2007
DOI: 10.1007/s10869-007-9048-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lying on Job Applications: The Effects of Job Relevance, Commission, and Human Resource Management Experience

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
17
0
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
2
17
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Here, the confrontation concerns the misrepresentation (i.e., dishonesty) as such rather than disclosure about the jobseeker's past. This corroborates previous research, which has demonstrated that lies and dishonesty are perceived to be more incriminating than most negative information of a different nature (Wood, Schmidtke, and Decker 2007;Berkelaar, Scacco, and Birdsell 2015). Some recruiters express an understanding for a person's wish to keep negative aspects of their past secret during initial contact with a potential employer.…”
Section: Explicit Confrontationssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Here, the confrontation concerns the misrepresentation (i.e., dishonesty) as such rather than disclosure about the jobseeker's past. This corroborates previous research, which has demonstrated that lies and dishonesty are perceived to be more incriminating than most negative information of a different nature (Wood, Schmidtke, and Decker 2007;Berkelaar, Scacco, and Birdsell 2015). Some recruiters express an understanding for a person's wish to keep negative aspects of their past secret during initial contact with a potential employer.…”
Section: Explicit Confrontationssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Whether it has been considered a holy grail worth pursuing or a windmill at which to tilt, the topic of applicant faking in personality measures has been pursued by organizational researchers with something of a vengeance. This is not to say that research and practice has not been concerned about dissimulation on other selection measures; such research has been conducted on situational judgment tests (e.g., Cullen, Sackett, & Lievens, 2006; H. Peeters & Lievens, 2005), biographical data measures (e.g., Kluger & Collela, 1993; Schmitt & Kunce, 2002), employment interviews (e.g., Delery & Kacmar, 1998; Ellis, West, Ryan, & DeShon, 2002; Levashina & Campion, 2006), the assessment center (e.g., McFarland, Yun, Harold, Viera, & Moore, 2005), and the ubiquitous job application blank (e.g., Wood, Schmidke, & Decker, 2007). But it is safe to say that the lion’s share of research on faking selection measures in the past two decades has been directed mostly toward personality tests.…”
Section: A Bit Of History—how We Got Herementioning
confidence: 99%
“…For current study purposes as well as additional ongoing research in this area, we developed resume fraud scales using Hinkin's (1998) procedures and several additional samples (Henle, Dineen, & Duffy, 2014). For this study, we specifically focused on commissive resume fraud dimensions (i.e., embellishing or fabricating information on one's resume; Kim, 2011;Wood, Schmidtke, & Decker, 2007). Our operationalization follows traditional definitions of lying which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as "a false statement made with the intent to deceive."…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%