Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorGriffith, Richard
dc.contributor.authorYang, Yadi
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-03T18:56:02Z
dc.date.available2018-07-03T18:56:02Z
dc.date.created2018-07
dc.date.issued2018-06
dc.date.submittedJuly 2018
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11141/2515
dc.descriptionThesis (M.S.) - Florida Institute of Technology, 2018en_US
dc.description.abstractApplicant faking behavior (AFB) on personality measures is a problematic phenomenon in selection context. It is important to address applicant faking behaviors because it will result in hiring unqualified people and lead to fairness issues. Researchers have developed many theoretical frameworks to understand applicant faking behaviors, and it is commonly accepted that applicant faking behaviors is an interaction effect of the both situational factors and individual factors. In this study, we examined applicant faking behaviors based on one of the interactional framework, the Trait Contract Classification (TCC) theory (Griffith, Lee, Peterson & Zickar, 2011) which took one step further to examine different forms of applicant faking behaviors (honest responding, self-presentation, exaggeration, reactive responding, and fraudulent responding). Specifically, the study examined whether people fake differently and how different faking behaviors relate to different faking outcomes. The results suggested that more than one faking response sets correlate with faking behaviors. Exaggeration response set (b=.19, p<.05) and fraudulent responding response set (b=.14, p<.05) both positively correlated with observed faking behaviors, but the honest responding response set was negatively related with faking behaviors (b=-.15, p<.05). In addition, TCC response sets had significant effect on observations of faking outcomes in terms of faking magnitude and faking variability. The study also found that ethical relativism positively related to TCC reactive responding (b=.19, p<.05) and fraudulent responding (b=.31, p<.05), and perceived behavioral control positively related to Reactive Responding (b=.11, p<.05) and Fraudulent Responding (b=.39, p<.05). Implications, limitations and future directions were discussed as well.en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.rightsCopyright held by author.en_US
dc.titleA New Approach to Explain Applicant Faking Behaviors: A Model Based on Trait Contract Classification Theoryen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.date.updated2018-06-08T15:16:42Z
thesis.degree.nameMaster of Science in Industrial and Organizational Psychologyen_US
thesis.degree.levelMastersen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineIndustrial/Organizational Psychologyen_US
thesis.degree.departmentPsychologyen_US
thesis.degree.grantorFlorida Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.type.materialtext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record