Željko Jerneić and Maša Tonković GrabovacŽeljko Jerneić and Maša Tonković GrabovacUniversity of Zagreb, CroatiaFaculty of Humanities and Social SciencesFaculty of Humanities and Social Scienceszjerneic@ffzg.hr

Applicant faking behavior on personality questionnaires: Applicant faking behavior on personality questionnaires: An empirical model of motivational faking determinantsAn empirical model of motivational faking determinants

1. INTRODUCTION

Many studies on job applicants have found individual differences in their tendencyMany studies on job applicants have found individual differences in their tendencyto fake on personality questionnaires (Galić et al., 2012). Therefore, fromtheoretical and practical points of view it is very important to find out the factorstheoretical and practical points of view it is very important to find out the factorswhich determine whether applicants will fake their responses and to what extent.Recently, a number of possible faking determinants have been suggested byseveral models of faking (e.g. Goffin & Boyd, 2009; McFarland & Ryan, 2006;several models of faking (e.g. Goffin & Boyd, 2009; McFarland & Ryan, 2006;Mueller-Hanson et al., 2006). However, only few studies empirically tested someof the models using limited sets of proposed determinants and yieldingof the models using limited sets of proposed determinants and yieldinginconsistent results. The fact that key factors which determine individualdifferences in faking behavior are still not well established encouraged us tocomprehensively investigate motivation to fake and applicants’ faking behavior.comprehensively investigate motivation to fake and applicants’ faking behavior.In this study we aimed to combine and simultaneously test motivationaldeterminants proposed by different theoretical models of faking.determinants proposed by different theoretical models of faking.

Personality traits

Moral code6 facets of Conscientiousness

6 facets of Emotional

Moral code

Attitudes toward faking

Contextual antecedents

Perception that faking will result Perceived ability to fake6 facets of Emotional

stability

3 facets of Openness: Fantasy, Liberality and

toward faking

Subjective norms

Perception that faking will result in negative consequences

Perceived need to fake:

ability to fake

Perceived Fantasy, Liberality and Adventurousness

Locus of control

norms

Integrity

Moral reasoning

Perceived need to fake:

Desire for success in selection procedure

Need for success in

Perceived behavioral control

Public self-consciousness

Self-monitoring

Machiavellianism

reasoning

Religiousness

Need for success in selection procedure

Perceived discrepancy between ideal and self-Machiavellianism

Socially desirable responding: egoistic and moralistic bias

between ideal and self-descriptive profile

Figure 1. Motivational determinants examined in this research

responding: egoistic and moralistic bias

Figure 1. Motivational determinants examined in this research

C3: DutifulnessC3: Dutifulness

-.01O4:

Egoistic biasAttitudes toward faking .42**

O4: Adventurousness

.23**

Egoistic biasAttitudes toward faking .42**

-.02

.70 .18

Fakingmotivation

Faking

Subjective norms .25**

.26**

.70 .18

motivationFaking

behavior

Perceivedbehavioral control

.28*

behavioral control

Perceived discrepancy-.19*

Perceived discrepancybetween ideal and self-

descriptive profile

Figure 2. Initial structural modelχ2/df = 2.78; GFI = .70; CFI = .76; RMSEA = .10, CAIC = 2504.9

4. CONCLUSION

As predicted by Goffin & Boyd (2009) model, the study confirmed the importanceof faking determinants belonging to every hypothesized category: personality traits,of faking determinants belonging to every hypothesized category: personality traits,moral code, contextual antecedents and perceived ability to fake. It also confirmedthe basic hypothesis of McFarland & Ryan (2006) model that the best predictor ofthe basic hypothesis of McFarland & Ryan (2006) model that the best predictor offaking behavior is motivation to fake. Since this is the first empirical study that hascomprehensively examined motivational determinants of faking behavior proposedby multiple theoretical models, the obtained findings significantly contribute toby multiple theoretical models, the obtained findings significantly contribute tobetter understanding of motivational faking determinants.

Applicant faking behavior on personality questionnaires: Applicant faking behavior on personality questionnaires: An empirical model of motivational faking determinantsAn empirical model of motivational faking determinants

2. METHOD2. METHOD

The sample included 185 students and alumni, who filled in the five factor personalityquestionnaire (IPIP-100) twice – first in a condition which stressed honesty, and lateron in a simulated, “applicant” condition. Instead of the job, five candidates could get aon in a simulated, “applicant” condition. Instead of the job, five candidates could get afinancial reward equivalent to student’s monthly pocket money. Potential motivationaldeterminants (Figure 1) specified in different models of faking were measured indeterminants (Figure 1) specified in different models of faking were measured in“honest” condition only. The difference between personality scores collected in“honest” and “applicant” conditions represented an individual measure of faking;specifically, we used the first unrotated component of five difference scores indicatingspecifically, we used the first unrotated component of five difference scores indicatingfaking on every personality dimension. Similarly, to operationalize the motivation tofake, we used the first unrotated component of three different motivational scales: VIEfake, we used the first unrotated component of three different motivational scales: VIEscale, Pre-intention to fake scale and Post-intention to fake scale. The scales wereadministered as a part of the second data collection point.

3. RESULTS3. RESULTS

In order to identify key faking determinants we analyzed data in several steps. First, weconducted a series of regression analyses with motivation to fake and faking behavioras criteria, separately for each category of potential determinants (Figure 1) andas criteria, separately for each category of potential determinants (Figure 1) andafterwards a hierarchical regression analysis with significant predictors obtained inprevious analyses (Step 1), motivation to fake (Step 2) and faking behavior as criterion.Finally, we tested faking determinants via structural equation modeling. Initial structuralmodel (Figure 2) was based on the outcomes from the hierarchical regression analysisbut did not fit the data very well (χ2/df = 2.78; GFI = .70; CFI = .76; RMSEA = .10,but did not fit the data very well (χ2/df = 2.78; GFI = .70; CFI = .76; RMSEA = .10,CAIC = 2504.97). Refined model (Figure 3) fitted the data much better (χ2/df = 1.21;GFI = .90; CFI = .97; RMSEA = .03, CAIC = 767.9). According to the refined modelAttitudes toward faking and Perceived behavioral control predicted the level of faking viaAttitudes toward faking and Perceived behavioral control predicted the level of faking viamotivation to fake, while Adventurousness and Perceived discrepancy between ideal andself-descriptive profile influenced the criterion directly.self-descriptive profile influenced the criterion directly.

O4: Adventurousness

Attitudes toward faking

Adventurousness

.58**

.21**

Attitudes toward faking .58**

.72 .20

Fakingmotivation

Fakingbehavior

.30**

.72 .20

motivation behavior

Perceivedbehavioral control

.36*

behavioral control

Perceived discrepancybetween ideal and self-

-.20*

between ideal and self-descriptive profile

Figure 3. Final structural modelχ2/df = 1.21; GFI = .90; CFI = .97; RMSEA = .03, CAIC = 767.9

5. REFERENCES5. REFERENCES

• Galić, Z., Jerneić, Ž., & Parmač Kovačić, M. (2012). Do Applicants Fake Their PersonalityQuestionnaire Responses and How Successful are Their Attempts? A Case of Military Pilot CadetQuestionnaire Responses and How Successful are Their Attempts? A Case of Military Pilot CadetSelection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(2), 229–241.

• Goffin, R. D. & Boyd, A. C. (2009). Faking and Personality Assessment in Personnel Selection:Advancing Models of Faking. Canadian Psychology, 50(3), 151-160.Advancing Models of Faking. Canadian Psychology, 50(3), 151-160.

• McFarland, L. A. & Ryan, A. M. (2006). Toward an integrated model of applicant faking behavior.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4), 979-1016.

• Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton III, G. C. (2006). Individual differences in• Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton III, G. C. (2006). Individual differences inimpression management: An exploration of the psychological process underlying faking. PsychologyScience, 48(3), 288-312.