Abstract
Resume fraud is pervasive and has detrimental consequences, but researchers lack a way to study it. We develop and validate a measure for empirically investigating resume misrepresentations purposely designed to mislead recruiters. In study 1, an initial set of items designed to measure three theorized resume fraud dimensions (fabrication, embellishment, omission) are rated for content validity. In study 2, job seekers complete the measure and its factor structure is evaluated. In study 3, another sample of job seekers is surveyed to verify the measure’s factor structure and to provide evidence regarding construct validity. In study 4, working adults who recently conducted a job search are surveyed to determine which individuals are more likely to commit resume fraud and whether resume fraud relates to critical work behaviors. We confirm the three-factor structure of our measure and offer evidence of construct validity by showing that socially desirable responding, Machiavellianism, moral identity, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness are related to resume fraud. Additionally, we find that resume fraud predicts reduced job performance and increased workplace deviance beyond deceptive interviewing behavior. Resume fraud is rarely studied despite the negative impact it can have on job-related outcomes. Researchers can use this measure to explore further the antecedents and outcomes of resume fraud and to advise recruiters on how to minimize it. We develop a measure focusing on intentional resume misrepresentations designed to deceive recruiters. This is one of the first studies to examine the antecedents and outcomes of resume fraud.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Although recommended by factor analysis experts (e.g., MacCallum et al., 1999; Velicer & Fava, 1998), we note that our strict item inclusion criteria might have led to some construct deficiency in exchange for desired internal consistency and parsimony. As a result, we reexamined the items from study 2 using less stringent standards (.50 for communalities and .70 for factor loadings) and found that the revised standards added 9 items (3 fabrication and 6 embellishment) to our original 11 (see Appendix for the additional items). Thus, we retained the full set of study 2 items in study 3 to test both models.
We combined the fabrication and embellishment items into a general measure of resume fraud in this study because our model did not predict any differential effects across these two dimensions.
As indicated in footnote 1, we also included the nine items retained when using less stringent item inclusion criteria for comparison purposes to the original version.
The fit indices for the longer version from study 2 approached acceptable levels (χ2 = 360.02 (167), χ2/df = 2.16, CFI = .94, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .08) but were inferior to indices for the original version (χ2 = 79.18 (41), χ2/df = 1.93, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .07). Given these results, we believe the original version is superior, but recognize the longer version may still be a viable option. We retested our hypotheses and all the conclusions remained the same using the longer version. We continue with the original version because of its superior fit to the data, but in the Appendix, we italicize the additional items so that researchers can use whichever version best suits their needs.
Although not shown in Table 6, further analyses indicated that IFB did not explain significant incremental variance in any work behavior beyond resume fraud. Furthermore, all resume fraud dimensions that were significant remained significant when controlling for individual differences including SDR, Machiavellianism, moral identity, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness. These results are available from the first author on request.
Study 3: measured cause model: χ2 = 757.33 (491), χ2/df = 1.54, CFI = .91, TLI = .89, RMSEA = .06 and original model: χ2 = 357.64 (174), χ2/df = 2.06, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .08; χ2difference = 919.84, dfdifference = 437, p < .001. Study 4: measured cause model: χ2 = 2157.39 (856), χ2/df = 2.52, CFI = .86, TLI = .84, RMSEA = .08 and original model: χ2 = 1237.55 (419), χ2/df = 2.95, CFI = .90, TLI = .89, RMSEA = .09; χ2difference = 399.69, dfdifference = 317, p < .01.
References
Abrams, R. (2014). Walmart vice president forced out for lying about degree. New York Times, 163, p. B3.
Alge, B. J., Anthony, E. L., Rees, J., & Kannan, K. (2010). Controlling A, while hoping for B: Deviance deterrence and public versus private deviance. In L. L. Neider & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), The ‘dark’ side of management (pp. 115–141). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Amare, N., & Manning, A. (2009). Writing for the robot: How employer search tools have influenced résumé rhetoric and ethics. Business Communication Quarterly, 72, 35–60.
Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1991). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Anonymous. (2012). Resume fraud still major problem HR needs to address. HR Focus, 89, 13–15.
Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440.
Babcock, P. (2003). Spotting lies. HR Magazine, 48(10), 46–52.
Bachler, C. J. (1995). Resume fraud: Lies, omissions and exaggerations. The Personnel Journal, 74, 50–60.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). The development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360.
Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 613–636.
Berry, C. M., Sackett, P. R., & Wiemann, S. (2007). A review of recent developments in integrity test research. Personnel Psychology, 60, 271–301.
Bible, J. D. (2012). Lies and damned lies: Some legal implications of resume fraud and advice for preventing it. Employee Relations Law Journal, 38, 22–47.
Bishop, J. D. (2006). Moral intuitions versus game theory: A response to Marcoux on resume embellishing. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 181–189.
Broussard, R. D., & Brannen, D. E. (1986). Credential distortions: Personnel practitioners give their views. Personnel Administrator, 31, 129–146.
Brown, B. S., & McInerney, M. (2008). Changes in academic dishonesty among business students in the United States, 1999–2006. International Journal of Management, 25, 621–632.
Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture. Orlando: Harcourt, Inc..
Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Carpenter, N. C., Berry, C. M., & Houston, L. (2014). A meta-analytic comparison of self-reported and other-reported organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 547–574.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic.
Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2003). A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 147–168.
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334.
DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 70, 979–995.
Dineen, B. R., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lee, K. (2017). Green by comparison: Deviant and normative transmutations of job search envy in a temporal context. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 295–320.
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203.
Elkman, P. (2009). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Fan, J., Gao, D., Carroll, S. A., Lopez, F. J., Tian, T., & Meng, H. (2012). Testing the efficacy of a new procedure for reducing faking on personality tests within selection contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 866–880.
Girden, E. R. (1991). ANOVA: Repeated measures. Newbury Park: Sage.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Guillory, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2012). The effect of Linkedin on deception in resumes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 135–140.
Guion, R. M. (1997). Content validity. In L. H. Peters, C. R. Greer, & S. A. Youngblood (Eds.), The Blackwell encyclopedia dictionary of human resource management (pp. 58–59). Cambridge: Blackwell.
Henle, C. A., Dineen, B. R., & Duffy, M. K. (2014). Deception by job applicants: Development of a resume fraud measure. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial & Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HA.
Henle, C. A., & Gross, M. A. (2013). Born to be deviant? An examination of the relationship between workplace deviance and employee personality. In S. M. Elias (Ed.), Deviant and criminal behavior in the workplace (pp. 50–76). New York: New York University Press.
Hilbert, G. A. (1985). Involvement of nursing students in unethical classroom and clinical behaviors. Journal of Professional Nursing, 1, 230–234.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.
Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (1999). An analysis of variance approach to content validation. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 175–186.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient be? Retrieved from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/HowLargeCanaStandardizedCoefficientbe.pdf.
Kim, B. H. (2011). Deception and applicant faking: Putting the pieces together. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 239–292). Chichester: Wiley.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1–31.
Kluemper, D. H., McLarty, B. D., & Bing, M. N. (2015). Acquaintance ratings of the Big Five personality traits: Incremental validity beyond and interactive effect with self-reports in the prediction of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 237–248.
Lennon, R. T. (1956). Assumptions underlying the use of content validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 16, 294–304.
Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2007). Measuring faking in the employment interview: Development and validation of an interview faking behavior scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1638–1656.
Levashina, J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2012). Tell me some more: Exploring how verbal ability and item verifiability influence responses to biodata questions in a high-stakes selection context. Personnel Psychology, 65, 359–383.
Lewicki, R. J. (1983). Lying and deception: A behavioral model. In M. H. Bazerman & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 68–90). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Lucas, G. M., & Friedrich, J. (2005). Individual differences in workplace deviance and integrity as predictors of academic dishonesty. Ethics & Behavior, 15, 15–35.
Lussier, R. N., & Hendon, J. R. (2016). Human resource management (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84–99.
Macur, J. (2014). Preaching accountability, but harboring a lie. New York Times, 163, p. 2.
McGarvey, R. (1993). Resume fraud. Training, 30, 10–14.
Meng, X., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172–175.
Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65, 1–48.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Boyle Jr., E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 557–579.
O’Connell, M. S., Kung, M., & Tristan, E. (2011). Beyond impression management: Evaluating three measures of response distortion and their relationship to job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 340–351.
Oh, I., Charlier, S. D., Mount, M. K., & Berry, C. M. (2014). The two faces of high self-monitors: Chameleonic moderating effects of self-monitoring on the relationships between personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 92–111.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects of social desirability and faking on personality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance, 11, 245–269.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.
Peterson, M. H., Griffith, R. L., Isaacson, J. A., O’Connell, M. S., & Mangos, P. M. (2011). Applicant faking, social desirability, and the prediction of counterproductive work behaviors. Human Performance, 24, 270–290.
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119–125.
Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 634–644.
Sackett, P. R., & Wanek, J. E. (1996). New developments in the use of measures of honesty, integrity, conscientiousness, dependability, trustworthiness, and reliability for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 49, 787–829.
Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19, 385–417.
Simmering, M. J., Fuller, C. M., Richardson, H. A., Ocal, Y., & Atinc, G. M. (2015). Marker variable choice, reporting, and interpretation in the detection of common method variance: A review and demonstration. Organizational Research Methods, 18, 473–511.
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.
Tepper, B. J., & Henle, C. A. (2011). A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 487–498.
Todd, D. M. (2012).Workzone: Inquiries on rise amid resume fraud. Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.post-gazette.com/business/dateline/2012/08/12/Workzone-Inquiries-on-rise-amid-resume-fraud/stories/201208120234.
Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2003). The impact of self-esteem, Machiavellianism, and social capital on attorneys’ traditional gender outlook. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 323–335.
Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In R. D. Goffin & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 41–71). Norwell: Kluwer Academic.
Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3, 231–251.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.
Williams, L. J., & McGonagle, A. K. (2016). Four research designs and a comprehensive analysis strategy for investigating common method variance with self-report measures using latent variables. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31, 339–359.
Wood, J., Schmidtke, J., & Decker, D. (2007). Lying on job applications: The effects of job relevance, commission, and human resource management experience. Journal of Business & Psychology, 22, 1–9.
Yao, G., Wu, C., & Yang, C. (2008). Examining the content validity of the WHOQOL-BREF from respondents’ perspective by quantitative methods. Social Indicators Research, 85, 483–498.
Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception. Academy of Management Review, 12, 250–264.
Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Factors influencing five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432–442.
Acknowledgements
We thank Dan Ganster and Ray Hogler for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper, Jacquelyn Thompson for her editorial assistance, and Victoria Mattingly for her help with data collection.
Funding
A grant from the SHRM Foundation provided funding for this project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Resume Fraud Items
Recent reports have documented the prevalence of inaccurate information on resumes. For example, job seekers might list a college degree they never earned, leave off a job from which they were fired, exaggerate the importance of their job duties, or make up dates of employment to hide gaps. Keeping in mind that all of your responses are anonymous, in your most recent or current job search, to what degree did you intentionally do the following to increase your chances of receiving an interview? Please respond using the below response scale. Although some questions may seem repetitive, please answer as best as you can.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Not at all | To hardly any extent | To a little extent | To a moderate extent | To a considerable extent | To a very great extent | Completely |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Henle, C.A., Dineen, B.R. & Duffy, M.K. Assessing Intentional Resume Deception: Development and Nomological Network of a Resume Fraud Measure. J Bus Psychol 34, 87–106 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9527-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9527-4