人格特质测验的情境差异––兼谈职业应聘情境中心理测验作假的识别与控制

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用重复测量方法,比较了173名被试在自然情境与应聘情境下大五人格测验中出现的作假行为,并运用作假识别量表和自我构念量表探讨了如何预测应聘情境中人格测验出现的作假问题。结果显示：（1）被试在应聘情境下的外倾性、开放性、宜人性和严谨性得分显著高于自然情境下的得分,神经质得分显著降低。（2）应聘情境下的测验用时显著长于自然情境下的测验用时。（3）应聘不同职位者均表现出不同程度的测验作假行为。（4）互依自我应聘者的外倾性、开放性、宜人性、严谨性得分显著升高,神经质得分显著降低,独立自我应聘者仅在外倾性、开放性和严谨性得分上显著升高。研究提示,人格特质测验的情境差异显著,应聘情境中存在明显测验作假行为,应聘者自我构念影响测验作假。在人事选拔、职业招聘考试中应有效识别和控制测验作假。

关键词: 测验作假, 大五人格, 情境, 独立自我, 互依自我。

Abstract: We employed repeated measures to compare the faking behaviors in The Big Five personality test of the 173 participants performed in the natural situation and job interviewing situation, discussing how to predict faking in The Big Five personality test in the job interviewing situation by Faking Detection Scale and Self-Construal Scale. The results indicated that: 1)The scores in the test of extroversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness were much higher in situation than that in the natural situation; while the scores of neuroticism were significantly lower in the job interviewing than that in natural situation. 2)It took significantly longer time to finish the test in the job interviewing than natural satuation. 3)The paticipants apptieating different positions show difforent extent of faking behaviors. 4)in job interviewing situation, interdepent self-construct participarts significantly increased, their scores in extroversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness neuroticism significantly reduced. Paticipants of independent self-construct with extroversion, openness and conscientiousness significantly increased. These results suggest that significant differences can appear in personality traits between natural situation and application situation, especially for the obvious faking, in job interviewing situation and self-construct is one of the important influencing factors. Thus, in personnel selection, effective methods should be taken to detect and control the faking.

Key words: faking in test, big-five personality, situation, Independent self-construct, Interdependent self-construct.

胡雯, 杨静, 王有智, 王丽. 人格特质测验的情境差异––兼谈职业应聘情境中心理测验作假的识别与控制[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2015, 13(6): 817-822.

Hu Wen, Yang Jing, Wang Youzhi, Wang Li. Situational Differences of the Personality Test the Faking Detection and Control in Psychological Test in the Job Interviews[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2015, 13(6): 817-822.

参考文献

1 骆方, 刘红云, 张月.(2010). 应聘情境下作假识别量表的开发. 心理学报, 42(7), 791-801.
2 孙颖, 张慧, 曹小燕.(2012). 基于概化理论的作假识别量表编制及其作用. 心理与行为研究, 10(6), 473-479.
3 唐桂梅.(2010). 集体主义文化背景下大学生自我构念特点研究. 西南大学2010年硕士学位论文.
4 姚卿, 陈荣, 赵平.(2011). 自我构念对想象广告策略的影响与分析. 心理学报, 43(6), 674-683.
5 Alliger, G. M., & Dwight, S. A.(2000). A meta-analytic investigation of the susceptibility of integrity tests to faking and coaching. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(1), 59-72.
6 Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K.(1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
7 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(4), 317-335.
8 Christiansen, N. D., Burns, G. N., & Montgomery, G. E.(2005). Reconsidering forced-choice item formats for applicant personality assessment. Human Performance, 18(3), 267-307.
9 Donovan, J. J., Dwight, S. A., & Hurtz, G. M.(2003). An assessment of the prevalence, severity, and verifiability of entry-level applicant faking using the randomized response technique. Human Performance, 16(1), 81-106.
10 Dwight, S. A., & Donovan, J. J.(2003). Do warnings not to fake reduce faking? Human Performance, 16(1), 1-23.
11 Ferstl, K., Schneider, R., Hedge, J., Houston, J., Borman, W., & Farmer, W.(2003). Following the roadmap: Evaluating potential predictors for Navy selection classification(No.421): Technical Report.
12 Goffin, R. D., Jang, I., & Skinner, E.(2011). Forced-choice and conventional personality assessment: Each may have unique value in pre-employment testing. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(7), 840-844.
13 Gore, J. S., Cross, S. E., & Morris, M. L.(2006). Let's be friends: Relational self-construal and the development of intimacy. Personal Relationships, 13(1), 83-102.
14 Hogan, J., Barrett, P., & Hogan, R.(2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1270.
15 Komar, S., Brown, D. J., Komar, J. A., & Robie, C.(2008). Faking and the validity of conscientiousness: A Monte Carlo investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 140.
16 Lam, B. T.(2006). Self-construal and socio-emotional development among Vietnamese-American adolescents: An examination of different types of self-construal. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(1), 67-75.
17 Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S.(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological review, 98(2), 224.
18 Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton III, G. C.(2003). Faking and selection: Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 348.
19 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(4), 634.
20 Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D.(2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500.
21 Van Hooft, E. A., & Born, M. P.(2012). Intentional response distortion on personality tests: using eye-tracking to understand response processes when faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 301.
22 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(2), 168-190.

[1]	程刚, 邹燕, 余玮, 丁芳媛, 贾云丞. 入学过渡期高中新生大五人格与主观社会地位变化轨迹的关系：基于潜变量增长模型的分析[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(5): 692-699.
[2]	朱娜平, 王文平, 李丽琼, 刘雁伶. 数量让位价值：5～10岁儿童公平分配发展的“此消彼长”[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(2): 233-239.
[3]	周广方, 魏子晗, 欧阳良媛, Ngure Mary Muthoni, 王晓庄. 描述信息与经验不一致对个体风险选择的影响：决策模型的拟合[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(1): 29-36.
[4]	曾练平, 田丹丹, 黄亚夫, 赵守盈. 中小学教师人格类型及其对工作家庭平衡与工作绩效关系的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(2): 280-286.
[5]	李昌竹, 郑士春, 陆梭, 张雨青, 刘正奎. 心率变异性与人格的神经质之间关系研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(2): 275-280.
[6]	康廷虎, 王旎撰, 高吴平. 记叙文阅读中主人公转换对情境模型更新的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 1-7.
[7]	张奇勇, 卢家楣. 学生的首因效应对教师情绪感染力的影响：情绪真实性判断的中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 60-66.
[8]	朱鹏, 常若松. 性别和情境危险程度对行人危险知觉的影响：来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 113-120.
[9]	李开云, 王思杰, 杨蕙菁, 毕艳, 张文君, 林丰勋. “己之所欲”还是“成人之美”？解释水平视角下个体赠送-接受礼物的偏好不对称性[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 136-144.
[10]	王秀娟, 王梦婷, 韩尚锋, 刘燊, 张林. 风险决策框架下的求助意愿：依恋的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(6): 840-845.
[11]	杨丽娴, 李铃芳, 张锦坤. 妒忌情绪下的定向遗忘效应：基于情境模拟诱发[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(3): 311-317.
[12]	凌晓丽, 孙鹏. 损失情境下社会困境中的合作行为[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(3): 377-383.
[13]	刘仕凡, 连榕, 李涓, 连坤予. 教学情境对教师自动情绪调节的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(2): 209-215.
[14]	侯钰莹, 陈世平, 孟四清. 收益和损失情境中D-E冲突的反射效应和习得速度[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(2): 268-273.
[15]	姚海娟, 王金霞, 苏清丽, 白学军. 具身情绪与创造性思维：情境性调节定向的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(4): 441-448.