Situational Differences of the Personality Test the Faking Detection and Control in Psychological Test in the Job Interviews

Abstract

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.

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。

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.

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.

References

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]	ZHU Naping, WANG Wenping, LI Liqiong, LIU Yanling. Value Occupied Quantity: Children Aged 5~10 Years’ Quantity Equality Decline and Value Equality Increase [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(2): 233-239.
[2]	ZHOU Guangfang, WEI Zihan, OUYANG Liangyuan, NGURE Mary Muthoni, WANG Xiaozhuang. The Impact of Description-Experience Conflict on Individual Risky Decision-Making: Decision Model Fitting [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(1): 29-36.
[3]	KANG Tinghu, WANG Nizhuan, GAO Wuping. The Influence of Protagonist Shifting on the Updating of the Situation Model in Narrative Reading [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(1): 1-7.
[4]	ZHANG Qiyong, LU Jiamei. The Regulation Effect of Students' Primacy Effect on Teacher's Emotional Contagion: The Mediating Effects of Authenticity of Emotion Judgment [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(1): 60-66.
[5]	ZHU Peng, CHANG Ruosong. Effects of Gender and Situational Hazard Level on Pedestrian Hazard Perception: Evidence from ERP [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(1): 113-120.
[6]	LI Kaiyun, WANG Sijie, YANG Huijing, BI Yan, ZHANG Wenjun, LIN Fengxun. “My Desire or Your Wish?” The Asymmetry of Givers-Recipients' Gift Preference from the Perspective of Construal Level Theory [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(1): 136-144.
[7]	WANG Xiujuan, WANG Mengting, HAN Shangfeng, LIU Shen, ZHANG Lin. Help-seeking Under Risky Decision-making Framework: The Effect of Attachment Style [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(6): 840-845.
[8]	LIU Shifan, LIAN Rong, LI Juan, LIAN Kunyu. Effect of Teaching Situation on Teachers’ Automatic Emotion Regulation [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(2): 209-215.
[9]	HOU Yuying, CHEN Shiping, MENG Siqing. The Perception and Learning Speed on Description-experience Conflict under Gain and Loss Situations [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(2): 268-273.
[10]	YAO Haijuan, WANG Jinxia, SU Qingli, BAI Xuejun. The Effects of Embodied Emotion and Creative Thinking: Situational Regulatory Focus as Moderator [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2018, 16(4): 441-448.
[11]	MENG Siqing, ZHAI Yan. A Investigation on the Frustration-tolerant Ability and Relationship Between it and Family Situation of the Middle School Students [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2017, 15(6): 781-785.
[12]	Liang Jing, Yan Wenjing, Chen Wenfeng, Fu Xiaolan. The influence of situational factors on lying: Based on self-concept maintenance theory [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2016, 14(5): 709-714.
[13]	Liang Fucheng, Zhou Yu, Wang Junkun, Tang Weihai. Just World Beliefs and Motivation Effect of Cross-Context [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2016, 14(3): 367-371.
[14]	Yao Benxian, Wang Lian, Quan Lijuan, Zhou Xiao. The Establishment and Application of Contemporary Pupils′ Ideal Questionnaire [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2015, 13(6): 763-770.
[15]	Guo Yanbiao, Chen Lin, Xia Tiansheng, Mo Lei. Temporal Dimension Research of Situation Model in Narrative Text Comprehension [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2014, 12(4): 558-565.