Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-65tv2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-20T16:50:11.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Failure of Social Desirability Measures to Capture Applicant Faking Behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Richard L. Griffith  and
Mitchell H. Peterson
Richard L. Griffith*
Affiliation:
Florida Institute of Technology
Mitchell H. Peterson
Affiliation:
Florida Institute of Technology
*
E-mail: griffith@fit.edu, Address: College of Psychology and Liberal Arts, Florida Institute of Technology, 150 W. University Boulevard, Melbourne, FL 32901
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 308 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

College of Psychology and Liberal Arts, Florida Institute of Technology

References

Burns, G. N., & Christiansen, N. D. (2006). Sensitive or senseless: On the use of social desirability measures in selection and assessment. In Griffith, R. L. & Peterson, M. H. (Eds.), A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 113–148). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Griffith, R. L., Chmielowski, T., & Yoshita, Y. (2007). Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicant faking behavior. Personnel Review, 36, 341–355.Google Scholar
Griffith, R. L., Malm, T., Yoshita, Y., English, A., & Gujar, A. (2006). Applicant faking behavior: Teasing apart the influence of situational variance, cognitive biases, and individual differences. In Griffith, R. L. & Peterson, M. H. (Eds.), A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 149–176). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Griffith, R. L., Peterson, M. H., O’Connell, M. S., & Isaacson, J. A. (2008, April). Examining faking in real job applicants: A within-subjects investigation of score changes across applicant and research settings. In Griffith, R. L. & Peterson, M. H. (Chairs), Examining faking using within-subjects designs and applicant data. Symposium conducted at the 23rd Annual Conference for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). Personality testing and industrial–organizational psychology: Reflections, progress, and prospects. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 272–290.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. A., & Hogan, R. (2006). A socioanalytic view of faking. In Griffith, R. L. & Peterson, M. H. (Eds.), A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 209–231). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C. (2003). Faking and selection: Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 348–355.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Oswold, F. W. (2006). The impact of corrections for faking on the validity of noncognitive measures in selection settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 613–621.Google Scholar