Personality testing in personnel selection: Is "socially desirable" responding really undesirable?;Persönlichkeitstests in der personalauswahl: Sind "sozial erwünschte" antworten wirklich nicht wünschenswert?

Zeitschrift fur Psychologie

Volumn 211, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 138-148

  Marcus, Bernd ^a  

^a CHEMNITZ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Personality tests; Personnel selection; Response distortion; Self presentation; Social desirability

Indexed keywords

EID: 2142735821     PISSN: 00443409     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1026//0044-3409.211.3.138     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. 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, 59-72.
2. Amelang, M. & Bartussek, D. (2001). Differentielle Psychologie und Persönlichkeitsforschung (5. aktual. und erw. Aufl.). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
3. Barrett, P. & Hutton, R. (2000, January). The distortion of meaning and measurement in applicant sample personality questionnaire responses. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society's 2000 Occupational Psychology Conference. Presentation available per download from: http://www.liv.ac.uk/ ~pbarrett/paulhome.htm.
4. Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 261-272.
5. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K. & Judge, T.A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9-30.
6. Bliesener, T. (1995). Methodological moderators in validating biographical data in personnel selection. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 107-120.
7. Borkenau, P. & Ostendorf, F. (1989). Descriptive consistency and social desirability in self- and peer reports. European Journal of Personality, 3, 31-45.
8. Brown, R. & Barrett, P. (1999). Differences between applicant and non-applicant personality questionnaire data: Some implications for the creation and use of norm tables. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society's 1999 Test User Conference. Presentation available per download from: http://www.liv.ac.uk/~pbarrett/paulhome.htm.
9. Cellar, D. F., Miller, M. L., Doverspike, D. D. & Klawsky, J. D. (1996). Comparison of factor structures and criterion-related validity coefficients for two measures of personality based on the five factor model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 694-704.
10. Collins, J. M. & Gleaves, D. H. (1998). Race, job applicants, and the Five-Factor Model of Personality: Implications for Black psychology, industrial/organizational psychology, and the Five-Factor Theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 531-544.
11. Cunningham, M. R., Wong, D. T. & Barbee, A. P. (1994). Self-presentation dynamics on overt integrity tests: Experimental studies of the Reid Report. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 643-658.
12. Deutsches Institut für Normung (2002). DIN 33430. Anforderungen an Verfahren und deren Einsatz bei berufsbezogenen Eignungsbeurteilungen. Berlin: Beuth.
13. Ellingson, J. E., Sackett, P. R. & Hough, L. M. (1999). Social desirability corrections in personality measurement: Issues of applicant comparison and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 155-166.
14. Ellingson, J. E., Smith, D. B. & Sackett, P. R. (2001). Investigating the influence of social desirability on personality factor structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 122-133.
15. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
16. Heilmann, K. (1999). Das Bochumer Inventar zur berufsbezogenen Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung (BIP). In E. Fay (Hrsg.), Tests unter der Lupe II (S. 19-38). Lengerich: Pabst.
17. Hoffmann, K. & Kubinger, K. D. (2001). Herkömmliche Persönlichkeitsfragebogen und objektive Persönlichkeitstests im "Wettstreit" um (Un-)Verfälschbarkeit. Report Psychologie, 26, 298-304.
18. Hogan, R. (1998). Reinventing personality. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 1-10.
19. Hossiep, R. & Paschen, M. (1998). Bochumer Inventar zur berufsbezogenen Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung (BIP). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
20. Hossiep, R., Paschen, M. & Mühlhaus, O. (2000). Persönlichkeitstests im Personalmanagement. Göttingen: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie.
21. Hough, L. M. (1998). Effects of intentional distortion in personality measurement and evaluation of suggested palliatives. Human Performance, 11, 209-244.
22. Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D. & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.
23. Hough, L. M. & Paullin, C. (1994). Construct-oriented scale construction: The rational approach. In G. S. Stokes, M. D. Mumford & W. A. Owens (Eds.), Biodata handbook: Theory, research, and use of biographical information in selection and performance prediction (pp. 109-145). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
24. Kanning, U. P. & Holling, H. (2001). Struktur, Reliabilität und Validität des NEO-FFI in einer Personalauswahlsituation. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 22, 239-247.
25. Kleinmann, M. (1993). Are rating dimensions in assessment centers transparent for participants? Consequences for criterion and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 988-993.
26. Kubinger, K. D. (2002). On faking personality inventories. Psychologische Beiträge, 44, 10-16.
27. Kubinger, K. D., Karner, T. & Menghin, S. (1999). Multiple moderator effects on a testee's answers to personality questionnaire items. Review of Psychology, 6, 25-31.
28. Laux, L. & Weber, H. (1993). Emotionsbewältigung und Selbstdarstellung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
29. Marcus, B. (2000). Kontraproduktives Verhalten im Betrieb. Eine individuumsbezogene Perspektive. Göttingen: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie.
30. Marcus. B. (2003). When social desirability is really desirable: A new procedure for scoring personality tests and its implications for personnel selection. Manuscript in preparation for publication. Chemnitz: Chemnitz University of Technology.
31. McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L. & Maurer, S. D. (1994). The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 599-616.
32. McFarland, L. A. & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 812-821.
33. Moorman, R. H. & Podsakoff, P. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behaviour research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 131-149.
34. Mount, M. K & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The big five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resource management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 153-200.
35. Mummendey, H. D. (1995). Psychologie der Selbstdarstellung (2. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
36. Ones, D. S. & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects of social desirability and faking on personality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance, 11, 245-269.
37. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C. & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660-679.
38. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C. & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Metaanalysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679-703.
39. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609.
40. Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. Shaver & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (Vol. 1. pp. 17-60). New York: Springer.
41. Richter, G. & Kleinmann, M. (2002, September). Personenmerkmale und Konstruktvalidität im Multimodalen Interview. Vortrag auf dem 43. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Berlin.
42. 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, 634-644.
43. Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of personnel selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.
44. Schmit, M. & Ryan, A. (1993). The big five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and non-applicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 966-974.
45. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.
46. Seisdedos, N. (1993). Personnel selection, questionnaires, and motivational distortion : An intelligent attitude of adaptation. In H. Schuler, J. L. Farr & M. Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 91-108). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47. Tsaousis, I. & Nikolaou, I. E. (2001). The stability of the five-factor model of personality in personnel selection and assessment in Greece. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 290-301.
48. Viswesvaran, C. & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197-210.
49. Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S. & Hough, L. M. (2001). Do impression management scales in personality assessment predict managerial job performance ratings? International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 9, 277-289.
50. Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry : Recruitment, selection, orientation, and socialization. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.