Toward an Integrated Model of Applicant Faking Behavior

By Lynn A. McFarland, A. Ryan. 2006

181 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Safety Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6c664c46e116b691cd9fa5aa6a69a4d40cd1ffb0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Safety Research

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Assessing Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: Existing Research and Future Directions (2016, background): “More recent faking research now makes a distinction between unintentional misrepresentation, which is akin to bias, and intentional applicant faking behavior (e.g., McFarland & Ryan, 2006; Sackett, 2011).”
The ubiquity of common method variance: The case of the Big Five (2011, result): “This result indicated convergent validity of M with difference scores, often used to measure faking (McFarland & Ryan, 2000, 2006).”
Socially Desirable Response Tendencies in Survey Research (2010, background): “Of particular relevance, prior research has shown that SDR scales are sensitive to demand manipulations, which suggests that they can capture deliberate distortion (McFarland and Ryan 2006; Pauls and Crost 2004; Roth and Herzberg 2007).”
Understanding Faking Behavior Through the Lens of Motivation: An Application of VIE Theory (2011, methodology): “Specifically, having prior personal experience with the assessment or receiving coaching on how to respond given the constructs being measured increases faking behavior (Landers, Sackett, & Tuzinski, 2011; McFarland & Ryan, 2000, 2006; Raymark & Tafero, 2009; Snell et al., 1999).”
Faking in Personality Assessment: A “Multisaturation” Perspective on Faking as Performance (2011, methodology): “Several models of response distortion, faking in particular, have been offered as frameworks for answering such questions (e.g., Goffin & Boyd, 2009; Marcus, 2009; McFarland & Ryan, 2000, 2006; Snell, Sydell, & Lueke, 1999; Zickar & Robie, 1999).”
Controlling social desirability bias (2018, background): “Norwood and Lusk (2011) argued that examining the correlation is not appropriate for laboratory experiments where measures such as willingness-to-pay are estimated because hypothetical bias also may be a problem and these two biases can be intertwined.”
Applicant Faking, Social Desirability, and the Prediction of Counterproductive Work Behaviors (2011, methodology): “This operationalization creates a continuous faking score for each participant and has been widely used in examinations of faking behavior (Ellingson et al., 2007; McFarland & Ryan, 2000, 2006; Mueller-Hanson et al., 2003).”