A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Applicant Deception and the

Risk to the Employer

Dr. Richard L. GriffithDirector, Applicant Response Behavior Project

Senior Consultant, Center for Organizational EffectivenessFlorida Institute of Technology

What is the metaphor?

• Then at some point you find out the 12 years she spent in the Army was in Leavenworth for armed assault

Overview

• What percentage of applicants engage in deceptive applicant behavior?

• What is the impact of applicant deception on company performance?

• How can we mitigate applicant dishonesty?

… XX

XXXX

XX

Resume’ Fraud• Many highly publicized examples of resume fraud

• Contain manipulations of key facts, dates, and accomplishments.

• Few independent research studies assessing prevalence rates

Resume’ Fraud• Griffith & Hurd (2011) studied 2 million resumes

submitted March 2007 - 2009

• 14.5% of resumes contained verifiably false information

• 14% contained claims that could not be verified as true

• Falsification rose 30% over the 2 year period

Self Reports

1. When I am stressed, sometimes I get high.

A. strongly disagree

B. disagree

C. agree

D. strongly agree

Applicant Faking• Applicant attempts at presenting enhanced self-

descriptions to increase % of obtaining employment

• Controversial topic in I/O psychology

• Research suggests applicants can do it, but how many actually fake when applying for jobs?

Prevalence of Faking

• Trivial influence, moderate or commonplace?• Hough et al. (1990) and Hogan et al. (2007) suggested

few fake• Our examination has found wide variability in individual

faking behavior• Data suggests that 30% (+ or – 10%) engage in faking

Griffith & Converse (2011)

• Bogus Items (Anderson, 1984; Donovan et al. 2008)

• Within subjects designs (Griffith et al, 2006, 2007; Griffith et al. 2011; Arthur et al. 2010)

• Self Report (Lee, 2010; McDaniel et al. 1997; Donovan et al. 2003; Robie et al. 2007)

Interviews• Levashina and Campion (2007)

– slight image creation, extensive image creation, image protection, & ingratiation

• 90% utilized interview faking behaviors• 50% engaged in the severe forms• On average 2.19 are told for each 10 minutes of

interview (Weiss and Feldman, 2006)

Knowledge Tests• Little empirical research• Arthur et al. 2010• Examined the likelihood of applicant cheating on a

speeded cognitive ability test• Unproctored internet testing format• Roughly 10% of applicants engaged in cheating

• But anecdotes are commonplace…DDI, Facebook

HR Professional’s Perceptions

Most applicants are dishonest to some extent 18%

Most applicants tell ‘little white lies’ in order to present themselves favorably

47%

I expect applicants to portray themselves more positively than they truly are in order to impress me

58%

I don’t believe that most applicants tell me the whole truth

42%

ConsequencesConsequences

Reduced Effectiveness?• Without a doubt…

• Validity

• Hiring Discrepancies

• Reduced Organizational Performance

Problematic Employees?• Predictors of applicant deception

• Low Self Esteem• External Locus of Control• Low Integrity• Impulsivity• Psychopathy• Counter Productive Work Behaviors (CWB)

Economic Consequences?• High visibility deception and stock losses• Productivity would improve by more than $22 billion

annually if faking were eliminated• $300 billion in organizational losses annually due to

CWBs would be reduced• Association of Certified Fraud Examiners states

occupational fraud costs $600 billion annually• Workers comps claims

RemediesRemedies

Remedies• To Test or not to Test?

• Conduct a Job Analysis

• Avoid one size fits all solutions

• Conduct due diligence when selecting vendors for assessments. Not all tests are created equal.

Multiple Assessments• You should never rely on a single assessment to make a

hiring decision

• Whole person approach

• Cross-referencing can improve identification rates for deceptive applicants

Other Remedies

• Structured Job Related Interviews

• Warnings and Honor Codes

• Test Security and alternate forms

Self Report Remedies• What not to rely on:

• SD or “Lie Scales” - do not capture faking behavior• Cannot be considered valid for the inference of faking

detection• Race and gender differences that do not correspond with

actual differences in faking• Legally indefensible

Behavioral Measures / Simulations

• Stop asking if someone can multi-task, and have them do it!

• Web based assessment makes the incorporation of simulations seamless and cost effective

• We are really interested in typical behavior - personality is just a means to an ends

Background Investigations• Gather information regarding candidates from public

records, and confirm information the applicant provided

• Provide insight on applicant’s character and past behavior.

• Web-based technology makes accessing this information relatively easy

Background Investigations• Have each job applicant sign a consent form for a

background check– past employment– education– criminal records

• Clearly state that false statements or omissions are grounds to terminate

• Conditional offer for satisfactory screening

Setting the right tone• The more applicant-friendly the hiring process, the less

likely applicants will be to cheat

• Social Contract research

• Application processes handled in a cold and unfriendly manner make it much easier for a candidate to feel fine about breaking the rules

In Review• Roughly 30% (+ or – 10%) of applicants engage in

deceptive behavior

• Deceptive applicant behavior reduces company performance, costs $, and opens the door to problematic employees

• Companies can mitigate the risk of applicant deception through careful cross validated assessment

Questions?

Dr. Richard L. Griffith

Director, Applicant Response Behavior Project

Florida Institute of Technology

150 W. University Blvd.

Melbourne Florida, 32901

(321) 674-8104

griffith@fit.edu

?