help

Will I Fake It? The Interplay of Gender, Machiavellianism, and Self-monitoring on Strategies for Honesty in Job Interviews Author(s): Mary Hogue, Julia Levashina and Hongli Hang Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 117, No. 2 (October 2013), pp. 399-411 Published by: Springer Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42001857 Accessed: 12-11-2019 17:28 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42001857?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics

This content downloaded from 128.193.164.203 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:28:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

J Bus Ethics (2013) 117:399-411 DOI 1 0. 1 007/s 1 055 1-012-1 525-x

Will I Fake It? The Interplay of Gender, Machiavellianism, and Self-monitoring on Strategies for Honesty in Job Interviews

Mary Hogue * Julia Levashina * Hongli Hang

Received: 2 September 201 1 / Accepted: 16 October 201 2 /Published online: 27 October 2012 © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Abstract The use of deception during social interactions is a serious ethical concern for business. Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT) proposes that strategies for using deception are influenced by personal factors. We tested this

proposal by assessing participants' strategies for using deception during an employment interview. Specifically, we examined three personal factors [gender, Machiavel- lianism, and self-monitoring (SM)] and intentions toward four types of deceptive behaviors (Extensive Image Crea- tion, Image Protection, Ingratiation, and Slight Image Creation). We used path analysis to examine the intentions of 125 undergraduate students. Our results partially con- firm the proposal of IDT by showing that intentions toward

using Extensive Image Creation (i.e., generating wholly untrue personal information) are higher for men than women. Intentions toward Image Protection (i.e., hiding unattractive personal truths) are higher for men and for women high in Machiavellianism relative to women low in Machiavellianism. Intentions toward using deceptive Ingratiation are highest for men and high Machiavellianism women, but only when sufficient SM skills are present. For

intentions toward Slight Image Creation (i.e., mild exag- gerations to personal truths) there are no gender, Machia- vellianism, or SM effects. Our research has implications for understanding how deception in the workplace can

M. Hogue (El) • J. Levashina • H. Hang Management and Information Systems Department (M&IS), Kent State University, Kent, OH 44240, USA e-mail: mhogue@kent.edu

J. Levashina

e-mail: jlevashi@kent.edu

H. Hang e-mail: hhang@kent.edu

begin before an individual is hired, and we offer sugges- tions for several lines of future research.

Keywords Deception • Gender • Employment interviews • Employee selection • Faking

Introduction

Academic and popular media lament the dishonest business practices of corrupt organizations and the dishonest behaviors of corrupt individuals at work. Employee dis- honesty results in negative outcomes for both workers and organizations (Cialdini et al. 2004). For the coworkers of dishonest employees, clashes in moral standards can increase stress and reduce job satisfaction and productivity. For organizations, increased costs are incurred through monitoring of dishonest workers, reductions in overall productivity, and even ruined reputations. Thus, dishonesty

at work presents an important area of investigation for researchers.

Fleming and Zyglidopoulos (2008) have argued that dishonesty gets easier and more pervasive over time if the initial instance is undetected. They contend that an initial deception is not inevitable, but it will inevitably lead to future dishonest acts when workers have no consequences or are even rewarded for their dishonesty. Accordingly, unethical behavior in organizations may be less prevalent if the initial lie does not occur, suggesting the importance of understanding that initial act of dishonesty.

The initial act can happen even before an employee is hired because workers often gain entry into organizations by lying during the selection process (Levashina and Campion 2006). Deception during the hiring process may set the stage for future deception once the individual enters

ô Springer

This content downloaded from 128.193.164.203 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:28:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

400 M. Hogue et al.

the organization, but no suggestions on how to avoid this can be offered until more is known about the initial act of

deception. If researchers have a better understanding of who is likely to deceive in an interview, then they can more

easily develop suggestions that will help organizations improve their selection process.

Organizations around the world rely on the employment interview as a tool for selecting the best applicant (Macan 2009; Posthuma et al. 2002), but deception during the interview may invalidate the interview process by biasing the organization's decision (Delery and Kacmar 1998). If this happens, applicants with low qualifications may be hired, while applicants with high qualifications are over- looked (Weiss and Feldman 2006).

From the applicant's perspective, success in an employ- ment interview means obtaining a job offer or moving ahead

in the selection process. This typically requires that the applicant makes a good impression on the interviewer (Higgins et al. 2003), but when applicants are dishonest, the images they create may not accurately reflect their true job-

related credentials. Research suggests that most applicants use some form of impression management during an employment interview (Fletcher 1992; Stevens and Kristof 1995), and while some impression management tactics are honest and involve descriptions of actual job-related abili- ties, others are deceptive, involving misleading embellish- ments to actual credentials (Levashina and Campion 2006).

Deception is an intentional behavior used to mislead (Buller and Burgoon 1996), and because people, including interviewers, are not always accurate judges of deception (Buller and Burgoon 1996; Posthuma et al. 2002), those who use it may be at an advantage when it comes to being hired. Deception used to gain employment is the initial lie that can potentially set the stage for future deceptive behavior (Fleming and Zyglidopoulos 2008; Fletcher 1992), so the purpose of our article is to explore job seekers' intentions toward using deception as a strategy in their job search.

Our exploration is grounded in Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT: Buller and Burgoon 1996). IDT was devel- oped to explain deception during interpersonal interactions rather than other forms of deception such self-deception. The theory suggests that interpersonal deception is a stra- tegic choice that is both motivated and deliberate. A key assumption of the theory is that people are goal-oriented and use communication, including deceptive communica- tion, as an intentional means of satisfying those goals.

While much of the theory focuses on how deception occurs during the interaction, IDT also includes proposi- tions about pre-interaction strategies. Specifically, IDT proposes that people are especially likely to engage in deception when they have selfish motivations and when their social skills are high (Burgoon and Buller 2008).

While the theory does not specify precisely what these motives and skills are, previous research (Turnley and Bolino 2001) found that Machiavellianism and self-moni-

toring (SM) work together with gender to affect deceptive behavior. Therefore, we test the previously noted propo- sition by examining selfish motives that can come from gender and Machiavellianism (Christie and Geis 1970) and examining the social skill of SM (Snyder 1974).

Our research explores job seekers' intentions toward using deception during an upcoming employment inter- view. The use of deception by job applicants during an employment interview for the purpose of swaying an interviewer's perception is called faking (Levashina and Campion 2007).

Faking in an Employment Interview

During an employment interview, applicants may deceive the interviewer, or fake, by either providing untruthful information or withholding information that is truthful (Levashina and Campion 2006). Faking behaviors can be classified into two general categories, severe or mild (Levashina and Campion 2007). These classifications fol- low conventional wisdom about honesty, which suggests that the need for complete honesty is a dynamic need (Fuane and Cerulo 2003).

One of the first norms to which children are socialized is

the norm against deception. Yet, through similar sociali- zation, people also learn how to rationalize the lies they tell (Fuane and Cerulo 2003). Thus, we know that deception is wrong, and we also know that everyone uses it to some degree. Lies tend to be categorized as those that are deviant and those that are normal (Fuane and Cerulo 2003). Deviant lies are severe. They are socially unacceptable because they disable trust. Normal lies tend to be less harsh

and are generally more acceptable. Whether deception is classified as deviant (severe) or normal (mild) is influenced

by the context in which it occurs, the parties involved, and

the reasons for telling the lie. During an employment interview, the organization's goal

is to find the best worker for the job. Extreme faking during an

interview (i.e., saying you received training that never occurred) may prevent that goal from being met in a way that

slight embellishments to the truth (i.e., implying that you enjoyed training when in actuality you were bored) may not. Levashina and Campion (2007) showed that extreme and mild faking can be subdivided further into four specific categories

of behavior, which they labeled Extensive Image Creation and

Image Protection as severe forms of faking and Slight Image Creation and Ingratiation as forms of mild faking.

Severe faking occurs when an applicant engages in extensive lies of either commission or omission. Such

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 128.193.164.203 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:28:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Effect of Gender, Self-monitoring, and Mach on Faking Intentions 401

extensive lying is normatively considered unacceptable social behavior, as evidenced by research that suggests people do not like those who lie to them (Tyler et al. 2006). In Extensive Image Creation, applicants largely invent or borrow an image not their own, such as when an applicant tells fictional stories of made-up work experiences or invents accomplishments that did not really occur. In Image Protection, applicants omit important information or mask their true self during the interview, such as when an

applicant intentionally fails to mention true job-related weaknesses or purposefully hides her or his true personality.

Mild faking occurs when a candidate adds slight embellishments to existing truths or minor elaborations on the actual truth. In Slight Image Creation, applicants mildly

embellish or enhance their image. Examples would include distorting previous work experience to appear better suited to the current job and inflating the fit between personal goals and organizational goals. Ingratiation occurs when an applicant espouses opinions that are slightly different from the truth to flatter the interviewer or conform to the goals of

the organization. Examples include falsely expressing the same opinions as the interviewer or laughing at the inter- viewer's jokes even if they do not seem funny.

While faking, by definition, is deceptive, norms suggest that mild faking is more socially acceptable than is severe (Levashina and Campion 2007; Marcoux 2006). However, because truthfulness has both instrumental and intrinsic

value to organizations (Radoilska 2008), it is important to understand how individuals intend to fake as they search for employment (Fletcher 1992). IDT suggests that selfish motives increase the likelihood of deception, and gender socialization tends to increase selfish motives for men over

women (Volkema 2004).

Gender and Faking

From childhood, boys are socialized to focus on rules, fairness, and individual rights, while girls are socialized to focus on relationships, compassion, and inclusiveness (Volkema 2008). This can lead boys to have more self- centered values, to believe that the ends can justify the means and to, therefore, be predisposed to pursue com- petitive success more strongly than girls. This may also lead to very different strategies for using deception in an employment interview because gender socialization results in stereotypes about gender roles, and gender roles provide information on how people should behave.

The feminine gender role suggests women should be helpful, supportive, and concerned for the well being of others, while the masculine gender role suggests men should be assertive, competitive, and goal-oriented (Eagly and Karau 2002). This leads to the general belief that

women should be demure, and men should emphasize their

accomplishments. The expectation of these feminine characteristics for women is projected to remain stable over time (Diekman and Goodfriend 2006). Thus, the feminine

gender role disallows, and is expected to continue disal- lowing, self-promotion among women, while the masculine gender role encourages it for men (Wade 2001).

Conformity to gender roles results in social and eco- nomic rewards, and nonconformity results in social or economic penalties, commonly known as backlash (Rud- man and Glick 2008). This is evidenced by research showing that women who assertively self-promote are not likely to be recommended for hire, while men who asser- tively self-promote are (Buttner and McEnally 1996). Interestingly, though, the placement and severity of a penalty are often determined by the degree of deviation from the stereotypic expectation (Rudman and Glick 2008). In other words, women are often granted a little leeway for

mild violations of their gender role but not for severe, which means if we were looking simply for gender dif- ferences in faking behaviors, we would expect to see them more for severe faking than for mild, but we believe the impact of gender is more complex than that.

Previous research supports general gender differences with respect to the ethical beliefs and behaviors of women and men. In general, women maintain higher ethical stan- dards than men (Volkema 2004), men are more likely than women to use extreme forms of deception such as lying to get what they want (Dreber and Johanesson 2008), and men are more likely than women to engage in harsher forms of impression management (Turnley and Bolino 2001; Guadagno and Cialdini 2007). However, the effect of gender on behavior is rarely so straightforward. Gender often works together with individual-level variables to impact behavior (Deaux and Major 1987), which means that to fully understand the effect of gender on faking, we must consider other variables. Furthermore, because not all

faking behaviors are the same, we must consider that gender may work differently with individual-level vari- ables to impact either severe or mild faking.

Machiavellianism

Machiavellianism is a trait that reflects an individual's

pursuit of self-interest at any expense (Mach; Christie and Geis 1970). Those high in Machiavellianism (high Machs) can be aggressive and devious in pursuit of their goals (Christie and Geis 1970), will engage in unabashed self- promotion and withhold information about personal imperfections (Sherry et al. 2006). They are more likely than low Machs to behave unethically (Jones and Paulhus 2009) and to be confident in their lie-telling skills (Kashy and DePaulo 1996). They are also more willing to be

Springer

This content downloaded from 128.193.164.203 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:28:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

402 M. Hogue et al.

deceptive during job interviews and to view deception as an appropriate interview strategy (Lopes and Fletcher 2004).

Although some research has suggested that women tend to be higher Mach than men (Rayburn and Rayburn 1 996), most shows the opposite (Christie and Geis 1970; Webster and Harmon 2002). Furthermore, when examining the impact of gender and Mach on impression management behaviors, research suggests the two often interact (Din- gler-Duhon and Brown 1987; O'Conner and Simms 1990). Because the impact of gender on some forms of impression management is conditional on Mach (Dingler-Duhon and Brown 1987; O'Connor and Simms 1990) and because faking is a deceptive form of impression management (Levashina and Campion 2007), we believe the effect of gender on faking will also be conditional on Mach.

Specifically, we believe that gender and Mach will interact to have a direct effect on severe forms of faking. As previously noted, severe faking (both Extensive Image Creation and Image Protection) involves extensive decep- tion to make one's self appear better in general and better suited to the job more specifically. This is a form of self- promotion, making severe faking an extreme violation of the feminine gender role. Therefore, we expect women to be less likely than men to intend such behavior. However, Mach is the pursuit of personal goals at any cost (Christie and Geis 1970), even the cost of gender role violation, so the gender gap in intentions toward severe faking should be

conditional on (or moderated by) Mach, with the gap reduced as Mach increases in women.

Hla There is a direct conditional effect of gender on Extensive Image Creation such that men are more likely than women to report intentions of Extensive Image Cre- ation, but the effect is mitigated as the level of Mach rises in women.

Hlb There is a direct conditional effect of gender on Image Protection such that men are more likely than women to report intentions of Image Protection, but the effect is mitigated as the level of Mach rises in women.

Self-monitoring

We believe that the interaction between gender and Mach on mild faking is less direct. Mild faking is less harsh than severe faking. It is closer to the truth and, therefore, less readily detectable (Hauck et al. 2012, April; Levashina et al. 2009). As such, its use may require finesse not nec- essary for extreme faking.

Because mild faking is close to actual truth, it is designed

to seem plausible. People motivated to distort interview responses often attempt to be rational and to construct plausible distorted responses (Kunda 1990; Vasilopoulos

et al. 2005). Creating a plausible deceptive response to an interview question requires an acute sensitivity to social cues

that may indicate which inflated responses might be con- sidered believable by the interviewer. The acuity to those social cues and the willingness to respond appropriately to them is called SM (Snyder 1974).

High SM requires full consideration of the social situ- ation in relation to self-presentation (Snyder and Monson 1975), so it may facilitate the use of faking in less detectable ways. SM is a social skill, and while Mach is characterized by achieving one's goals through a focus on the self and personal desires, SM is characterized by achieving one's goals through a focus on meeting the expectations of others (Ickes et al. 1986).

Those who are high in SM (high SMs) are skilled at regulating the impressions they make in social settings (Fuglestad and Snyder 2009), including during the job interview (Levashina and Campion 2006; Fuglestad and Snyder 2009). High SMs cultivate positive social images (Fuglestad and Snyder 2009), so they tend to use fewer harsh impression management strategies like blatant lies, relying instead on more positive strategies (Turnley and Bolino 2001) such as mild enhancements or flattery. This may be because high SMs are keenly aware of social norms

(Fuglestad and Snyder 2009), and interview norms suggest both that applicants should not overtly lie and that appli- cants should make a positive impression.

High SMs will be attuned to the norm suggesting the acceptability of positive personal enhancements during an employment interview. Thus, because SM affords the social skills necessary to use subtle forms of persuasion (Fuglestad and Snyder 2009), SM should have a direct, positive effect on mild forms of faking. Furthermore, men

are generally higher SMs than women (Day et al. 2002), but as previously noted, gender and Mach can interact in a way that leads women to behave differently than they otherwise might.

Because the focus of SM is the other person (Ickes et al. 1986), high SMs find ways to meet the expectations of other people, resulting in increased social success (Fu- glestad and Snyder 2009). Also, because those high in Mach will use whatever means necessary to achieve their goals (Christie and Geis 1970), we believe that people high in Mach may cultivate and use SM as a tool to satisfy those goals. Thus, we expect that the effect of gender on mild forms of faking (both Slight Image Creation and Ingratia- tion) will be indirect - being carried by SM - and will be conditional on Mach. In other words, we are predicting mediated moderation.

H2a There is an indirect, conditional effect of gender on Slight Image Creation that is indirect because it is carried by SM and is conditional because the gender difference in

Springer

This content downloaded from 128.193.164.203 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:28:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Effect of Gender, Self-monitoring, and Mach on Faking Intentions 403

Table 1 Summary of hypothesized relationships

Hypotheses Predictor Mediator Criterion

la Gender x Mach Extensive Image Creation

lb Gender x Mach Image Protection

2a Gender x Mach SM Slight Image Creation

2b Gender x Mach SM Ingratiation

Mach Machiavellianism, SM self-monitoring

SM that favors men is mitigated as the level of Mach rises in women.

H2b There is an indirect, conditional effect of gender on Ingratiation that is indirect because it is carried by SM and is

conditional because the gender difference in SM that favors

men is mitigated as the level of Mach rises in women.

In sum, we are predicting that understanding intentions toward future faking behaviors requires a consideration of the interplay of gender, Mach, and SM. Hypotheses are summarized in Table 1.

Method

Participants

One hundred twenty-five undergraduate business students (60 women, 65 men) at a large university in the mid-western

United States completed surveys in their classrooms for extra

course credit. Students reported 24 different majors ranging

from Accounting to Sport Management with the most com-

mon (n = 33) being Business Management. Because a key point in our hypotheses is the examina-

tion of group-level gender differences, it was important to

ensure that these groups were similar, so we looked for possible gender differences in ethnicity, college major, GPA, and number of previous employment interviews. Reported ethnicities included White (70.4 %), Asian (12.8 %), African American (7 %), and Other (7 %). One student did not report ethnicity. There were no gender differences for ethnicity, /J (5) = 5.21, p = .39, or major, X2 (17) = 21.67, p = .20. The GPA of women (M = 3.27, SD = .31) did not differ from that of men ( M = 3.22, SD = .48), F(l,25) = 5.36 p = .36. The number of pre- vious interviews experienced by women ( M = 3.39, SD = 1 .50) did not differ from the number experienced by men (A# = 3.10, SD = 1.22), F(l,33) = .01 1, p = .92.

Measures

The survey was presented as an assessment of impression management tactics and skills. The general instructions

asked students to imagine they were preparing for an upcoming job interview. They were assured that there were no right or wrong answers, encouraged to respond as honestly as possible, and told that their answers would remain completely confidential and anonymous. The sur- vey consisted of demographic questions along with three scales.

Demographic Questions

Participants were asked to indicate their gender, major, experience with job interviews, and ethnicity.

Interview Faking Behaviors Scale (IFB)

The IFB (Levashina and Campion 2007) scale was origi- nally developed to measure past faking behavior in job interviews. In order to fit this study purpose, it was mod- ified in two ways. First, the introduction for the original survey asked respondents to recall a previous job interview, while the modified survey asked them to imagine them- selves preparing for a future interview. Next, we changed the verb tense within each item to match the introduction.

For example, in the original survey, participants responded to the item, "I said that it would take less time to learn the

job than I knew it would," and in the modified survey they

responded to the item, "I would say that it would take less time to learn the job than I know it would."

The scale assesses four specific types of faking. Exten- sive Image Creation is the complete invention of an image of a good job applicant. Items measuring Extensive Image Creation include, "I would tell fictional stories prepared in advance of the interview to best present my credentials," and "I would claim that I have skills that I do not have."

Image Protection is defending the image of a good job applicant. Items measuring Image Protection include, "I would not mention that I believe I need additional

training to do the job," and "I would try not to show my true personality." Slight Image Creation is enhancing personal qualities to present the image of a good job applicant. Items measuring Slight Image Creation include, "I would say that I am an expert in an area even though I am only familiar with it," and "I would inflate the fit between my values and goals and the values and goals of the organization." Ingratiation is gaining favor with the interviewer to improve the appearance of being a good job applicant. Items measuring Ingratiation are, "I would try to agree with interviewer outwardly even when I disagree inwardly," and "I would complement the organization on something, however insignificant it may actually be to me."

Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they would use each behavior in a job interview. Responses

â Springer

This content downloaded from 128.193.164.203 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:28:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

404 M. Hogue et al.

were made on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (to no extent) to 5 (to a very great extent). Scale scores could range from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicating greater intent toward faking. The alpha levels were .95 for Extensive Image Creation, .88 for Image Protection, .90 for Slight Image Creation, and .90 for Ingratiation. These mirrored the reliabilities (.95 for Extensive Image Creation,

.91 for Image Protection, .90 for Slight Image Creation, and .90 for Ingratiation) found in Levashina and Campion's

(2007) original work.

SM Scale

We used the 25-item SM of Expressive Behavior Scale (Snyder 1974). Participants reported whether statements concerning personal attitudes, traits, and behavior were True (1) or False (0) for them. Examples of items are, "My behavior is usually an expression of my true inner feelings,

attitudes, and beliefs" (reverse coded) and "I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them." Scale scores could range from 0 to 25 with higher scores indi- cating higher SM. Kuder Richardson internal consistency estimate was .79, which is better than the scale's originally

determined reliability of .66 (Snyder 1974).

Machiavellianism Scale

We used the 30-item Machiavellianism scale developed by Allsopp et al. (1991). The scale measures the respondents' intentions toward particular behaviors, indicated with the response of yes (1) or no (0). Examples of items are, "Would you be prepared to 'walk all over people' to get what you want?" and "At work or business, would you prefer to get on quietly with your work rather than get involved in political maneuvering that might get you into a better position?" (reverse coded). Higher scores indicate higher levels of Mach. Alpha was .78, which is slightly lower than the .83 found in Allsopp et al. 's (1991) original work.

Results

Correlations among focal variables present a different pattern for women and men (Table 2). While significant bivariate relationships exist among almost all variables for women (except between Extensive Image Creation and SM), there are fewer associations for men. For men, the

only faking behavior linked with either Mach or SM is Ingratiation, which is linked to both.

A uni-variate analysis of variance (ANOVA) assessed gender differences in all variables (Table 3). Men reported greater intentions than women to engage in both Extensive

Table 2 Correlations for all variables for women and men

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1.EXIC .54** .64** .37** .26* .17

2. IP .42** .53** .53** .35** .21*

3. SLIC .71** .45** .51** .23* .28*

4. IN .22 .51** .29* .37** .44**

5. Machiavellianism .13 .16 .10 .30* 49**

6. Self-monitoring .12 .12 .20 .40** .37**

Note Correlations for women appear above the diagonal and for men below

EXIC Extensive Image Creation, IP Image Protection, SLIC Slight Image Creation, IN Ingratiation

** p < .01, *p < .05

Table 3 Means and standard deviations by gender, with brief ANOVA results

Variable Women Men F p rf d M (SD) M (SD)

EXIC 2.27 (.83) 2.65 (.79) 8.46 .004 .064 .47

IP 2.22 (.85) 2.62 (.65) 9.10 .003 .068 .53

SLIC 2.67 (.79) 2.78 (.67) 1.84 .177

IN 2.62 (.82) 2.85 (.73) 2.84 .094

Mach 7.87 (4.87) 11.23 (5.16) 14.07 <.0001 1.02 .67

SM 11.07 (4.44) 12.50(3.57) 4.02 .005 .031 .35

EXIC Extensive Image Creation, IP Image Protection, SUC Slight Image Creation, IN Ingratiation, Mach Machiavellianism, SM self- monitoring

Image Creation and Image Protection. Men were higher Mach than women, and men were higher SMs than women.

Analysis Strategy for Hypothesis Testing

We tested our hypotheses with path analysis in Mplus version 6 (Muthén and Muthén 1998-2010) following guidelines presented by Preacher et al. (2007), MacKinnon (2008), and Edwards and Lambert (2007) including using bootstrapping to confirm indirect paths. Path analysis allows the simultaneous modeling of several related regression relationships (Edwards and Lambert 2007; MacKinnon 2008; Muthén and Muthén 1998-2010) pro- viding a means of assessing both direct and indirect rela- tions among variables (MacKinnon 2008).

Thus, for each type of faking behavior, we simulta- neously assess both the direct and the indirect paths from our variables to the intention. This is important because previous research has shown that gender, Mach, and SM are all related (Turnley and Bolino 2001), so accounting for all paths ensures the ability to accurately distinguish rela- tionships, thereby allowing a more accurate assessment of our hypotheses. For our predictors, we dummy coded

â Springer

This content downloaded from 128.193.164.203 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:28:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Effect of Gender, Self-monitoring, and Mach on Faking Intentions 405

gender (0 = men, 1 = women), created z-scores for our continuous predictors (Mach and SM), and created a gen- der/Mach product term using the z-score for Mach (Frazier et al. 2003).

For path analysis, we created four path models following Model 2 in Preacher et al. (2007), which shows mediated

moderation in which there are direct paths from three predictors (two independent predictors and their interaction term) to one criterion and also three indirect paths extending from each predictor through a common mediator

to the criterion. Each of our models is identical in predic- tors (gender, Mach, and their product) and mediator (SM), but each has a different outcome variable (Extensive Image Creation, Image Protection, Slight Image Creation, or Ingratiation). Statistical input was the same for each model except for the change in outcome variable.

Direct effects are assessed through the significance test tied to that path (from one predictor to the outcome). Indirect effects are assessed through the significance test tied to the indirect path (the entire path from one predictor

through SM to the outcome). The significance of the indirect path is confirmed with an assessment of the bootstrapped confidence intervals (Muthén and Muthén 1998-2010; Preacher et al. 2007).

Coefficients from the three predictors to SM are com- mon among all four models. The path from gender to SM, b = - .014, p = .86, is not significant, while the paths from Mach to SM, b = .46, p < .001, and from the inter- action to SM, b = .18, p = .02 are significant. The inter- action of gender and Mach on SM is depicted in Fig. 1, which shows that the gender gap in SM scores is reduced through an elevation in the scores of high Mach women. For each faking category, we present results of all direct paths and then all indirect paths.

Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis la states that there is a direct conditional effect of gender on Extensive Image Creation such that men are more likely than women to report intentions of Extensive Image Creation, but the effect is mitigated as the level of Mach rises in women. Hypothesis lb states there is a direct conditional effect of gender on Image Protection such that men are more likely than women to report intentions of Image Protection, but the effect is mitigated as the level of Mach rises in women.

Extensive Image Creation Direct

For Extensive Image Creation, the hypothesized direct path from the interaction to the outcome was not significant, b - .002, p - .977. The direct path from Mach to the outcome, b = .10,/? = .19, was also not significant, but the direct path from gender to the outcome was significant, b = -.15, p = .03.

Fig. 1 Interaction between gender and Machiavellianism on self- monitoring

Extensive Image Creation Indirect

The path from SM to Extensive Image Creation was not significant, b = .08, p = .50. Thus, the indirect paths from the interaction to the outcome, b = .009, p = .58, from gender to the outcome, b = -.0001, p = .92, and from Mach to the outcome, b = .03, p = .51, were all not sig- nificant. The path model for Extensive Image Creation is shown in Fig. 2.

Image Protection Direct

For Image Protection, the hypothesized direct path from the

interaction to the outcome was significant, b = .16,

Fig. 2 Path model for Extensive Image Creation. *p < .05, **p < .01. Significant direct path from gender to Extensive Image Creation is shown in bold

â Springer

This content downloaded from 128.193.164.203 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:28:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

406 M. Hogue et al.

p = .03. The direct path from Mach to the outcome, b = .24, p < .01, was also significant, but the direct path from gender to the outcome was not, b = - .12, p = .08.

Image Protection Indirect

The path from SM to Image Protection was not significant, b = .006, p = .92. Thus, the indirect paths from the interaction to the outcome, b = .001, p = .93, from gender to the outcome, b = .0001, p = .99, and from Mach to the outcome, b = .003, p = .25, were all not significant. The interaction of gender and Mach on Image Protection is shown in Fig. 3. The path model for Image Protection is shown in Fig. 4. In sum, Hypothesis la was not supported, but Hypoth- esis lb was. The only variable to meaningfully impact Extensive Image Creation was gender, but the effect was not conditional on Mach. Men were significantly more likely than women to intend Extensive Image Creation. The effect of gender on Image Protection was conditional on Mach, though, so that the gender gap in which men have

greater intentions than women toward Image Protection is reduced when women are high Mach.

Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2a states there is an indirect, conditional effect of gender on Slight Image Creation that is indirect because it is carried by SM and is conditional because the gender difference in SM that favors men is mitigated as the level of Mach rises in women. Hypothesis 2b states there is an indirect, conditional effect of gender on Ingratiation that is indirect because it is carried by SM and is conditional because the gender difference in SM that favors men is mitigated as the level of Mach rises in women.

Fig. 3 Interaction between gender and Machiavellianism on Image Protection

Fig. 4 Path model for Image Protection. *p < .05, **p < .01. Significant direct paths from the interaction to Image Protection and from Mach to Image Protection are shown in bold

Slight Image Creation Direct

For Slight Image Creation, no direct paths from any pre- dictors to the outcome were significant: from the interac- tion, b = .07, p = .50; from gender, b = .03, p = .61; or from Mach, b = .09, p = .37.

Slight Image Creation Indirect

The path from SM to Slight Image Creation was signifi- cant, b = - .15, p = .049. Despite the fact that the inter- action had a significant effect on SM and SM had a significant effect on the outcome, the hypothesized indirect

path from the interaction through SM to Slight Image Creation was not significant, b = .03, p = .17. The indi- rect path from gender to the outcome, b = -.004, p = .88, was also not significant. The indirect path from Mach to Slight Image Creation was significant, though, b = .08, p = .049. This effect was confirmed with a 5 % confidence interval ranging from .009 to .187. The path model for Slight Image Creation is in Fig. 5.

Ingratiation Direct

For Ingratiation, no direct paths from any predictors to the

outcome were significant: from the interaction, b = .02, p = .79; from Mach, b = .16, p = .07; or from gender, b = -.02, p = .77.

Ingratiation Indirect

The path from SM to Ingratiation was significant, p < .0001. The hypothesized indirect path from the inter- action through SM to Ingratiation was significant, b = .05,

Springer

This content downloaded from 128.193.164.203 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:28:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Effect of Gender, Self-monitoring, and Mach on Faking Intentions 407

Fig. 5 Path model for Slight Image Creation. *p < .05, **p < .01. Significant indirect paths from Mach to Slight Image Creation are shown in bold

p = .049. This was confirmed with a 5 % confidence interval ranging from .008 to .105. The indirect path from

Mach to Ingratiation was also significant, b = .13, p < .0001, with a 5 % confidence interval ranging from .070 to .222. The indirect path from gender to the outcome

was not significant, b = .008, p = .87. The path model for Ingratiation is in Fig. 6.

In sum, Hypothesis 2a was not supported, but Hypoth- esis 2b was. For Hypothesis 2a, there was no significant conditional indirect effect of gender on Slight Image Cre- ation, but there was a significant indirect effect of Mach alone. Mach increases SM, which in turn increases the

likelihood of intentions toward Slight Image Creation. For Hypothesis 2b, there was a conditional indirect effect of gender on Ingratiation. Both men and high Mach women were more likely than low Mach women to be high SMs, and, in turn, had greater intentions to use Ingratiation.

Fig. 6 Path model Ingratiation. *p < .05, **7? <.01. Significant indirect paths from the interaction to Ingratiation and from Mach to Ingratiation are shown in bold

Discussion

Our hypotheses were partially supported. We hypothesized a direct effect of gender on intentions toward severe faking that would be conditional on Mach. We did not find this for

Extensive Image Creation, but we did find it for Image Protection. We also hypothesized an indirect effect of gender on intentions toward mild faking that would be conditional on Mach and carried by SM. We found this for Ingratiation but not for Slight Image Creation.

Our results suggest the prevalence of plans for using deception to obtain a job. Employees hired as the result of deception, often must maintain their lies to retain their jobs,

thereby supporting the argument by Fleming and Zyglido- poulos (2008) that an initial act of dishonesty enables and propagates future dishonesty. Moreover, employees who are rewarded for deception during the hiring process by being awarded the job may perceive in the future that deception is a

way of obtaining additional rewards.

Research suggests that interviewers are often unable to detect deception during the employment interview (Posthu-

ma et al. 2002) and that faking can lead to interview success

(Levashina and Campion 2007). This indicates the impor- tance of predicting the likelihood of faking among job can- didates, and our results provide useful information toward

that end. Consistent with IDT, we found that both personal characteristics and social skills predict intentions toward specific types of faking in future job interviews. Researchers

have long known the importance of using a battery of selection devices (Hough and Oswald 2000) rather than relying on a single device for making hiring decisions. Our results suggest that as a means of evaluating the veracity of

responses from an employment interview, organizations might be wise to include in their battery a consideration of

those personal characteristics and social skills related to intentions toward dishonesty in the interview.

Our results support the proposition of IDT (Buller and Burgoon 1996; Burgoon and Buller 2008) that suggests understanding deceptive intentions involves a consideration of factors that influence personal motives as well as a con- sideration of social skill. Our research supports previous research that found a connection between gender and unethical behavior (c.f. Volkema 2004), but our research also

shows that the connection between gender and intentions to fake is complex. Women and men do not have exactly the same strategies for faking in future job interviews, and while

gender is implicated in the majority of faking behaviors, it is

not implicated in all, or does it always act alone.

Gender and Faking

When considered alone, gender has a direct effect on Extensive Image Creation. Men are more likely than

^ Springer

This content downloaded from 128.193.164.203 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:28:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

408 M. Hogue et al.

women to intend to make up untrue information during an

upcoming job interview. This is important to know because previous research has shown that applicants who use Extensive Image Creation are more likely than those who do not to have a successful interview outcome (Levashina

and Campion 2007). This means they are more likely to either be offered a job or move ahead in the hiring process, with such success likely due to the fact that interviewers have difficulty detecting deception (Posthuma et al. 2002). IDT (Buller and Burgoon 1996) proposes that selfish motives and social skills can impact strategies for decep- tion. Gender socialization provides men with a selfish motive (Volkema 2004) that our results suggest directly impacts intentions toward using Extensive Image Creation during an employment interview. Men have greater inten- tions than women to invent untrue personal information, regardless of level of Mach. Previous research suggests that lying causes psychological discomfort (DePaulo et al. 1996), and it may be that more blatant lies cause greater discomfort. Violating one's gender role also causes psy- chological discomfort (Wade 2001), so it is possible that when considering the use of Extensive Image Creation as a deceptive form of self-promotion, women are doubly dis- comforted in a way they are not willing to tolerate. This should be explored in future research.

Gender, Faking, and Mach

Like gender, Mach also provides a selfish motive to deceive. Mach is a personality trait of selfish motives and manipulation (Allsopp et al. 1991; Christie and Geis 1970). Our results show Mach impacts intentions toward all types of faking except Extensive Image Creation. It acts alone on intentions toward Image Protection, and it closes the gen- der gap in intentions toward Image Protection. It affects both Slight Image Creation and Ingratiation through its impact on SM, and it acts together with gender to impact SM, which in turn affects Ingratiation.

The implications of this are interesting. Specifically, while the construct of Mach tends to have a negative connotation, research suggests that it often leads to life success (Wilson et al. 1996). Together, the drive to achieve personal desires and the ability to manipulate can be adaptive social strategies. The current job market is espe- cially difficult with almost four job seekers for every job opening (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012), which means that obtaining a job in the current market may require a selfish motive, possibly making those who have it more successful in their job search. However, given that initial undetected lies tend to open the door to future dishonesty (Fleming and Zyglidopoulos 2008), this may not be best for organizations.

Previous research suggests that levels of Mach are similar between working and non-working adults (Mud- racke and Mason 1996), but we do not know that Mach affects particular outcomes in similar ways for members of

both groups. Thus, future research should investigate the effects of Mach on faking intentions for those already in the workforce who might be looking for a new job in relation to those entering the workforce for the first time,

and should also investigate how Mach impacts intentions toward dishonest workplace behavior once a person has been hired.

Faking and SM

IDT (Buller and Burgoon 1996; Burgoon and Buller 2008) also proposes that social skills contribute to the motivation to deceive. In particular, it says that the dynamic nature of

interactive deception involves the monitoring and adaption of communication (Burgoon et al. 2001). SM is an important social skill that involves monitoring and adapt- ing self-presentation (Furnham and Capon 1983). Our results suggest that SM is especially important when con- sidering mild forms of faking as it caries the influence of Mach to intentions toward Slight Image Creation and carries the combined effect of gender and Mach to Ingratiation.

Some researchers have suggested that SM is a multi- dimensional construct, comprised of factors related to Activity, Extraversion, and Other-directedness, which are all related to and reflective of a single latent construct (Gangestad and Snyder 2000). The latent construct was the focus of our study, but future research might tease apart the

impact of each sub-dimension on faking to determine whether any is more influential than the others for women versus men, for individuals at various levels of Mach, and

for those forming intentions toward particular faking behaviors.

Although SM was implicated in intentions toward mild faking, the fact that it was not for severe faking may be due

to the fact that SM involves subtle shifts in response or behavior (Fuglestad and Snyder 2009) that might be more consistent with faking through mild embellishments, for example, rather than offering substantial untruths. IDT suggests that the process of deception is cognitively chal- lenging for deceivers (Buller and Burgoon 1996). It is possible that as the level of deception increases, moving from mild to severe, the cognitive challenge increases as well. This may lead applicants engaged in mild faking to have sufficient cognitive capacity to self-monitor but not leave the same for those engaged in severe faking. The veracity of this reasoning should be explored in future research.

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 128.193.164.203 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:28:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Effect of Gender, Self-monitoring, and Mach on Faking Intentions 409

Faking and IDT

Our research provides the first integration of IDT with employment interview faking, the combination of which can enhance both the literatures. Specifically, IDT research suggests that deception processes may differ when an individual attempts to deceive a group of people (Marrett and George 2004), and as many job interviews are com- mittee based, this provides an important avenue for future faking research. Our survey asked students to think of an

upcoming job interview without providing any specific information on the number of interviewers present. Future research should explore whether faking intentions differ when someone is faced with a singular interviewer versus a panel of interviewers. Also, many interviews are now conducted electroni-

cally, and IDT suggests that computer-mediated deception presents its own opportunities and constraints (Burgoon et al. 2003). As electronic media such as voice-over-

Internet Protocol become increasingly prevalent at work, organizations will rely more heavily on them for selection interviews, suggesting the importance of investigating whether faking intentions differ when an applicant antici- pates different types of interviews.

Our research also expands the theoretical scope of fak- ing literature to include IDT. To date, faking has been explored primarily through impression management theory (Goffman 1959; Leary and Kowalski 1990), which exam- ines how people convey desired public impressions of themselves. Impression management is not always decep- tive, though, while the explicit focus of IDT is deception. Because faking is, by definition, deception, IDT may be a more appropriate theoretical framework from which to examine faking during an employment interview. IDT is a rich theory with very specific propositions regarding how deception is planned, how it plays out between and among people, and how it is detected. As detection of faking presents a challenge for interviewers (Posthuma et al. 2002), research grounded in IDT may provide a means of understanding how to improve faking detection.

Limitations

Being involved in an interaction is not the same as antic- ipating it (Dunbar e al. 2004), and IDT stresses that use of deceit changes as interactions unfold (Buller and Burgoon 1996). Thus, applicants may enter a job interview with every intention of faking, or they may even begin using deception at the outset. Once the interview begins, though, that may change because deception within a social inter- action is an ongoing, dynamic process (Burgoon and Buller 2008). This suggests that despite the fact that previous

research indicates a positive relationship between inten- tions toward work-related behaviors and actual engage- ment in those behaviors (Taylor and Small 2002), the link has not been shown with respect to faking. Therefore, one limitation of our work is our inability to draw conclusions

about how women and men will actually behave during their employment interviews.

Another limitation comes from our sample, and this limitation is two-fold. First, we relied on college students.

This is a common strategy in research examining faking (e.g., Levashina and Campion 2007), impression manage- ment (Turnley and Bolino 2001), deception (Burgoon et al. 2001, 2003), and employment interviews (see Posthuma et al. 2002 for a review). However, drawing conclusions about the population at large from data gathered from college students has been questioned (Dipboye and Flan- agan 1979). Although our participants were students, they were not interview novices, with both women and men

having an average experience of roughly three job inter- views each. Still, before being generalized, our results should be confirmed among job seekers outside of the educational setting.

The second limitation presented by our sample is that we had very little ethnic diversity among our participants. Self-presentation during an employment interview can vary across cultures (Bye et al. 2011), but the lack of ethnic diversity among our participants meant we were unable to

examine any such differences in faking intentions. These limitations suggest the need for an expansion of this research to actual interview settings and to different populations.

And finally, although our purpose was to study inten- tions toward faking, in general, this also poses a limitation with respect to the conclusions we can draw. We asked students to imagine they were approaching a future employment interview, but we did not specify what that job should be. It is possible that women and men would form different faking intentions for jobs that varied by attrac- tiveness to the respondent, gender stereotyping, etc. Thus, future research should explore how faking intentions vary for named jobs.

Conclusion

The impact of dishonesty at work can be devastating for organizations (Cialdini et al. 2004). Untruthfulness breaks trust and causes damage at both monetary and personal levels (Radoilska 2008), and when a relationship, including an employment relationship, is founded on a lie, if the lie is

undetected, the dishonest behavior is likely to be carried into other areas of the relationship. Our research provides a way of understanding intentions toward using faking to

^ Springer

This content downloaded from 128.193.164.203 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:28:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

410 M. Hogue et al.

obtain a job. It shows three personal factors that impact those intentions, and it offers insight as to how dishonesty

at work can pre-date the employment relationship. The next step is for research to continue this exploration to determine how such dishonesty actually plays out once an individual who fakes is hired.

References

Allsopp, J., Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. (1991). Machiavellian- ism as a component in psychoticism and extraversion. Person- ality and Individual Differences, 12 , 29-4 1 . doi : 1 0. 1 0 1 6/0 191- 8869(9 1)901 29- Y.

Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory , 6, 203-242.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012, February). Job opening and labor turnover survey: Highlights, http://www.bls.gov/web/jolts/ j lt_labstatgraphs/pdf .

Burgoon, J. K., & Buller, D. B. (2008). Interpersonal deception theory. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Brathewaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 227-239). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Floyd, K. (2001). Does participation affect deception success? A test of the interactivity principle. Human Communication Research , 27, 503-534. doi: 10. 1093/ hcr/27.4.503.

Burgoon, J. K., Stoner, G. M., Bonito, J., & Dunbar, N. E., (2003, January). Trust and deception in mediated communication. Proceedings of the Hawaii international conference on computer and systems sciences , Hawaii, HI.

Buttner, E. H., & McEnally, M. (1996). The interactive effect of influence tactic, applicant gender, and type of job on hiring recommendations. Sex Roles, 34, 581-591. doi: 10. 1007/ BF0 1545034.

Bye, H. H., Sandal, G. M., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Sam, D., Cakar, N. D., & Franke, G. H. (201 1). Personal values and intended self- presentation during job interviews: A cross-cultural comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 160-182. doi: 10.1 1 1 1/j. 1464-0597.20 10.00432.x.

Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.

Cialdini, R. B., Petrova, P. K., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). The hidden costs of organizational dishonesty. Sloan Management Review, 45, 67-73.

Day, D. V., Schleicher, D. J., Unckless, A. L., Perrin, T., & Hiller, N. J. (2002). Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 87, 390-401. doi: 10. 1037/0021 -9010.87.2.390.

Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369-389. doi: 10.1 037/0033-295X.94.3.369.

Delery, J. E., & Kacmar, K. M. ( 1998). The influence of applicant and interviewer characteristics on the use of impression manage- ment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1649-1669.

DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979-995. doi: 10. 1037/ 0022-3514.70.5.979.

Diekman, A. B., & Goodfriend, W. (2006). Rolling with the changes: A role congruity perspective on gender norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 369-383 . doi : 1 0. 1 1 1 1 /j . 1 47 1 -6402. 2006.00312.x.

Dingler-Duhon, M., & Brown, B. B. (1987). Self-disclosure as an influence strategy: Effects of Machiavellianism, androgyny, and sex. Sex Roles, 16, 109-123. doi: 10. 1007/BF002 89643.

Dipboye, R. L., & Flanagan, M. F. (1979). Research settings in industrial and organizational psychology: Are findings in the field more generalizable than in the laboratory? American Psychologist, 34, 141-150. doi:10.1007/BF00289643.

Dreber, A., & Johanesson, M. (2008). Gender differences in deception. Economics Letters, 99, 197-199.

Dunbar, N. E., Ramirez, A, Jr, & Burgoon, J. K. (2004). Interactive deception: Effects of participation on participant-receiver and observer judgments. Communication Reports, 16, 23-33.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X. 109.3.573.

Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1 -22. doi : 1 0. 1 037/ 1 082-989X. 12.1.1."

Fleming, P., & Zyglidopoulos, S. C. (2008). The escalation of deception in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 837-850. doi: 1 0. 1 007/s 1 055 1 -007-955 1 -9.

Fletcher, C. (1992). Ethical issues in the selection interview. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 361-367.

Frazier, P., Tix, A., & Barnett, C. L. (2003). The relational context of social support: Relationship satisfaction moderates the relations between enacted support and distress. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1 1 33- 1 1 46. doi : 10. 1 037/0022- 0167.51.1.115.

Fuane, J. M., & Cerulo, K. A. (2003). Normal lies: Is honesty really our policy? In J. M. Henslin (Ed.), Down to earth sociology: Introduc- tory readings (12th ed., pp. 249-252). New York: Free Press.

Fuglestad, P. T., & Snyder, M. (2009). Self-monitoring. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 574-591). New York: Guilford Press.

Furnham, A., & Capon, M. (1983). Social skills and self-monitoring processes. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 171-178. doi : 1 0. 1 0 1 6/0 1 9 1 -8869(83)900 1 7-X.

Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530-555. doi: 10. 1037/0033-2909. 1 26.4.530.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.

Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Gender differences in impression management in organizations: A qualitative review. Sex Roles , 56, 483^94. doi : 10.1 007/s 1 1 199-007-9187-3.

Hauck, E., Levashina, J., Weekly, J. (2012, April). Blatant extreme responding and unlikely virtue endorsement in high-stakes selection. Paper presentation at the 27th annual conference of the society for industrial and organizational psychology, San Diego, CA.

Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 24, 89-106. doi: 1 0. 1 002/job. 181.

Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2000). Personnel selection: Looking toward the future-remembering the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 631-664. doi: 1 146/annurev.psych.5 1.1.631.

Ickes, W., Reidhead, S., & Patterson, M. (1986). Machiavellianism and self-monitoring: As different as "me" and "you". Social Cognition, 4, 58-74.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior. New York: Guilford.

Kashy, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1996). Who lies? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1 037- 1 05 1 . doi : 1 0. 1 037/ 0022-3514.70.5.1037.

â Springer

This content downloaded from 128.193.164.203 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:28:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Effect of Gender, Self-monitoring, and Mach on Faking Intentions 41 1

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case of motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin , 108 , 480-498.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin , 1 07, 34-47.

Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2006). A model of faking likelihood in the employment interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 4, 299-316.

Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2007). Measuring faking in employment interview: Development and validation of an interview faking behavior scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 , 1638-1656. doi: 1 0.1 037/002 1-90 10.92.6. 1638.

Levashina, J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2009). They don't do it often, but they do it well: Exploring the relationship between applicant mental abilities and faking. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17 , 271-281.

Lopes, J., & Fletcher, C. (2004). Fairness of impression management in employment interviews: A cross-country study of the role of equity and Machiavellianism. Social Behavior and Personality, 32 , 747-768. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2004, 32(8), pp.747.

Macan, T. (2009). The employment interview: A review of current studies and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 203-218. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.006.

MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Marcoux, A. M. (2006). A counterintuitive argument for resume embellishment. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 183-194. doi : 1 0. 1 007/s 1 055 1 -005-24 1 2-5.

Marrett, K., & George, J. F. (2004). Deception in the case of one sender and multiple receivers. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 29-44. doi: 10. 1023/BÍGRUP.000001 1943.73762.9b.

Mudracke, P. E., & Mason, E. S. (1996). Individual ethical beliefs and perceived organizational interests. Journal of Business Ethics, 75,851-861.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus user's guide, 6th edn. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

O'Connor, E. M., & Simms, C. M. (1990). Self-revelation as manipu- lation: The effects of sex and Machiavellianism on self-disclosure.

Social Behavior and Personality, 18, 95-99. doi: 10.2224/sbp. 1 990, 1 8( 1 ), pp.95.

Posthuma, R. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2002). Beyond employment interview validity: A comprehensive narrative review of recent research and trends over time. Personnel Psychology, 55,

1-81. doi: 10.1 1 1 l/j.l744-6570.2002.tb00 103.x. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing

moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and pre- scriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227.

Radoilska, L. (2008). Truthfulness and business. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 21-28. doi : 10.107/s 10790-0 10-9233-1.

Rayburn, J. M., & Rayburn, L. G. (1996). Relationship between Machiavellianism and type A personality and ethical-orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1209-1219.

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York: Guildord.

Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Besser, A., Flett, G. L., & Klein, C. (2006). Machiavellianism, trait perfectionism, and perfectionis- tic self-presentation. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 829-839. doi: 10. 101 6/j. paid. 2005.09.010.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537. doi: 10. 1037/ h0037039.

Snyder, M., & Monson, T. C. (1975). Persons, situation and the control of social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 637-644.

Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L. (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of applicant impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 587-606. doi: 10.1037/ 0021-9010.80.5.587.

Taylor, P. J., & Small, B. (2002). Asking applicants what they would do versus what they did do: A meta-analytic comparison of situational and past behaviour employment interview questions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 277-294. doi: 1 0. 1 348/0963 1 79023203697 12.'

Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. (2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self- monitoring in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 351-360. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.351.

Tyler, J. M., Feldman, R. S., & Reichert, A. (2006). The price of deceptive behavior: Disliking and lying to people who lie to us. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 69-77. doi : 1 0. 1 0 1 6/j .jesp. 2005 .02.003 .

Vasilopoulos, N. L., Cucina, J. M., & McElreath, J. M. (2005). Do warnings of response verification moderate the relationship between personality and cognitive ability? Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 306-322.

Volkema, R. J. (2004). Demographic, cultural, and economic predictors of perceived ethicality of negotiation behavior: A nine-country analysis. Journal of Business Research, 57, 69-78. doi : 1 0. 1 0 1 6/SO 1 48-2963(02)00286-2.

Volkema, R. J. (2008). Problem statements in negotiation and policy formation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20, 23-30. doi: 10. 1002/ crq. 390/9882004.

Wade, M. E. (2001). Women and salary negotiation: The costs of self- advocacy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 65-76. doi: 10.1111/1471-6402.00008.

Webster, R. L., & Harmon, H. A. (2002). Comparing levels of Machiavellianism of today's college students with college students of the 1960s. Teaching Business Ethics, 6, 435-445.

Weiss, B., & Feldman, R. S. (2006). Looking good and lying to do it: Deception as an impression management strategy in job interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1070- 1086.

Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: a synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 285-299. doi : 1 0. 1 0 1 6/S 1 090- 5 138(98)0001 1-7.

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 128.193.164.203 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:28:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms