Ego Defensive and Ego Prmotional Responding

  • View
    2.096

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

my doctoral dissertation presentation on socially desirable responding in bio data and self-assessed job performance

Text of Ego Defensive and Ego Prmotional Responding

  • 1. Ego-Defensive and Ego-Promotional Behavior in Socially Desirable Responding and Self-Assessed Job Performance: A Faking Study Proposal J. Peter Leeds December 14, 2005
  • 2.
    • "Vices and virtues are of a strange nature, for the more we have, the fewer we think we have" (Alexander Pope, English Poet, 1688-1744)
    • Introduction
    • Why its important to study faking as egoist responding
    • What I hope to gain for this research
    • Some background literature (do people fake and does it matter, problems with SDR scales)
    • Introduce egoistic responding and underlying theory
    • Connect egoistic responding with self-appraised performance
    • Present hypotheses
    • Methodology, and research design, measures and analyses
    • A second study involving the construct validation of the proposed SDR measure will be presented
  • 3.
    • Rationale for the study
    • Non-cognitive testing is big and much hangs in the balance.
    • People can and do fake on such measures
    • Faking distorts validity, score hierarchy, and measurement properties of tests.
    • Understanding faking components and correlates has value in controlling faking.
    • The utility of decomposing faking as denial of vices and an over claimed virtues has received equivocal results in the literature.
  • 4.
    • Literature
    • What is faking? A subclass of SDR where one deliberately responds to non-cognitive measures in ways that reflect favorably on oneself.
    • What is Socially Desirable Responding (SDR)? A response bias where one tends to gives inaccurate responses that reflect positively on one self. 3 types of
    • SDR according to Paulhus (1984):
        • impression management
        • subtle self-deception
        • self-deceptive denial
    • People can and do fake
        • Ones, Viswesvaran, and Korbin (1995) found that respondents are able to increase their scores on personality tests by an average of .5 of a standard deviations.
        • McDaniel, Douglas, and Snell (1997) found wide spread faking among job seekers.
        • Griffith et al. (in press) found .60 standard deviation in an within subject applicant sample design
  • 5.
    • Does faking matter?
    • Faking degrades criterion related validity - Christiansen, Goffin, Johnston, & Rothstein, (1994) showed that as the proportion of fakers increased from 0 to 25%, the observed validity dropped from .34 to .19.
    • Adjusting scores based on faking produces increments to validity Although controversial, Army Research Institute reported improving criterion validity using faking score adjustment with military samples and Lao (2001) fund that controlling for the effects of faking increased the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance. Be careful here, this is one of only a few studies that find thisreport the others Ones et al
    • Faking changes the rank order of candidates - White and Kilcullen (1997) observed that 29% of high SDR responders and only 6% of the low SDR responders would have passed a reasonably set cut-score.
    • Faking distorts measurement properties of non-cognitive tests - Griffith (1997) found method a method bias contamination disrupted the measurement properties for a group instructed to fake on a battery of personality assessments. Frei (1997) found significant differences in the factor loadings, error variances, and factor intercorrelations .
  • 6.
    • Detecting faking and the problems with SDR scales
    • They dont work reasons cited include:
    • the transparency of faking items
    • high false negative and false positive classification rates
    • poor face validity
    • correlation to latent trait
    • poor intercorrelation among faking scales
    • validated with fake good instructional sets
  • 7.
    • Egoistic Responding
      • All SDR test items either pose a vice and ask for denial or pose a virtue and ask for self-attribution
    • Examples:
        • I never return money I have found. Vice, prompting ego-defensive SDR
        • I never swear. Virtue, prompting ego-promotional SDR
    • Equivocal research findings
    • Dires (1964) Schultz (1998) Jacobson et al (1977) support while
    • Millham (1974) and Phillips (2004) refute
    • Both denial of vice and self-attribution of virtue have at least one thing in common Both serve the interests of the self
  • 8.
    • Theoretical basis
      • Prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) Undervalue gains and over-valuing losses. Acknowledging vices is a greater loss to ones ego than claiming virtues a gain to the ego.
      • Theory on depressive realism the tendency of mildly depressed persons to have more accurate self perceptions than those who are not depressed. Predicts that those who claim vices and deny virtues (self-depreciating) hold lower and more accurate impressions of their own performance. McCrae and Costa, (1983) found that those scoring higher on a depression scale also tend to score low on impression management scales
      • Self-affirmation theory - the desire to maintain the perceived worth and integrity of the self is the fundamental goal of a self-regulating system (Steele, 1988).
  • 9.
    • Summary of theoretical basis
      • Prospect theory indicates that defensive faking will be more prevalent than promotional faking.
      • Depressive realism suggests that ego deflated persons will show less faking than others.
      • Self-affirmation theory posits the basic motivations underlying all defensive and promotional motivations.
      • By couching faking in terms of egoistic responding we are able to not only predict peoples tendency to promote/defend their ego on tests but also in their self appraised job performance.
  • 10.
    • Self Appraisal and Egoistic responding
    • The Harris and Schaubroeck (1988) meta analysis showed that self and supervisor performance appraisals differ substantially (r = .35 uncorrected) with subordinates having much higher self appraisals.
    • Atkins and Wood (2002) used assessment center performance to validate 360-degree performance ratings. Results showed 1) that supervisor-obtained performance appraisals were much lower than the self-obtained performance appraisals offered by those who overestimate their actual assessment center performance. Found that braggarts get marked down but not as much as supplicants.
    • Both faking and self-appraisal are subject to the same egoistic responding predicated by self affirmation theory.
  • 11.
    • Hypotheses
    • Prospect Theory would predict that there will be significantly higher mean level of SDR scores (more SDR) on ego defensive items than the ego promotional items.
    • Prior research suggests that those highest on SDR will evidence more self-supervisor performance disparity than those who are lowest on SDR.
    • Self-affirming theory suggests that there will be a significant and strong correlation between SDR scale scores and the self-supervisor discrepancy scores.
    • Inferences from Atkins and Wood (2002) suggest that there will be no correlation between supervisor assessed performance ratings and SDR scores since 1) those who are high ego promoters will tend to receive lower and discrepant supervisor ratings (-r), 2) those who are low ego defenders/promoters (i.e., prone to modest self depreciation) will also receive low, but non-discrepant supervisor ratings (+r) and 3) those who are high ego defenders will not be detectable (r = 0).
    • Self Affirmation theory suggests that there will be a significant positive correlation between SDR and self assessed performance since the same egoist responding will take place.
    • Bio data (CLIMB) score adjustments based on ego promotional and/or ego defensive responding scores will improve the criterion validity of the bio data (CLIMB) measure significantly.
  • 12.
    • Study 1
    • Methodology
    • Research Design