Impression Management and Interview and Job Performance Ratings: A Meta-Analysis of Research Design with Tactics in Mind.

Impression management (IM) is pervasive in interview and job performance settings. We meta-analytically examine IM by self- and other-focused tactics to establish base rates of tactic usage, to understand the impact of tactics on interview and job performance ratings, and to examine the moderating effects of research design. Our results suggest IM is used more frequently in the interview rather than job performance settings. Self-focused tactics are more effective in the interview rather than in job performance settings, and other-focused tactics are more effective in job performance settings rather than in the interview. We explore several research design moderators including research fidelity, rater, and participants. IM has a somewhat stronger impact on interview ratings in lab settings than field settings. IM also has a stronger impact on interview ratings when the target of IM is also the rater of performance than when the rater of performance is an observer. Finally, labor market participants use IM more frequently and more effectively than students in interview settings. Our research has implications for understanding how different IM tactics function in interview and job performance settings and the effects of research design on IM frequency and impact.

Measuring faking in the employment interview: development and validation of an interview faking behavior scale.

An Interview Faking Behavior (IFB) scale is developed and validated in 6 studies (N = 1,346). In Study 1, a taxonomy of faking behavior is delineated. The factor structure of a measure is evaluated and refined (Studies 2 and 3). The convergent and discriminant validity of the measure is examined (Study 4). The IFB scale consists of 4 factors (Slight Image Creation, Extensive Image Creation, Image Protection, and Ingratiation) and 11 subfactors (Embellishing, Tailoring, Fit Enhancing, Constructing, Inventing, Borrowing, Masking, Distancing, Omitting, Conforming, and Interviewer Enhancing). A study of actual interviews shows that scores on the IFB scale are related to getting a 2nd interview or a job offer (Study 5). In Study 6, an experiment is conducted to test the usefulness of the new measure for studying methods of reducing faking using structured interviews. It is found that past behavior questions are more resistant to faking than situational questions, and follow-up questioning increases faking. Finally, over 90% of undergraduate job candidates fake during employment interviews; however, fewer candidates engage in faking that is semantically closer to lying, ranging from 28% to 75%.