Though interviews assess job applicants' skills and abilities, they can be influenced by extraneous factors, including impression management (IM) tactics. Interviewees’ self‐promotion and ingratiation IM tactics predict higher interview ratings; however, researchers have yet to determine why these tactics work. We assessed whether two fundamental dimensions of social perception, competence and warmth, mediate the relationship between IM tactics and interview ratings. We hypothesized that interviewee competence mediates the relationship between self‐promotion and interview ratings, and interviewee warmth mediates the relationship between ingratiation and interview ratings. Using real employment interviews, we found that competence mediates the relationship between self‐promotion and interview ratings, but warmth did not mediate the relationship between ingratiation and interview ratings in the way we expected.

Deceptive impression management (IM) describes the intentional distortion of information to employment interview questions. In the present research, we conducted a meta-analysis examining the magnitude of the relation between applicants' use of deceptive IM and interview ratings. This research sought to address the mixed findings in the literature regarding the link between deceptive IM and interview ratings, as well as the limitation of how past meta-analyses were not able to distinguish between deceptive and honest tactics. Our results suggested that on average, deceptive IM was effectively unrelated to interview ratings. Moreover, we examined various moderators of this meta-analytic relation. Results indicated that the meta-analytic relation did not differ substantially based on the type of deceptive IM tactic examined, interview fidelity, student status, or participant gender. However, mean participant age was associated with the magnitude of and variability in study correlations. Lastly, results suggested that there are likely other unexamined moderators that may influence the deceptive IM-interview ratings relation. The present research ultimately contributes to our understanding of how deceptive IM is associated with interview ratings and how this relation may differ based on different research design and sample characteristics. Public Significance StatementMany job applicants intentionally misrepresent themselves-also known as the use of deceptive impression management tactics-with the aim of improving their likelihood of success in employment interviews. We conducted a systematic review of existing studies and found that on average, deceptive impression management was unrelated to interview ratings. However, there are likely some applicants who are skilled at misrepresenting themselves, whereas others are not; employers may still end up hiring applicants who successfully used deception in order to secure a job offer.

Abstract. Many applicants fake, or intentionally misrepresent information, in employment interviews. Recent theories of faking propose that applicants may fake more when there are situational cues that signal intense competition for the job. We tested this proposition by manipulating the number of competitors and selection ratio in selection scenarios, and assessed individuals’ faking intentions. We also examined whether Honesty-Humility moderated the relation between competition and faking intentions. Hypotheses were tested using a between-subjects study with 775 participants. Results show that faking intentions increased with few competitors and a small selection ratio. Honesty-Humility did not moderate the relation between competition and faking intentions. Findings support competition as a situational predictor of faking intentions, lending support to models of faking.

No abstract

Applicants may be willing to fake in job interviews with the aim of creating a positive impression. In two vignette‐based experiments, we examined if a competitive—versus noncompetitive—climate (Study 1) and hiring situation (Study 2) increased participants' willingness to fake. We also examined if Honesty–Humility and Competitive Worldviews moderated the relation between willingness to fake and how competitive participants believed they must be in order to secure the job. Results demonstrated that a competitive climate and hiring situation increased willingness to fake. Honesty–Humility and Competitive Worldviews were related to willingness to fake, but these relations did not change substantially at different levels of perceived need for competitiveness. Overall, results lend some theoretical support to propositions about applicant faking.