Detecting Applicant Faking With a Context-Specific Overclaiming Questionnaire

Author:

Diedenhofen Birk1ORCID,Hoffmann Adrian1ORCID,Aust Frederik2ORCID,Müller Sascha34ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Düsseldorf, Germany

2. Psychology Department, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

3. Department of Psychology, University of Kassel, Germany

4. Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock University, Germany

Abstract

Abstract: In the context of personnel selection, self-reports are often biased by social desirability. For example, applicants may overstate their knowledge to make a good impression on a potential employer. Overclaiming questionnaires (OCQs) offer a means to assess whether applicants claim to have knowledge that they do not have. Previous studies evaluating whether OCQs are capable of detecting faking in personnel selection contexts reported mixed results but did not take the fit between the content of OCQ items and the selection context into account. In the present study, we therefore tailored an OCQ to the specific application context and compared its performance to that of Residualized Individual Change Scores (RICS), a competing measure of faking based on an achievement motivation questionnaire. A total of 123 participants first answered the OCQ and the motivational questionnaire in a control condition without application context. The two measures were then completed again as part of a mock application process, and participants were asked to honestly report their faking behavior afterward. Participants exhibited more overclaiming in the application context than in the control condition. The OCQ and RICS scores predicted participants’ self-reported faking with comparable accuracy. These results suggest that OCQs can compete with other measures of faking if their content is appropriately tailored to the application context.

Publisher

Hogrefe Publishing Group

Subject

Biological Psychiatry,General Psychology

Reference48 articles.

1. Seriousness checks are useful to improve data validity in online research

2. BDP & DGPs (2016). Berufsethische Richtlinien des Berufsverbandes Deutscher Psychologinnen und Psychologen e.V. und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie e.V [Professional ethical guidelines of the German Association of Psychologists and the German Psychological Society]. https://www.dgps.de/fileadmin/documents/Empfehlungen/berufsethische_richtlinien_dgps.pdf

3. Teasing Apart Overclaiming, Overconfidence, and Socially Desirable Responding

4. Overclaiming as a measure of faking

5. Social desirability scales as moderator and suppressor variables

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3