通过针对具体情境的过度声称问卷检测申请人的造假行为

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of Individual Differences Pub Date : 2023-11-22 DOI:10.1027/1614-0001/a000411
Birk Diedenhofen, Adrian Hoffmann, F. Aust, Sascha Müller
{"title":"通过针对具体情境的过度声称问卷检测申请人的造假行为","authors":"Birk Diedenhofen, Adrian Hoffmann, F. Aust, Sascha Müller","doi":"10.1027/1614-0001/a000411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: In the context of personnel selection, self-reports are often biased by social desirability. For example, applicants may overstate their knowledge to make a good impression on a potential employer. Overclaiming questionnaires (OCQs) offer a means to assess whether applicants claim to have knowledge that they do not have. Previous studies evaluating whether OCQs are capable of detecting faking in personnel selection contexts reported mixed results but did not take the fit between the content of OCQ items and the selection context into account. In the present study, we therefore tailored an OCQ to the specific application context and compared its performance to that of Residualized Individual Change Scores (RICS), a competing measure of faking based on an achievement motivation questionnaire. A total of 123 participants first answered the OCQ and the motivational questionnaire in a control condition without application context. The two measures were then completed again as part of a mock application process, and participants were asked to honestly report their faking behavior afterward. Participants exhibited more overclaiming in the application context than in the control condition. The OCQ and RICS scores predicted participants’ self-reported faking with comparable accuracy. These results suggest that OCQs can compete with other measures of faking if their content is appropriately tailored to the application context.","PeriodicalId":47049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Differences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Detecting Applicant Faking With a Context-Specific Overclaiming Questionnaire\",\"authors\":\"Birk Diedenhofen, Adrian Hoffmann, F. Aust, Sascha Müller\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/1614-0001/a000411\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract: In the context of personnel selection, self-reports are often biased by social desirability. For example, applicants may overstate their knowledge to make a good impression on a potential employer. Overclaiming questionnaires (OCQs) offer a means to assess whether applicants claim to have knowledge that they do not have. Previous studies evaluating whether OCQs are capable of detecting faking in personnel selection contexts reported mixed results but did not take the fit between the content of OCQ items and the selection context into account. In the present study, we therefore tailored an OCQ to the specific application context and compared its performance to that of Residualized Individual Change Scores (RICS), a competing measure of faking based on an achievement motivation questionnaire. A total of 123 participants first answered the OCQ and the motivational questionnaire in a control condition without application context. The two measures were then completed again as part of a mock application process, and participants were asked to honestly report their faking behavior afterward. Participants exhibited more overclaiming in the application context than in the control condition. The OCQ and RICS scores predicted participants’ self-reported faking with comparable accuracy. These results suggest that OCQs can compete with other measures of faking if their content is appropriately tailored to the application context.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47049,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Individual Differences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Individual Differences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000411\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000411","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:在人员选拔中,自我报告往往会因社会期望值而产生偏差。例如,申请人可能会夸大自己的知识,以便给潜在雇主留下好印象。过度声称问卷(OCQ)提供了一种方法来评估申请人是否声称拥有他们并不拥有的知识。以往的研究评估了过度声称问卷是否能够检测出人事选拔中的造假行为,结果不一,但没有考虑到过度声称问卷项目的内容与选拔环境之间的契合度。因此,在本研究中,我们根据具体的应用情境定制了OCQ,并将其性能与残差化个人变化分数(RICS)进行了比较,RICS是基于成就动机问卷的一种竞争性造假测量方法。共有 123 名参与者首先在无应用背景的对照条件下回答了 OCQ 和动机问卷。然后,在模拟申请过程中再次完成这两项测量,并要求参与者事后如实报告自己的造假行为。与对照组相比,参与者在申请情境中表现出更多的过度声称。OCQ 和 RICS 分数对参与者自我报告的造假行为的预测准确度相当。这些结果表明,如果OCQ的内容能根据应用情境进行适当调整,那么OCQ就能与其他假造行为测量方法相抗衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Detecting Applicant Faking With a Context-Specific Overclaiming Questionnaire
Abstract: In the context of personnel selection, self-reports are often biased by social desirability. For example, applicants may overstate their knowledge to make a good impression on a potential employer. Overclaiming questionnaires (OCQs) offer a means to assess whether applicants claim to have knowledge that they do not have. Previous studies evaluating whether OCQs are capable of detecting faking in personnel selection contexts reported mixed results but did not take the fit between the content of OCQ items and the selection context into account. In the present study, we therefore tailored an OCQ to the specific application context and compared its performance to that of Residualized Individual Change Scores (RICS), a competing measure of faking based on an achievement motivation questionnaire. A total of 123 participants first answered the OCQ and the motivational questionnaire in a control condition without application context. The two measures were then completed again as part of a mock application process, and participants were asked to honestly report their faking behavior afterward. Participants exhibited more overclaiming in the application context than in the control condition. The OCQ and RICS scores predicted participants’ self-reported faking with comparable accuracy. These results suggest that OCQs can compete with other measures of faking if their content is appropriately tailored to the application context.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Individual Differences
Journal of Individual Differences PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Researchers, teachers, and students interested in all areas of individual differences (e.g., gender, temperament, personality, intelligence) and their assessment in human and animal research will find the Journal of Individual Differences useful. The Journal of Individual Differences publishes manuscripts dealing with individual differences in behavior, emotion, cognition, and their developmental aspects. This includes human as well as animal research. The Journal of Individual Differences is conceptualized to bring together researchers working in different areas ranging from, for example, molecular genetics to theories of complex behavior.
期刊最新文献
Validation of the Short Dark Tetrad (SD4) in Persian “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” Being Flexible in Zuckerman’s Alternative Personality Space Stoicism Changing Ourselves
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1