Model of faking likelihood in the employment interview 42

Faking   does   not   always   occur,   which   means   that   the   right   conditions   must   be   present  at  the  same  time  for  faking  to  occur.  Research  and  studies  have  resulted   in  a  number  of  theories  on  the  necessary  conditions  for  faking  to  occur,  such  as   the   “Model   of   faking   likelihood   in   the   employment   interview”   (Levashina   &   Campion   (2006).   This   thesis   makes   use   of   the   Faking   model   developed   by   Levashina   &   Campion   (2006),   as   this   model   was   the   basis   upon   which   the   IFB   scale   used   in   the   survey   was   developed.   As   such   using   a   similar   theoretical   framework   enables   a   better   comparison   of   the   findings   of   the   research.   Moreover   an   extensive   literature   review   of   theoretical   perspectives   on   faking,   has   revealed   that   Levashina   &   Campion’s   (2006)   Faking   model   does   not   differ   substantially   from   other   models   or   theories   on   the   necessary   conditions   for   faking  to  occur.  (Goffin  and  Boyd  2009,  McFarland  and  Ryan  2006)    

Levashina   &   Campion’s   (2006)   model   of   faking   likelihood   in   employment   interview   (see   Figure   3)   outlines   three   necessary   conditions   that   must   be   fulfilled   for   faking   behavior   to   occur,   these   are   Willingness,   Capability,   and   Opportunity.    

Figure  3:Model  of  faking  likelihood  in  the  employment  interview    

(Source:  Levashina  &  Campion’s  (2006))  

Willingness:   That   the   job   seeker   is   willing   to   carry   out   faking   behavior   is   a   necessary  condition  for  faking  to  occur,  as  an  unwilling  candidate  will  not  fake.   The  willingness  of  the  candidate  can  be  influenced  by  five  factors  these  are:  1)   Personal  integrity,  the  lower  the  integrity,  the  more  willing  the  job  seeker  will  be   to   fake.   2)   The   job   seeker’s   personality,   as   studies   have   found   that   personality   traits   such   as   agreeableness,   extroversion,   self-­‐monitoring   of   IM,   and   need   for   approval  are  likely  to  increase  willingness  to  fake.  (Levashina  &  Campion  2006)   3)  The  probability  of  getting  caught,  as  faking  is  associated  with  risk  of  exposure,   the   willingness   to   fake   is   related   to   the   probability   of   getting   caught,   and   thus   related   to   the   job   seeker’s   knowledge   of   detection   and   monitoring   measures   used  by  the  recruiter.  4)  Unfair  treatment  during  the/an  interview  will  increase   the   person’s   willingness   to   fake,   as   the   job   seeker   may   feel   that   the   interview   process   is   biased.   5)   Interview   coaching   or   realistic   job   preview   sessions   may   increase  the  willingness  to  fake,  as  the  job  seeker  may  feel  better  suited  to  tackle  

the  recruiter’s  measures  to  detect  faking,  thus  decreasing  probability  of  getting   caught.          

Capability:  Besides  being  willing  the  job  seeker  must  also  possess  the  capability   to  fake  in  the  job  interview  this  capability  is  determined  by  four  factors:  1)  The   oral   skills   of   the   job   seeker,   as   good   oral   presentation,   debate,   and   argumentation   skills   may   result   in   the   candidate   being   able   to   convincingly   lie   and  fake  during  the  job  interview.  2)  The  social  skills  of  the  job  seeker,  as  a  job   seeker   skilled   at   persuasion,   ingratiation,   or   perceptive   to   the   attitudes   and   opinions  of  others,  can  convincingly  lie  and  fake  during  the  job  interview.  3)  The   cognitive  ability  of  the  job  seeker  is  an  important  factor,  as  persons  with  higher   cognitive   ability   are   found   to   be   capable   of   constructing   more   convincing   and   elaborate   fake   stories,   experiences   or   similar.   (Levashina   &   Campion   2006)   Moreover   job   seekers   with   high   cognitive   ability   have   been   found   to   generally   have  less  to  compensate  for  with  faking,  and  may  therefore  fake  less,  reducing   the  chance  of  getting  caught.  (Law  et  al  2002)  4)  Knowledge  of  constructs  being   measured   and   job   roles   increase   capability   to   fake,   as   the   job   seeker   is   more   capable  of  successfully  performing  role-­‐faking.  

Opportunity:   Given   the   willingness   and   the   capability   to   fake,   the   job   seeker   must   still   have   the   opportunity   to   fake.   The   existence   of   such   an   opportunity   depends   largely   the   conditions   of   the   job   interview,   and   has   been   found   to   be   influenced   primarily   by   the   structure   of   the   interview,   the   types   of   questions   being  asked,  and  the  items  being  assessed  in  the  interview,  and  the  purpose  of   the  interview.  (Levashina  &  Campion  2006)  In  particular  research  finds  that  the   questions  most  likely  to  increase  the  opportunity  to  fake  are  questions  where  the   right   answer   is   easy   to   determine,   occur   in   an   unstructured   interview,   involve   hypothetical,   subjective,   internal   or   unverifiable   information,   occur   in   short   interviews,   or   are   posed   as   situational   questions   rather   than   background   questions.  (Levashina  &  Campion  2006)    

Verifiability   of   information   is   as   discussed   above   an   important   determinant   of   whether  or  not  the   opportunity  to  fake  exists.  However  none  of  the  studies  on   faking  examined  have  investigated  the  impact  of  the  verifiability  of  information  

faked   on   interview   faking   behavior.   The   following   definitions   are   therefore   developed  by  my.  

Objective   verification   is   defined   in   the  thesis   as   verifiable   fact   relating   to   the   background,   qualification,   experience,   and   events   of   the   individual   engaging   in   faking,   the   key   issue   being   that   the   information   can   be   verified   as   being   either   true   or   false.   Example,   a   job   seeker   may   claim   to   be   a   graduate   of   a   particular   university,  have  a  certain  GPA,  or  have  been  involved  in  a  particular  corporate   project.   This   information   can   be   verified   by   checking   the   relevant   records   or   individuals  involved,  provided  that  records  have  been  kept.  

Subjective  verification  is  defined  in  the  thesis  as  referable  information  relating   to  the  personal  characteristics  of  the  job  seeker  engaging  in  faking,  the  key  issue   being  that  subjective  information  depends  on  the  extent  to  which  the  job  seeker   has   been   successful   in   conveying   a   certain   impression   to   the   referees.   As   such   subjectively   verifiable   information   is   not   fact,   but   depends   on   the   impression   that  each  referee  has  of  the  job  seeker.  

Example,  The  job  seeker  may  claim  to  be  an  outgoing  person  and  a  team  player,   this  information  is  essentially  not  verifiable  fact,  although  personality  tests  can   come  close,  therefore  to  verify  this  the  recruiter  must  rely  on  information  from   references  or  former  employers,  and  in  particular  the  impression  that  references   or  former  employers  have  of  the  job  seeker.  

Severity   of   faking:   being   caught   faking   does   not   necessarily   result   in   elimination   from   consideration   for   recruitment,   in   fact   faking   may   often   be   expected  and  by  some  viewed  as  a  positive  sign  that  the  job  seeker  cared  enough   about  the  job,  to  engage  in  faking.  (Dewberry  2010)    

The   severity   of   faking   as   determined   by   the   resulting   consequences   of   being   caught,   thus   depends   to   a   great   extent   on   the   individual   recruiter.   However   a   proposition  can  be  made  that  general  trends  do  exist  in  recruiter’s  evaluation  of   severity,   one   can   suppose   that   being   caught   faking   academic   credentials   and   diplomas  would  be  of  high  severity,  as  the  recruiter  would  be  unable  to  trust  the   qualifications   of   the   job   seeker,   whereas   being   caught   faking   laughing   at   the   recruiters  jokes  might  be  of  rather  low  severity,  as  the  revealed  information  is  

unlikely  to  discredit  the  general  impression  the  recruiter  has  formed  concerning   the   job   seeker.   As   such   distinguishing   between   the   severities   of   faking   is   an   important  aspect  of  conducting  research  on  faking,  as  a  lack  of  such  distinction   can  lead  to  false  conclusions  concerning  the  practical  implications  and  results  of   discovered  faking  behavior.  In  this  research  an  educated  guess  is  therefore  made   concerning   the   possible   severity   of   being   caught   faking   each   response   to   the   survey,  on  a  scale  of  low,  moderate  and  high.