Advertisement

Self-Presentation in Selection Settings: the Case of Personality Tests

  • Bernd MarcusEmail author
  • Judy Goldenberg
  • Saul Fine
  • Henning Hummert
  • Anne Traum
Original Paper

Abstract

Based on theoretical views that applicants express meaningful skills and motivation when presenting themselves in personnel selection settings, we challenge conventional wisdom that self-presentation necessarily impairs the diagnostic value of “fakable” selection devices. Instead, we propose to supplement the traditional psychometric approach to personnel selection with a social perspective that leverages the competitive nature of selection. In order to capture an outcome of self-presentation, we introduce the Ideal Employee Coefficient (IEC) as a supplement to traditional scoring of responses to personality items. Construct and criterion-related validity evidence using the IEC was collected in two studies covering three samples from diverse settings, populations, and measures. The IEC consistently showed incremental criterion-related validity beyond the same tests’ traditional scores, as well as construct-related evidence in line with theoretical underpinnings. Findings imply that traditional personality constructs can be meaningfully aggregated with measures of self-presentation that are cost-effectively derived from the same data sources.

Keywords

Personnel selection Self-presentation Faking Personality assessment 

Notes

References

  1. Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.2.219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Oxford, UK: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  3. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkeland, S. A., Manson, T. M., Kisamore, J. L., Brannick, M. T., & Smith, M. A. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of job applicant faking on personality measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 317–335.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00354.xView.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burns, G. N., & Christiansen, N. D. (2011). Methods of measuring faking behavior. Human Performance, 24, 358–372.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.597473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2002). Situational judgment and job performance. Human Performance, 15, 233–254.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1503_01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Connelly, B. S., & Chang, L. (2015). A meta-analytic multitrait multirater separation of substance and style in social desirability scales. Journal of Personality, 84, 319–334.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cucina, J. M., Vasilopoulos, N. L., Su, C., Busciglio, H. H., Cozma, I., DeCostanza, A. H., Martin, N. R., & Shaw, M. N. (2018). The effects of empirical keying of personality measures on faking and criterion-related validity. Journal of Business and Psychology (published online May-07-2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9544-y.
  10. DeNisi, A. S., & Pritchard, R. D. (1978). Implicit theories of performance as artifacts in survey research: A replication and extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 21, 358–366.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(78)90059-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 51–110.  https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleishman, E. A., & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). Taxonomies of human performance. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  13. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  14. Ingold, P. V., Kleinmann, M., König, C. J., & Melchers, K. G. (2015). Shall we continue or stop disapproving of self-presentation? Evidence on impression management and faking in a selection context and their relation to job performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 420–432.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.915215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson, J. A., & Hogan, R. (2006). A socioanalytic view of faking. In R. L. Griffith & M. H. Peterson (Eds.), A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 209–231). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  16. Kleinmann, M., Ingold, P. V., Lievens, F., Jansen, A., Melchers, K. G., & König, C. J. (2011). A different look at why selection procedures work: The role of candidates’ ability to identify criteria. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 128–146.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386610387000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kulas, J. T. (2013). Personality-based profile matching in personnel selection: Estimates of method prevalence and criterion-related validity. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62, 519–542.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00491.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuncel, N. R., & Borneman, M. J. (2007). Toward a new method of detecting deliberately faked personality tests: The use of idiosyncratic item responses. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 220–231.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00383.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Le, H., Oh, I., Robbins, S. B., Ilies, R., Holland, E., & Westrick, P. (2010). Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 113–133.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2006). A model of faking likelihood in the employment interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 299–316.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00353.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marcus, B. (2006). Inventar berufsbezogener Einstellungen und Selbsteinschätzungen [Job-related attitudes and self-evaluations inventory]. Test manual. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  22. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00483.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marcus, B., & Wagner, U. (2007). Combining dispositions and evaluations of vocation and job to account for counterproductive work behavior in adolescent job apprentices. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 161–176.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.2.161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marcus, B., Schuler, H., Quell, P., & Hümpfner, G. (2002). Measuring counterproductivity: Development and initial validation of a German self-report questionnaire. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 18–35.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marcus, B., Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2007). Personality dimensions explaining relationships between integrity tests and counterproductive behavior: Big Five, or one in addition? Personnel Psychology, 60, 1–34.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00063.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 51, 882–888.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.6.882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60, 683–729.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00089.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679–703.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660–679.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pelt, D. H. M., Van der Linden, D., & Born, M. P. (2018). How emotional intelligence might get you the job: The relationship between trait emotional intelligence and faking on personality tests. Human Performance, 31, 33–54.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2017.1407320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roulin, N., Krings, F., & Binggeli, S. (2016). A dynamic model of applicant faking. Organizational Psychology Review , 6, 145–170.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386615580875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sackett, P. R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1988). Relations between measures of typical and maximum job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 482–486.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of personnel selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). The Big Five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and non-applicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 966–974.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., Stierwalt, S. L., & Powell, A. B. (1995). Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 607–620.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shaffer, J. E., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2012). A matter of context: A meta-analytic investigation of the relative validity of contextualized and noncontextualized personality measures. Personnel Psychology, 65, 445–494.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01250.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2018). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (5th ed.). Bowling Green, OH: SIOP.Google Scholar
  40. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. A. (2006). Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: Should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 25–39.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Staw, B. M. (1975). Attribution of the “causes” of performance: A general alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 414–432.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90060-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2007). Personality tests at the crossroads: A response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt (2007). Personnel Psychology, 60, 967–993.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00098.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tett, R. P., & Simonet, D. V. (2011). Faking in personality assessment: A “multisaturation” perspective on faking as performance. Human Performance, 24, 302–321.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van der Linden, D., te Nijenhuis, J., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). The general factor of personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 315–327.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Iddekinge, C. H., Roth, P. L., Raymark, P. H., & Odle-Dusseau, H. N. (2012). The criterion-related validity of integrity tests: An updated meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 499–530.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197–210.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00131649921969802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wallace, J. (1966). An abilities conception of personality: Some implications for personality measurement. American Psychologist, 21, 132–138.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wernimont, P., & Campbell, J. P. (1968). Signs, samples, and criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 372–376.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wonderlic, I. (1996). Wonderlic Personal Test (WPT—German version, Form A and B). Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic Personnel Test, Inc..Google Scholar
  50. Zickar, M. J., Gibby, R. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Uncovering faking samples in applicant, incumbent, and experimental data sets: An application of mixed-model item response theory. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 168–190.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ziegler, M., Maaß, U., Griffith, R., & Gammon, A. (2015). What is the nature of faking? Modeling distinct response patterns and quantitative differences in faking at the same time. Organizational Research Methods, 18, 679–703.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115574518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Business AdministrationUniversity of RostockRostockGermany
  2. 2.Behavioral Sciences DepartmentIsrael Defense ForcesTel HaShomerIsrael

Personalised recommendations