerated personality scores are reflected in small increases on positive trait items andsmall decreases in negative traits. However, these inflations do not invalidate the responses. Inthe case of exaggeration, scores are still reflective of the individual but in an idealized form.This category of faking may best fit the “slight faker” conceptualization offered by Zickar et al.(2004). In the case of exaggeration, the applicant uses self-relevant information as the anchor oftheir responses. He or she then “nudges” the score toward a more positive interpretation. Thus,in terms of the validity of the individual profile, the faked score retains some true score variance.Rather than trying to appear as the ideal candidate by attempting to produce a job-desirableprofile, applicants who exaggerate lean toward embellishment, or “polishing the truth.” Theymay also minimize imperfections or “hide blemishes.” In terms of response process, exaggeratingapplicants first reference self-schema and then adjust responses upward, adding a positive biasto their response choices. When candidates exaggerate or minimize, the discrepancy between theapplicant’s true trait standing and the reported trait may be small.

However, more substantial forms of exaggeration may also occur. Johnson and Hogan (2006)suggested that narcissists are likely to display “a pattern of indiscriminant exaggeration associ-ated with elevated scores on intellectance, ambition, and sociability, and low scores on likeability”(p. 224). Exaggeration may stem from either self-advancing or self-protecting motives (Arkin,1981). Therefore, this form of faking may have differential consequences for the organizationdepending on the individual difference influencing responding. We believe narcissistic applicantsand those with high levels of SE (fragile) are more likely to engage in this style of responding.

Reactive Responding

Reactive responding can be viewed as an opportunistic form of faking. Individuals whoengage in reactive responding enter the application phase with no intent to fake. However,when presented with item content, or primed with a warning not to misrepresent, they realizethat they can manipulate their responses. Some applicants, particularly those with high levelsof impulsivity, may be reacting to item content but without a coherent strategy for faking.Individuals with low self-control often describe situations in which they seem to succumb toimpulses against their better judgment (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994). Rather than fakein a consistent matter, these applicants respond to items in a disconnected fashion, responding toeach independently of previously viewed items. This form of faking may account for some of theidiosyncratic item response patterns found in Kuncel and Borneman (2007) and is similar to thecognitive style of reflection-impulsivity proposed by Kagan (1965). Individuals with a reflectivestyle consider alternatives before making a response choice; however, impulsive respondersquickly choose an answer without a thorough consideration of alternative responses. Krosnick(1991) suggested that when completing items, some respondents may satisfice and choose thefirst reasonable alternative rather than expend effort to optimally weigh the alternatives andaccurately respond to the item.

In terms of process, we propose that reactive responders will endorse items based on theperceived desirability of the item, without regard to self or ideal-applicant schema. In summary,we expect those engaging in reactive responding to be unable to inhibit the urge to fake, despitebeing poor at it due to an impulsive response style. Essentially, they will be “clumsy” fakers. We


expect applicants with high levels of cognitive and behavioral impulsivity to engage in reactiveresponding.

Fraudulent Responding

Research suggests that a subset of applicants have a modus operandi of lying and cheating(Griffith & Converse, 2011). When those motives are applied to personality items, we refer tothe response pattern as fraudulent. Applicants fitting a fraudulent responding profile knowinglyprovide answers that are misleading, untrue, or fabricated. Thus, they are volitionally decep-tive and manipulate the selection outcome with deliberate attempts to conceal and/or fabricateinformation to create and maintain in another a belief that the communicator considers false.Individuals engaging in fraudulent responding will, without regard to their own characteristics,provide responses deemed necessary to achieve the desired outcome of employment. For exam-ple, whereas an applicant who chooses a response of 4 when he or she is really a 3 (for a positivelyworded item) is likely exaggerating (using some self-relevant information), an applicant whosystematically answers a 5 on the same item when he or she is a 1 is being fraudulent.

Some applicants may frame their faking behavior as cheating. There is little research on theperceived systems knowledge (Williams & Levy, 1992) of applicants as they respond to person-ality inventories. However, we propose that many applicants approach these measures like tests,which have right and wrong answers (Yoshita, 2010). Under those conditions, it is likely thatapplicants who had a history of cheating in an academic environment would be influenced bythis motive in the employment setting. Previous research supports this proposition and has sug-gested that actual faking behavior was moderately related to self-reported academic dishonesty(Frei, Peterson, Isaacson, Griffith, & Jenkins, 2007). The process of faking also differs for fraudu-lent responders who will attempt to discern the “right answer” that will maximize the probabilityof getting the job. The goal of the fraudulent responder is to match the perceived “scoring key”of the ideal applicant and ignore his or her self-schema (Robie, Brown & Beaty, 2007).

We believe that applicants with an external LOC and those low on honesty-humility are likelyto engage in fraudulent responding. Given the linkages to low performance (Judge & Bono,2001), counterproductive work behavior (Lee, Ashton, & deVries 2005), and (un)ethical decisionmaking (Lee, Ashton, Morrison, Cordery, & Dunlop, 2008), applicants who engage in fraudulentresponding pose the greatest risk to the organization if they successfully fake. This was sup-ported by Anderson, Warner, and Spencer (1984), who found that applicants who respondedaffirmatively to having experience on tasks that did not exist (e.g., matrixing solvency files)were less effective performers. These applicants are more likely to be dishonest, have a disre-gard for systems, and engage in malfeasance and counterproductive work behavior once enteringthe organization.

In summary, we propose a taxonomy of faking consisting of four categories of response pat-terns with unique determinants. These categories range from the potentially beneficial (or at leastbenign) behavior of self-presentation to the potentially harmful form of faking we call fraudulentresponding. All of the categories of faking we propose fit inside the common conceptualizationof faking as an intentional response behavior aimed at exerting a positive influence on the hiringdecision. The differences lie in underlying motives of the applicant and the cognitive processesthat lead to self enhancement on a given item.


Individual Differences and Faking Behavior

Mischel and Shoda (1995) offered a cognitive-affective processing system (CAPS) model forexplaining personality and its influence on behavior. The authors sought to explain behav-ioral inconsistencies despite an apparent stability in personality structures. According to theirCAPS theory, individuals possess underlying cognitive-affective processing units composed ofinteracting encodings, expectancies, goals, affect, and competencies, which make up the per-sonality system. When we encounter a situation, the personality system generates “if . . . then”situation-behavior profiles. That is, individuals have characteristic patterns of responding whenconfronted with certain situations (If (situation), Then (behavior)) based upon the particular pat-terns of activation and inhibition occurring in the cognitive-affective processing units. In thismodel, individual differences are explained by the individual variability associated with thecognitive-affective units (e.g., characteristic activation and inhibition associated with encoding,expectancies, goals, etc.) and the unique situation-behavior profiles that the personality systempropagates.

Consistent with Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) congruence principle, we chose traits that havespecific theoretical linkages with the focal behavior, deception. The traits of SM, narcissism,impulsivity, integrity/honesty-humility, LOC, and SE have been linked to deceptive behavioracross many contexts. In terms of the CAPS model, individuals high on the proposed traits aremore likely to encode situational factors in terms of opportunity for deception (likelihood ofgetting caught) and the acceptability of deception based on the degree of personal relationshipbetween the actor and target (Griffith & McDaniel, 2006). In the following section, we presenteach trait, discuss the research linking each trait to deception, and describe how the trait maylead to a particular category of faking behavior. In addition, we briefly describe how hiring asuccessful faker with these individual differences may impact organizational performance (for afull discussion of the mechanism of action, see Tett & Simonet, this issue).

Self-Monitoring

Those high on the trait of SM monitor and control the image they present to be congruentwith the demands of social situations to construct positive social appearances (Gangestad &Snyder, 2000). High self-monitors are thought to be socially ambitious (Barrick, Parks, & Mount,2005), attuned to situational cues, and have the ability and willingness to modify their behavioraccordingly. The contemporary view of SM (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000) suggests that high self-monitors engage in assimilative and acquisitive self-presentation (Fuglestad & Snyder, 2010)and regulate their behavior to enhance their status. Those engaging in SM tactics are able to cul-tivate perceptions of likability and competence and present themselves in a friendly, relaxed, andflexible manner. These positive perceptions are then leveraged for social advancement (Day &Schleicher, 2006). The data suggest that this recognition and manipulation of social patternsmay lead to higher performance ratings, particularly when subjective assessments are employed(Day, Schleicher, Unckless, & Hiller, 2002). Rather than engaging in short-term deception, self-monitors continuously scan the social environment and adjust their behavior in the attempt toproject a positive image of themselves.

Barrick et al.’s (2005) evidence suggested that SM may “override” personality as a predictorof behavior and act as an intraperson constraint on typical behavior. Barrick et al. suggested that


SM may account for faking behavior. The authors indicated that, if SM were the causal factor insocially desirable responding, the effect on validity would be negligible because of the dominanteffect SM has on the subsequent subjective performance appraisals. In some sense, the high SMapplicant would never stop “faking,” which would be consistent with the socioanalytic theoryof faking behavior described by Johnson and Hogan (2006). Thus, we propose that high self-monitors will engage in self-presentational forms of faking. Previous research has not found alink between SM and applicant faking (e.g., Griffith et al., 2006; McFarland & Ryan, 2000). Webelieve that this pattern has occurred for two reasons. First, SM is likely to be a predictor of fakingfor more complex jobs where intuiting the social norms requires some skill. Second, the intervalbetween administrations in a within-subjects design must be long enough for the participant’sself-reports to regress to preapplication levels. Thus the designs used by Griffith et al. (2006),which utilized a low complexity job (customer service representative), and McFarland and Ryan(2000), which used directed faking instructions with a short retest interval, may not have beensensitive to the effects of SM.

Self-Esteem

SE has historically been defined as overall positive self-evaluation, self-worth, and self-acceptance (Brown, 1993), characterized by self-enhancement and self-promotion. These eval-uations are relatively stable, in that they are global and are not tied tightly to specific qualitiesof the individual. High SE has been linked to psychological well-being (Taylor & Brown, 1988)and adaptive functioning, whereas low SE is characterized by dislike of the self and has beenconnected to depression (Orth, Robins, & Roberts, 2008). An important component to SE isgeneral self-efficacy, which is performance focused, and thus may be of interest in applicantbehavior. Although conceptually distinct, research has found near-perfect correlations betweengeneral self-efficacy and SE (e.g., Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998).

Recent literature has offered a multifaceted view of SE, and we predict that SE will havemultiple influences on AFB. Kernis (2003) proposed that SE can be split into two forms of thetrait: secure SE and fragile SE. Kernis suggested that individuals with fragile SE and secure SEmay both self-enhance to the same degree but may do so for different reasons. Those with secureSE are more likely to self-present; however, those with fragile SE are more likely to exaggerate.Those individuals with fragile SE may engage in self-enhancement as a way to defend against athreat to their self-worth, but those with secure SE are likely to inflate their scores through theprocess of goal projection (Marcus, 2009). Faking resulting from fragile SE may be problematicfor the organization. Threats to self-worth or stressors on self-regulatory processes (Baumeister,Heatherton, & Tice, 1993) may lead to risky overestimates of ability (Tice, 1991) and overpromis-ing for those with fragile SE. Under these conditions, they may commit to unrealistic goals andincrease their chance of failure. Although sharing the characteristic of fragile self-image, Kernissuggested that fragile SE and narcissism are distinct constructs.

Individuals with low SE are thought to be ambivalent and somewhat confused about their senseof self, possessing low levels of self-concept clarity (Campbell et al., 1996). Campbell and col-leagues have suggested that individuals with low self-concept clarity are more likely to attend tosituational cues and alter their behaviors to match the situation rather than act in accordance withtheir personality. This finding is supported by other research demonstrating that those with lowSE are more susceptible to social cues (Brockner, 1984). Although somewhat counterintuitive, we


expect applicants with low SE to engage in a self-presentational style of faking. Thus, the relation-ship of SE with faking may be curvilinear. The key difference between the self-monitor engagingin self-presentation and the applicant with low SE may be in the ability to maintain the reputationdepicted during the application process. If motivated, the high self-monitor may persist in themaintenance of the reputation for a considerable length of time. However, the low SE applicantwill likely lack the self-regulatory resources necessary to maintain his or her self-presentation(Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005).

Narcissism

Narcissism is a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, self-focus, and self-importance.Paradoxically, this reputation of grandiosity is built on a foundation of fragile or vulnerableself-views (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Fragile self-views lead narcissists to engage in contin-ual efforts to buttress the self through affirmation from others. Narcissism is viewed as a stabletrait demonstrating self-aggrandizing arrogant behavior, hostility, entitlement, and lack of empa-thy for others, leading Paulhus (2001) to describe narcissists as “disagreeable extraverts.” Thecharacteristics of the trait are reinforced through a process of social interaction aimed at affirma-tion of the overly positive views of the self. Narcissists will continue efforts at enhancement at allcosts, primarily at the expense of their personal relationships. Morf and Rhodewalt (2001) statedthat narcissism is associated with high power and low intimacy strivings and that “if narcissistshave to choose between being liked or admired, they go for admiration” (p. 182).

Paulhus and John (1998) suggested that narcissists view themselves as superior on agentictraits, such as intelligence, dominance, and emotional stability. They are not likely to view them-selves as moral, agreeable, or dutiful (Vazire & Funder, 2006). Thus, narcissists are likely toexaggerate on measures of agentic traits such as intelligence and ability (Campbell, Rudich, &Sedikides, 2002; Paulhus & Williams, 2002) but not on communal traits (Campbell et al., 2002).Arkin and Lakin (2001) suggested that narcissists are highly likely to fake when completing a per-sonality inventory and will use the inventory as a low cost way to construct the self. Therefore,we propose that narcissists are likely to engage in exaggeration as a form of AFB and will likelyinflate items related to agentic traits such as ability and dominance. However, narcissists may havea differential pattern of faking and be less likely to endorse communal trait (e.g., agreeableness)items because they do not view those traits as beneficial.

Impulsivity

Impulsivity refers to a multidimensional trait characterized by poorly devised cognitions andbehaviors that are disproportionately risky, inappropriate to the situation, and often result in unfa-vorable consequences (Barratt & Patton, 1983). Impulsive individuals are unable to interruptdominant physical or mental responses (Baumeister et al., 1994). Dickman (1990) found that thedysfunctional form of impulsivity is associated with rash and disorderly decision making andthe tendency to engage in “rapid, error prone information processing because of an inability touse a slower, more methodical approach under certain circumstances” (p. 101). Some researchershave suggested that cognitive impulsivity may lead to a pattern of careless responding on for-mal assessments. This cognitive style is referred to as reflection-impulsivity, which describes


the response patterns of individuals under conditions of uncertainty (Messer, 1976). Individualswho rapidly respond without careful consideration of alternatives (impulsives) are more likelyto choose incorrect responses. Impulsives demonstrate low standards of performance and havelower standards of mastery achievement than reflectives (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001).

The characteristics associated with impulsivity would lead to the prediction that impulsivesmay be highly motivated to fake but unlikely to succeed. Therefore, we propose that impulsivitywill lead to reactive responding and maladroit patterns of faking, which may result in undesirableoutcomes for the applicant. That is, in attempting to fake, impulsive applicants may removethemselves from consideration by actually lowering their scores on a personality measure. In thecase of successful faking on the part of impulsive applicants, the outcomes are negative for theorganization. A considerable amount of research suggests that impulsivity is conceptually andempirically related to organizational deviance (Gibson & Wright, 2001).

Integrity/Honesty-Humility

Integrity is often considered synonymous with honesty, implying truthfulness, fairness, and arefusal to engage in fraud or deceit (Sackett & Wanek, 1996). Research has demonstrated thatindividuals with high integrity tend to be reserved, responsible, and moderate. In contrast, thosewith low integrity tend to be impulsive, spontaneous, and emotional (Sackett & Wanek, 1996).Individuals with low integrity feel no moral pressure to be honest when faced with a situationthat would reward deception, and therefore they are likely to engage in deceptive responding inthe applicant setting (Goffin & Boyd, 2009; McFarland & Ryan, 2000). Previous research hassupported the hypothesis that low integrity is related to AFB (Griffith et al., 2006; McFarland &Ryan, 2000).

A relatively new construct proposed by Ashton and Lee (2001), honesty-humility, may beuseful in understanding those applicants who engage in deceptive responding. The trait is charac-terized by honesty, fairness, sincerity, lack of conceit, and lack of greed, and it reflects individualdifferences in the reluctance to exploit others (Lee et al., 2005). Measures of honesty-humilityhave shown strong relationships with overt integrity tests, self-reported workplace deviance (Leeet al., 2005), and ethical decision making (Lee et al., 2008), as well as strong negative correla-tions with constructs related to exploitation such as narcissism. Thus, we propose that individualswith low integrity and low honesty-humility are likely to engage in fraudulent responding. Ifindividuals with low integrity comprised a substantial portion of those who exhibit fraudulentresponding, then there may be some cause for concern on the part of the organization. Integrityand honesty-humility are both associated with counterproductive work behaviors (Lee et al.,2005).

Locus of Control

According to Rotter (1990), LOC refers to the extent to which individuals attribute experi-enced outcomes to their own behavior or to an external source such as luck, chance, or fate. Snellet al. (1999) suggested that LOC may be an individual difference likely to be associated withAFB; however, the theory did not specify the direction of the relationship (internal or external).Based on our examination of the literature, we believe that individuals with an external LOC


(the belief that what happens is beyond personal control) would be more susceptible to responsedistortion in an applicant setting. Research has found that those with an external LOC makeless ethical decisions (Trevino & Youngblood, 1990), engage in academic dishonesty (Leming,1980), and are more tolerant of cheating (Coleman & Mahaffey, 2000). Although the mechanismof action is not intuitive, Coleman and Mahaffey (2000) suggested that “people who believe themajority of their experiences are beyond their control are therefore more likely to gain somerelief if they can assert some control over their outcome” (p. 129). Thus, individuals with anexternal LOC may fake to cope with a perceived lack of control over the selection process. Ifthose with external LOC are successful at faking, they may prove to be problematic for the orga-nization. In addition to its link with poor ethical decision making, LOC has been found to berelated to job performance, with externals performing lower than internals (e.g., Judge & Bono,2001).

Situational Variance and Psychological Contracts

Many theories of applicant faking include an applicant’s assessment of the situation as a deter-minant of motivation to fake (e.g., Snell et al., 1999). These situational variables are oftenassociated with the characteristics of the job, or the organization. Previous research has sug-gested that, to the extent the open position is desirable, applicants would be more likely to fake(McFarland & Ryan, 2006). Factors in job desirability include the economic need of the applicant(McFarland & Ryan, 2006; Ones & Viswesvaran, 2007; Robie, Emmons, Tuzinski, & Katrowitz,in press), job status (McFarland & Ryan, 2000), and perceived selection ratio (Robie, 2006).However, from the perspective of the applicant it is unlikely that these factors are consideredin isolation and then combined to form an opinion. We propose that, rather than focusing onindividual characteristics of the job, individual applicants may form a global impression of thetype of future relationship they wish to have based on their judgment of applicant-centered situ-ational variables (e.g., economic need) and organization-centered situational variables (e.g., jobstatus).

This mechanism of impression formation is similar to the formation of organizational cli-mate. Employees form perceptions of climate based on tangible aspects of the organization (e.g.,pay, coworker relationships). These features affect the perception of climate to the extent theyare valued by the employee. Although climate is based on individual perceptions, it is con-ceptualized as a situational variable. Thus, rather than measuring the individual aspects of jobdesirability, which may vary in value for individual applicants, applicant appraisals are moreparsimoniously captured through the construct of the psychological contract, specifically theanticipatory psychological contract (De Vos et al., 2009).

A psychological contract has been defined as “an individual’s beliefs regarding the terms andconditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between that focal person and another party”(Rousseau, 1989, p. 123). This definition recognizes that subjectivity plays a significant role inall social interactions, including contracting interactions between employer and employee. Thus,an employee’s perceptions of agreements, expectations, obligations, and promises are a criticalelement in ascertaining the terms of the contract. In this conceptualization, agreement by theinvolved parties regarding the terms is not necessary for a contract to exist.

Rousseau (1989) argued that the psychological contract between employees and their employ-ers contains both explicit (verbal, written) and implicit (assumed) terms and that these terms


may be predominantly transactional (e.g., wages, benefits) or relational (e.g., loyalty, job secu-rity) in nature. Relational contracts are characterized by long-term arrangements that emphasizetrust, stability, and loyalty, with rewards only loosely based on performance. A transactionalemployment relationship, on the other hand, stresses economic elements of the exchange withnarrowly defined duties in which the employee does only the work he or she is explicitlypaid to do. Rewards in transactional agreements are strictly conditioned upon employee perfor-mance. Research suggests that personality is relatively independent of the choice of psychologicalcontracts, demonstrating insignificant or low magnitude correlations (Raja, Johns, & Ntalianis,2004).

Although Rousseau’s conceptualization of the psychological contract implicitly seems toapply only after an employment relationship has been established, recent research suggests thatpsychological contract formation begins prior to the establishment of a formal employment rela-tionship (De Vos et al., 2009; Purvis & Cropley, 2003). De Vos et al. (2009) proposed the notionof the APC, which refers to psychological contract beliefs that predate hire and that develop rel-atively independently from the specific employer in question. The APC effectively functions asa lens through which applicants view the relationship that is likely to unfold between themselvesand the organization. These beliefs are also likely to be informed by situational factors such asprior job/application experience and prior knowledge of the organization in question. Thus, dif-ferent individuals may be predisposed toward more relational contracts, whereas others may bemore prone to adopting contracts with transactional terms.

Prior research has sought to specify situational factors (e.g., pay, job status, fit, etc.) that mightmotivate applicant behavior (McFarland & Ryan, 2006). However, we do not believe that appli-cant motivation is likely to be explicitly and rationally influenced by such specific situationalfactors. Our theory offers the APC as a global situational factor that is likely to subsume thosemore specific antecedents of applicant faking. Because individuals differ in relation to the natureof their APC, it is reasonable that this contextual variable that applicants bring with them to theselection setting may differentially influence their prehire behavior.

First, we expect applicants to make a primary appraisal of the organization based on thispreliminary contact with the organization and information gathered about the future employmentsituation. This appraisal will lead to the formation of an APC, which will influence the applicant’smotivation to fake. For example, an individual whose APC is predominantly transactional innature may be more inclined to engage in deceptive behavior during the selection process becausehe or she anticipates that the employment relationship is likely to be relatively brief and they failto see any negative implications of their behavior. Individuals with a relational APC, on theother hand, are more likely to recognize the risks associated with initially deceiving prospectiveemployers and may be less likely to fake because that behavior can compromise a long-termrelationship.

Second, we propose that applicants make reappraisals based on their assessment of the selec-tion process and factors such as perceived fairness or susceptibility to deception. That is, thesecondary appraisal involves an assessment regarding the likelihood of getting caught. Thesereappraisals serve as proximal influences on faking behavior and may weaken or strengthen thedeception construal formed from the distal interaction of traits and APC. For instance, an appli-cant with external LOC and a transactional APC may intend to fraudulently respond. However,he or she may alter his or her intentions based on the presence of a warning, which may reviseperceptions regarding the probability of successful fraudulent responding.


POSSIBLE FRAMEWORKS TO TEST THE THEORY

Our conceptualization of faking as four qualitatively distinct processes of faking provides chal-lenges with traditional data-analytic tools that assume a consistent underlying process for allrespondents. Techniques traditionally used to study faking such as multiple regression, structuralequation modeling, and traditional test theory all assume that the underlying relation betweensomeone’s response processes and their outcomes on the test are identical for all respondents,even though there may be individual differences among the relevant variables. For example,with factor analysis, individuals’ latent traits may vary, but the factor loadings will be iden-tical for all individuals. With traditional structural equation modeling methods, groups maydiffer in terms of their structural parameters, but it is necessary to identify those groups inadvance. Although less of a concern in within-subjects designs, this is problematic in sin-gle administration faking designs given that we do not know in advance who is faking, theirmotives, or their strategy. In addition, there may be no opportunity to capture such informa-tion even after respondents have completed the inventories. Our theory is different in that itproposes that the underlying relationships are qualitatively different for the various types offaking. Therefore, different statistical models are needed to model the four distinct respon-dent classes, and it may be necessary to identify these classes using an empirical exploratorybasis.

Mixture-model methods have been introduced that combine latent class modeling with tradi-tional psychometric techniques, such as item response theory (Rost, 1991) and factor analysis(Muthén, 2008). With these techniques, different latent classes are identified, with each hav-ing a different underlying relationship between the latent trait and the option choice. Thus,the mixture-method procedure is well suited to identify qualitatively different forms of fakingresponse patterns. Latent class membership can then be used as a dependent variable predictedby the interaction of individual differences and measure of APC. Mixture-model techniques havebeen used in two published studies thus far. Zickar et al. (2004) used an IRT-based mixture modeland found three classes of personality inventory respondents in samples of applicants and exper-imentally induced faking study participants. They identified a slight faking class, an extremefaking class, and an honest respondent class. These three classes were labeled using a post hocinterpretation of the statistical results. Holden and Book (2009) used a similar methodology toanalyze an experimentally induced faking sample of impression management scale respondents.They identified three classes of respondents, which they labeled as fake bad, fake good, andhonest respondents.

In both of these studies, classes were interpreted using a combination of post hoc interpreta-tion of results and an examination of the pattern of class respondents across various experimentalconditions. Although this exploratory approach is a reasonable first step, the theoretical approachpresented in this chapter provides a stronger rationale for interpreting various classes. In additionto mixture-modeling techniques, the use of qualitative data collected from applicants may be use-ful in understanding the processes underlying faking behavior. We propose that our classificationof faking differs not only in term of motive but also in terms of the process by which applicantsinterpret and respond to items. Robie et al. (2007) utilized a verbal protocol method and identi-fied three plausible response patterns. Continued research using this methodology in conjunctionwith mixture-modeling methods will likely be needed to fully test the theory.


Attempts to falsify this theory should focus on the four following questions: (a) Can fourclasses be identified? (b) Are these classes interpretable in light of the proposed theory? (c) Isclass membership predicted by the measures of the proposed trait and contract variables? (d) Domembers of these classes who are identified as fakers report processes similar to those suggestedby the theory?

CONCLUSION

We believe that treating faking as a single construct has been a contributing problem in the mixedresults stemming from faking research. Thus, we proposed a theory that delineates faking asfour separate response processes that reflect applicants’ motives. We believe this multicategoricalview of faking contributes to existing theory and should result in more accurate predictions oforganizational outcomes. Although our theory focuses specifically on the motivation to fake, werecognize that a comprehensive faking theory must contain an ability component (Snell et al.,1999). However, the narrow focus of our theory has the added benefit of generalizing to otherforms of applicant deception, such as resume fraud, or impression management in the interviewcontext, where the ability component is likely to differ greatly across assessment methods.

The current theory proposes that faking motives stem from the interaction of applicant traitsand perceptions of the nature of their future relationship with the organization to which theyseek employment. Although many of the individual differences in our theory have been proposedpreviously, we took a systematic theoretical approach to selecting traits that mapped onto the fourproposed forms of faking while attempting to reduce overlap between constructs. Alternatively,it is possible that more parsimony could be achieved in the model by collapsing constructs. Forinstance, given the established relationships between SE, self-efficacy, and LOC, future researchshould examine core self-evaluations (Judge & Bono, 2001) as a predictor of faking behavior.Second, we culled constructs that had intuitive appeal but had incongruent manifestations (e.g.,Machiavellianism). High Machs are strategic deceivers, are more likely to deceive in face-to-facesettings, and use emotion and ingratiation as distractions (Paulhus & Williams, 2002).

The addition of the APC as a summary situational variable represents another contribution ofthe proposed theory. The applicant experience is likely to be a more automatic, emotional eventthan a rational analysis of concrete organizational characteristics. Thus, although noting thesetangible characteristics, the applicant’s perceptions are likely to be combined into a global affec-tive appraisal of the organization (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003). The substitution of the APC forindividual elements of job desirability may represent a more parsimonious view of situationalvariance. Finally, we propose that not only may the form and process of faking differ, but the out-comes to the organization may also vary depending on the interaction of the antecedents of AFB.Thus, at an individual level, AFB may result in outcomes ranging from beneficial to undesirablefor both the organization and the applicant. However, when AFB is aggregated across forms offaking, we believe it introduces a large degree of error in the testing process that results in areduction of criterion-related validity (Peterson et al., in press). In addition, given the associa-tion of many of the faking antecedent traits with counter productive work behavior and unethicaldecision making, we also suggest that at an aggregate-level AFB introduces an overall undesir-able element in the organization (Peterson et al., in press). Therefore, at the group level we predictmean level differences in both the antecedent traits and counterproductive work behavior betweenapplicants identified as fakers and those applicants who have not engaged in faking behavior. To


counter these undesirable organizational outcomes, multiple interventions targeted at the mech-anism of action of the specific forms of faking will be necessary. Given the multiple motives offakers, it is highly unlikely we will find a “silver bullet” to eliminate faking.

Parents often share the excitement of the first date with their child while worrying a bitabout their child’s choice of companions. They may ruminate regarding the character of thenew boyfriend or girlfriend and have questions about his or her intentions. It seems that if wehave those questions regarding early romantic relationship dynamics, that it would be prudentto examine the same factors when a new relationship is formed between the applicant and theorganization.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Michael McDaniel, Matthias Ziegler, Chet Robie, Cornelius Konig, and Eric Heggestadfor their comments on previous versions of this article. The research leading to the developmentof this theory was funded by the Applicant Response Behavior project, and we are grateful forthe intellectual contributions of the members of the ARB research team.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Anderson, C. D., Warner, J. L., & Spencer, C. C. (1984). Inflation bias in self-assessment examinations: Implications forvalid employee selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 574–580. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.4.574

Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self-presentation styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and socialpsychological research (pp. 311–333). New York: Academic.

Arkin, R. M., & Lakin, J. L. (2001). The Taj Mahal of selves. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 203–205.Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality. European Journal of

Personality, 15, 327–353. doi:10.1002/per.417Barratt, E. S., & Patton, J. H. (1983). Impulsivity: Cognitive, behavioral and psychophysiological correlates. In

M. Zuckerman (Ed.), Biological bases of sensation seeking, impulsivity and anxiety (pp. 77–116). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Barrick, M. R., Parks, L. & Mount, M. K. (2005). Self-monitoring as a moderator of the relationships between personalitytraits and performance. Personnel Psychology, 58, 745–767. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00716.x

Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1993). When ego threats lead to self-regulation failure: Negativeconsequences of high self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(1), 141–156.

Baumeister, R., Heatherton, T., & Tice, D. (1994). Losing control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego,CA: Academic Press.

Brockner, J. (1984). Low self-esteem and behavioral plasticity: Some implications for personality and social psychology.In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 237–271). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Brown, J. D. (1993). Self-esteem and self-evaluation: Feeling is believing. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives onthe self (Vol. 4, pp. 27–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E. A., & Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and the positivity of self-views: Twoportraits of self-love. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 358–368. doi:10.1177/0146167202286007

Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L.F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity:Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1),141–156. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.141

Coleman, N., & Mahaffey, T. (2000). Business student ethics: Selected predictors of attitudes toward cheating. TeachingBusiness Ethics, 4, 121–136.

Coyne, I., & Bartram, D. (2000). Personnel managers’ perceptions of dishonesty in the workplace. Human ResourceManagement Journal, 10, 38–45.


Dalen, L. H., Stanton, N. A., & Roberts, A. D. (2001). Faking personality questionnaires in personnel selection. Journalof Management Development, 20, 729–742. doi:10.1108/02621710110401428

Day, D. V., & Schleicher, D. J. (2006). Self-monitoring at work: A motive-based perspective. Journal of Personality, 74,685–713. doi:10.1111/j.1467=6494.2006.00389.x

Day, D. V., Schleicher, D. J., Unckless, A. L., & Hiller, N. J. (2002). Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta-analyticinvestigation of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 390–401.

DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 70, 979–995. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979

De Vos, A., De Stobbeleir, K., & Meganck, A. (2009). The relationship between career-related antecedents and graduates’anticipatory psychological contracts. Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 289–298. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9107-3

Dickman, S. J. (1990). Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: Personality and cognitive correlates. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 58(1), 95–102. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.95

Frei, R., Peterson, M. H., Isaacson, J., Griffith, R. L., & Jenkins, M. (2007, April). Exploring the relationship between aca-demic dishonesty and applicant dishonesty. Paper presented at the 22nd annual meeting for the Society for Industrialand Organizational Psychology, New York, New York.

Fuglestad, P. T., & Snyder, M. (2010). Status and the motivational foundations of self-monitoring. Social and PersonalityPsychology Compass, 4, 1031–1041. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00311.x

Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126,530–555. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.530

Gibson, C., & Wright, J. (2001). Low self-control and coworker delinquency: A research note. Journal of CriminalJustice, 29, 483–492. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(01)00111-8

Goffin, R. D., & Boyd, A. C. (2009). Faking and personality assessment in personnel selection: Advancing models offaking. Canadian Psychology, 50, 151–160. doi:10.1037/a0015946

Griffith, R. L., Chmielowski, T., & Yoshita, Y. (2007). Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicantfaking behavior. Personnel Review, 36, 341–355. doi:10.1108/00483480710731310

Griffith, R. L., & Converse, P. D. (2011). The rules of evidence and the prevalence of applicant faking. In M. Ziegler,C. McCann, & R. Roberts (Eds.), New perspectives on faking in personality assessments (pp. 34–52). Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.

Griffith, R. L., Malm, T., English, A., Yoshita, Y., & Gujar, A. (2006). Applicant faking behavior: Teasing apart theinfluence of situational variance, cognitive biases, and individual differences. In R. L. Griffith & M. H. Peterson (Eds.),A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 151–177). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Griffith, R. L., & McDaniel, M. (2006). The nature of deception and applicant faking behavior. In R. L. Griffith &M. H. Peterson (Eds.), A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 1–20). Greenwich, CT: InformationAge Publishing.

Highhouse, S., Brooks, M. E., & Gregarus, G. (2009). An organizational impression management perspective on theformation of corporate reputations. Journal of Management, 35, 1481–1493. doi:10.1177/0149206309348788

Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalyticperspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 100–112. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100

Holden, R. R., & Book, A. S. (2009). Using hybrid Rasch-latent class modeling to improve the detection of fakers on apersonality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 185–190.

Hough, L. M. (1998). The millennium for personality psychology: New horizons or good ole daze. Applied Psychology:An International Review, 47, 233–261. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1998.tb00023.x

Johnson, J. A., & Hogan, R. (2006). A socioanalytic view of faking. In R. L. Griffith & M. H. Peterson (Eds.), A closerexamination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 209–232). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locusof control, and emotional stability with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 86, 80–92.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: Therole of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 17–34. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.17

Kagan, J. (1965). Individual differences in the resolution of response uncertainty. Journal oj Personality and SocialPsychology, 2, 154–160.

Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1–26.


Komar, S., Brown, D. G., Komar, J. A., & Robie, C. (2008). Faking and the validity of conscientiousness: A Monte Carloinvestigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 140–154.

Krosnick, J. (1991). Response strategies of coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. AppliedCognitive Psychology, 5, 213–236.

Kuncel, N. R., & Borneman, M. J. (2007). Toward a new method of detecting deliberately faked personality tests: The useof idiosyncratic item responses. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 220–231. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00383.x

Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & deVries, R.E. (2005). Predicting workplace delinquency and integrity with the HEXACO andFive-Factor Models of personality structure. Human Performance, 18, 179–197.

Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Morrison, D. L., Cordery, J., & Dunlop, P. D. (2008). Predicting integrity with the HEXACOpersonality model: Use of self- and observer reports. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(1),147–167. doi:10.1348/09631790X195175

Leming, J. S. (1980). Cheating behavior, subject variables, and components of the internal-external scale under high andlow risk conditions. The Journal of Educational Research, 74(2), 83–87.

Levin, R. A., & Zickar, M. J. (2002). Investigating self-presentation, lies, and bullshit: Understanding faking and itseffects on selection decisions using theory, field research, and simulation. In J. M. Brett & F. Drasgow (Eds.), Thepsychology of work: Theoretically based empirical research (pp. 253–276). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. (2003). The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a company’s attractivenessas an employer. Personnel Psychology, 56, 75–102.

Mahar, D., Coburn, B., Griffin, N., Hemeter, F., Potappel, C., Turton, M., & Mulgrew, K. (2006). Stereotyping as aresponse strategy when faking personality questionnaires. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1375–1386.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.018

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.x

Martin, B. A., Bowen, C.-C., & Hunt, S. T. (2002). How effective are people at faking on personality questionnaires?Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 247–256. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00021-6

McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 85, 812–821.

McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2006). Toward an integrated model of applicant faking behavior. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 36, 979–1016. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.812

Messer, S. B. (1976). Reflection-impulsivity: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 1026–1052.Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dis-

positions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246

Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processingmodel. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1204_1

Mueller-Hanson, R. A., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C. (2006). Individual differences in impression management:An exploration of the psychological processes underlying faking. Psychology Science, 48, 288–312.

Muthén, B. O. (2008). Latent variable hybrids: Overview of old and new models. In G. R. Hancock & K. M. Samuelsen(Eds.), Advances in latent variable mixture models (pp. 1–24). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). Labor market influences on personality scale scores among job applicants.Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 6, 71–84. doi:10.1026/1617-6391.6.2.71

Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Roberts, B. W. (2008). Low self-esteem prospectively predicts depression in adolescence andyoung adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 695–708. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.695

Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing?Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, 32(2), 183–201.

Paulhus, D. L. (2001). Normal narcissism: Two minimalist accounts. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 228–230.Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic bias in self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles

with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66, 1025–1060. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00041Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.

Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563.Peterson, M. H., Griffith, R. L., Isaacson, J. A., O’Connell, M. S., & Mangos, P. M. (in press). Applicant faking, social

desirability, and the prediction of counterproductive work behaviors. Human Performance.


Purvis, L. J., & Cropley, M. (2003). Psychological contracting: Processes of contract formation during interviewsbetween nannies and their “employers.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 213–241.doi:10.1348/096317903765913713

Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts. Academy ofManagement Journal, 47, 350–367.

Rees, C. J., & Metcalfe, B. (2003). The faking of personality questionnaire results: Who’s kidding whom? Journal ofManagerial Psychology, 18, 156–165. doi:10.1108/02683940310465045

Robie, C. (2006). Effects of perceived selection ratio on personality test faking. Social Behavior and Personality, 34,1233–1244. doi:10.2224/sbp.2006.34.10.1233

Robie, C., Brown, D. J., & Beaty, J. C. (2007). Do people fake personality inventories? A verbal protocol analysis.Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(4), 489–509.

Robie, C., Emmons, T., Tuzinski, K. A., & Katrowitz, T. (2011). Effects of an economic recession on leader personalityand general mental ability scores. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(2), 183–198.

Rost, J. (1991). A logistic mixture distribution model for polychotomous item responses. British Journal of Mathematicaland Statistical Psychology, 44, 75–92.

Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement. American Psychologist, 45, 489–493.doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.4.489

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and RightsJournal, 2, 121–139. doi:10.1007/BF01384942

Sackett, P. R., & Wanek, J. E. (1996). New developments in the use of measures of honesty, integrity, conscien-tiousness, dependability, trustworthiness, and reliability for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 49, 787–829.doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb02450.x

Snell, A. F., Sydell, E. J., & Lueke, S. B. (1999). Towards a theory of applicant faking: Integrating studies of deception.Human Resources Management Review, 9, 219–242. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00019-4

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. (2001) A capsule history of theory and research on styles. In R. J. Sternberg &L. Zhange (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking learning and cognitive styles (pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health.Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.

Tice, D. M. (1991). Esteem protection or enhancement? Self-handicapping motives and attributions differ by trait self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 711–725.

Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-makingbehavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 378–385. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.4.378

Vasilopoulos, N. L., Cucina, J. M., Dyomina, N. V., Morwitz, C. L., & Reilly, R. R. (2006). Forced-choice personalitytests: A measure of personality and cognitive ability? Human Performance, 19(3), 175–199.

Vazire, S., & Funder, D. C. (2006). Impulsivity and the self-defeating behavior of narcissists. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 10, 154–165. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_4

Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005). Self-regulation and self-presentation: Regulatory resourcedepletion impairs impression management and effortful self-presentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 88, 632–657.

Willard, G., & Gramzow, R. H. (2009). Beyond oversights, lies, and pies in the sky: Exaggeration as goal projection.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 477–492. doi:10.1177/0146167208329631

Williams, J. R., Levy, P. E. (1992). The effects of perceived system knowledge on the agreement between self-ratings andsupervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 45, 835–847.

Yoshita, Y. (2010). Cultural membership and applicant faking behavior: A Japanese and American comparison (DoctoralDissertation). Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Zickar, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1996). Detecting faking on a personality instrument using appropriateness measurement.Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 71–87. doi:10.1177/014662169602000107

Zickar, M. J., & Gibby, R. E. (2006). A history of faking and socially desirable responding on personality tests. In R. L.Griffith & M. H. Peterson (Eds.), A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 21–42). Greenwich, CT:Information Age.

Zickar, M. J., Gibby, R. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Uncovering faking samples in applicant, incumbent, and experimentaldata sets: An application of mixed-model item response theory. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 168–190.

Ziegler, M., & Buehner, M. (2009). Modeling socially desirable responding and its effects. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 69, 548.

Copyright of Human Performance is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

First Dates and Little White Lies: A Trait Contract Classiﬁcation …people.uncw.edu/hakanr/documents/fakingandwhitelies.pdf · 2016. 2. 11. · First Dates and Little White Lies: