A review of applicant faking in selection interviews

Klaus G Melchers,Nicolas Roulin,Anne‐Kathrin Buehl

doi:10.1111/ijsa.12280

Abstract

AbstractInterviews are commonly used for selection but research on interview faking only gained momentum relatively recently. We review both theoretical and empirical work on prevalence, antecedents, processes, and effects of interview faking. Most applicants fake at least to some degree. Personality (e.g., Conscientiousness, Honesty‐humility, the Dark Triad) and attitudes toward faking substantially correlate with faking behaviors. Research concerning applicants' ability, interview structure components, or contextual factors is limited. Furthermore, the impact of faking on interview ratings is mixed and effects on criterion‐related validity are not consistently negative. Finally, the detection of faking seems hardly possible and there are limited options available to reduce interview faking. Throughout our review, we describe important gaps and derive suggestions and propositions for future research.

Highlights

Since faking is a common phenomenon in personnel selection (Donovan, Dwight, & Hurtz, 2003) there is a long history of research on faking in personality tests (e.g., Birkeland, Manson, Kisamore, Brannick, & Smith, 2006; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999)
Our aim is to review the existing literature on applicant faking in employment interviews to answer the following questions: (1) What is faking in interviews? (2) How common is it? (3) What are its key antecedents? (4) Does it matter? (5) Can anything be done to detect it?
Levashina and Campion's (2007) taxonomy and measure offer a precise answer to our first question (“What is faking in interviews?”): Faking is neither socially desirable responding (SDR) nor general impression management (IM) but corresponds to the deceptive side of IM

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

Since faking is a common phenomenon in personnel selection (Donovan, Dwight, & Hurtz, 2003) there is a long history of research on faking in personality tests (e.g., Birkeland, Manson, Kisamore, Brannick, & Smith, 2006; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999). Even though there are many different conceptualizations describing the factors that influence applicant faking in general (e.g., Ellingson & McFarland, 2011; Goffin & Boyd, 2009; Griffith, Lee, Peterson, & Zickar, 2011; Marcus, 2009; McFarland & Ryan, 2000, 2006; Mueller-Hanson, Heggestad, & Thornton, 2006; Roulin, Krings, & Binggeli, 2016; Salgado, 2016; Snell, Sydell, & Lueke, 1999; Tett & Simonet, 2011) there is just one model that is tailored to faking in interviews (Levashina & Campion, 2006). They describe faking as an adaptive mechanism, so that the success or failure of faking and the interpretation of this success or failure by applicants will impact faking attempts in subsequent interviews

| Discussion and future research directions

What influence do technology-mediated interviews have on applicant faking?

How do different IM and faking tactics influence criterion-related validity?

Findings

| CONCLUSIVE COMMENTS