Advertisement

Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 87–106 | Cite as

Assessing Intentional Resume Deception: Development and Nomological Network of a Resume Fraud Measure

  • Christine A. HenleEmail author
  • Brian R. Dineen
  • Michelle K. Duffy
Original Paper

Abstract

Resume fraud is pervasive and has detrimental consequences, but researchers lack a way to study it. We develop and validate a measure for empirically investigating resume misrepresentations purposely designed to mislead recruiters. In study 1, an initial set of items designed to measure three theorized resume fraud dimensions (fabrication, embellishment, omission) are rated for content validity. In study 2, job seekers complete the measure and its factor structure is evaluated. In study 3, another sample of job seekers is surveyed to verify the measure’s factor structure and to provide evidence regarding construct validity. In study 4, working adults who recently conducted a job search are surveyed to determine which individuals are more likely to commit resume fraud and whether resume fraud relates to critical work behaviors. We confirm the three-factor structure of our measure and offer evidence of construct validity by showing that socially desirable responding, Machiavellianism, moral identity, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness are related to resume fraud. Additionally, we find that resume fraud predicts reduced job performance and increased workplace deviance beyond deceptive interviewing behavior. Resume fraud is rarely studied despite the negative impact it can have on job-related outcomes. Researchers can use this measure to explore further the antecedents and outcomes of resume fraud and to advise recruiters on how to minimize it. We develop a measure focusing on intentional resume misrepresentations designed to deceive recruiters. This is one of the first studies to examine the antecedents and outcomes of resume fraud.

Keywords

Scale development Resume fraud Job search Lying 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dan Ganster and Ray Hogler for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper, Jacquelyn Thompson for her editorial assistance, and Victoria Mattingly for her help with data collection.

Funding Information

A grant from the SHRM Foundation provided funding for this project.

References

  1. Abrams, R. (2014). Walmart vice president forced out for lying about degree. New York Times, 163, p. B3.Google Scholar
  2. Alge, B. J., Anthony, E. L., Rees, J., & Kannan, K. (2010). Controlling A, while hoping for B: Deviance deterrence and public versus private deviance. In L. L. Neider & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), The ‘dark’ side of management (pp. 115–141). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Amare, N., & Manning, A. (2009). Writing for the robot: How employer search tools have influenced résumé rhetoric and ethics. Business Communication Quarterly, 72, 35–60.Google Scholar
  4. Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1991). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.Google Scholar
  6. Anonymous. (2012). Resume fraud still major problem HR needs to address. HR Focus, 89, 13–15.Google Scholar
  7. Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440.Google Scholar
  8. Babcock, P. (2003). Spotting lies. HR Magazine, 48(10), 46–52.Google Scholar
  9. Bachler, C. J. (1995). Resume fraud: Lies, omissions and exaggerations. The Personnel Journal, 74, 50–60.Google Scholar
  10. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). The development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360.Google Scholar
  11. Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 613–636.Google Scholar
  12. Berry, C. M., Sackett, P. R., & Wiemann, S. (2007). A review of recent developments in integrity test research. Personnel Psychology, 60, 271–301.Google Scholar
  13. Bible, J. D. (2012). Lies and damned lies: Some legal implications of resume fraud and advice for preventing it. Employee Relations Law Journal, 38, 22–47.Google Scholar
  14. Bishop, J. D. (2006). Moral intuitions versus game theory: A response to Marcoux on resume embellishing. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 181–189.Google Scholar
  15. Broussard, R. D., & Brannen, D. E. (1986). Credential distortions: Personnel practitioners give their views. Personnel Administrator, 31, 129–146.Google Scholar
  16. Brown, B. S., & McInerney, M. (2008). Changes in academic dishonesty among business students in the United States, 1999–2006. International Journal of Management, 25, 621–632.Google Scholar
  17. Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture. Orlando: Harcourt, Inc..Google Scholar
  18. Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.Google Scholar
  19. Carpenter, N. C., Berry, C. M., & Houston, L. (2014). A meta-analytic comparison of self-reported and other-reported organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 547–574.Google Scholar
  20. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.Google Scholar
  21. Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  22. Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2003). A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 147–168.Google Scholar
  23. Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334.Google Scholar
  24. DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 70, 979–995.Google Scholar
  25. Dineen, B. R., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lee, K. (2017). Green by comparison: Deviant and normative transmutations of job search envy in a temporal context. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 295–320.Google Scholar
  26. Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203.Google Scholar
  27. Elkman, P. (2009). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  28. Fan, J., Gao, D., Carroll, S. A., Lopez, F. J., Tian, T., & Meng, H. (2012). Testing the efficacy of a new procedure for reducing faking on personality tests within selection contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 866–880.Google Scholar
  29. Girden, E. R. (1991). ANOVA: Repeated measures. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Guillory, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2012). The effect of Linkedin on deception in resumes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 135–140.Google Scholar
  32. Guion, R. M. (1997). Content validity. In L. H. Peters, C. R. Greer, & S. A. Youngblood (Eds.), The Blackwell encyclopedia dictionary of human resource management (pp. 58–59). Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Henle, C. A., Dineen, B. R., & Duffy, M. K. (2014). Deception by job applicants: Development of a resume fraud measure. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial & Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HA.Google Scholar
  34. Henle, C. A., & Gross, M. A. (2013). Born to be deviant? An examination of the relationship between workplace deviance and employee personality. In S. M. Elias (Ed.), Deviant and criminal behavior in the workplace (pp. 50–76). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hilbert, G. A. (1985). Involvement of nursing students in unethical classroom and clinical behaviors. Journal of Professional Nursing, 1, 230–234.Google Scholar
  36. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.Google Scholar
  37. Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (1999). An analysis of variance approach to content validation. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 175–186.Google Scholar
  38. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.Google Scholar
  39. Jöreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient be? Retrieved from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/HowLargeCanaStandardizedCoefficientbe.pdf.
  40. Kim, B. H. (2011). Deception and applicant faking: Putting the pieces together. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 239–292). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  41. Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1–31.Google Scholar
  42. Kluemper, D. H., McLarty, B. D., & Bing, M. N. (2015). Acquaintance ratings of the Big Five personality traits: Incremental validity beyond and interactive effect with self-reports in the prediction of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 237–248.Google Scholar
  43. Lennon, R. T. (1956). Assumptions underlying the use of content validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 16, 294–304.Google Scholar
  44. Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2007). Measuring faking in the employment interview: Development and validation of an interview faking behavior scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1638–1656.Google Scholar
  45. Levashina, J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2012). Tell me some more: Exploring how verbal ability and item verifiability influence responses to biodata questions in a high-stakes selection context. Personnel Psychology, 65, 359–383.Google Scholar
  46. Lewicki, R. J. (1983). Lying and deception: A behavioral model. In M. H. Bazerman & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 68–90). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Lucas, G. M., & Friedrich, J. (2005). Individual differences in workplace deviance and integrity as predictors of academic dishonesty. Ethics & Behavior, 15, 15–35.Google Scholar
  48. Lussier, R. N., & Hendon, J. R. (2016). Human resource management (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84–99.Google Scholar
  50. Macur, J. (2014). Preaching accountability, but harboring a lie. New York Times, 163, p. 2.Google Scholar
  51. McGarvey, R. (1993). Resume fraud. Training, 30, 10–14.Google Scholar
  52. Meng, X., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172–175.Google Scholar
  53. Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65, 1–48.Google Scholar
  54. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  55. O’Boyle Jr., E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 557–579.Google Scholar
  56. O’Connell, M. S., Kung, M., & Tristan, E. (2011). Beyond impression management: Evaluating three measures of response distortion and their relationship to job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 340–351.Google Scholar
  57. Oh, I., Charlier, S. D., Mount, M. K., & Berry, C. M. (2014). The two faces of high self-monitors: Chameleonic moderating effects of self-monitoring on the relationships between personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 92–111.Google Scholar
  58. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects of social desirability and faking on personality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance, 11, 245–269.Google Scholar
  59. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.Google Scholar
  60. Peterson, M. H., Griffith, R. L., Isaacson, J. A., O’Connell, M. S., & Mangos, P. M. (2011). Applicant faking, social desirability, and the prediction of counterproductive work behaviors. Human Performance, 24, 270–290.Google Scholar
  61. Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119–125.Google Scholar
  62. Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 634–644.Google Scholar
  63. Sackett, P. R., & Wanek, J. E. (1996). New developments in the use of measures of honesty, integrity, conscientiousness, dependability, trustworthiness, and reliability for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 49, 787–829.Google Scholar
  64. Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19, 385–417.Google Scholar
  65. Simmering, M. J., Fuller, C. M., Richardson, H. A., Ocal, Y., & Atinc, G. M. (2015). Marker variable choice, reporting, and interpretation in the detection of common method variance: A review and demonstration. Organizational Research Methods, 18, 473–511.Google Scholar
  66. Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.Google Scholar
  67. Tepper, B. J., & Henle, C. A. (2011). A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 487–498.Google Scholar
  68. Todd, D. M. (2012).Workzone: Inquiries on rise amid resume fraud. Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.post-gazette.com/business/dateline/2012/08/12/Workzone-Inquiries-on-rise-amid-resume-fraud/stories/201208120234.
  69. Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2003). The impact of self-esteem, Machiavellianism, and social capital on attorneys’ traditional gender outlook. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 323–335.Google Scholar
  70. Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In R. D. Goffin & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 41–71). Norwell: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  71. Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3, 231–251.Google Scholar
  72. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.Google Scholar
  73. Williams, L. J., & McGonagle, A. K. (2016). Four research designs and a comprehensive analysis strategy for investigating common method variance with self-report measures using latent variables. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31, 339–359.Google Scholar
  74. Wood, J., Schmidtke, J., & Decker, D. (2007). Lying on job applications: The effects of job relevance, commission, and human resource management experience. Journal of Business & Psychology, 22, 1–9.Google Scholar
  75. Yao, G., Wu, C., & Yang, C. (2008). Examining the content validity of the WHOQOL-BREF from respondents’ perspective by quantitative methods. Social Indicators Research, 85, 483–498.Google Scholar
  76. Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception. Academy of Management Review, 12, 250–264.Google Scholar
  77. Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Factors influencing five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432–442.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine A. Henle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brian R. Dineen
    • 2
  • Michelle K. Duffy
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of ManagementColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Krannert School of ManagementPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  3. 3.Carlson School of ManagementUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations