Please wait a minute...
心理学报
  论文 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
应聘者在人格测验中作假的反应过程:基于工作赞许性的眼动证据
徐建平1;陈基越1,2;张伟1;李文雅1;盛毓1
(1北京师范大学心理学院, 应用实验心理北京市重点实验室, 北京 100875)
(2中国建筑股份有限公司基础设施事业部, 北京 100044)
Faking in Job Applicants' Responses in Personality Tests: #br# Evidence from A Eye-Tracking Study of Job Desirability
XU Jianping1; CHEN Jiyue1,2; ZHANG Wei1; LI Wenya1; SHENG Yu1
(1 School of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing Key Lab for Applied Experimental Psychology, Beijing 100875, China)
(2 Department of infrastructure business, China State Construction Engrg. Corp. LTD, Beijing 100044, China)
全文: PDF(420 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 

应聘者在人格测验中的作假是人事选拔领域关注的重点问题。研究试图通过眼动追踪技术探讨应聘者在人格测验中作假的反应过程。首先让50名被试对44道大五人格量表(BFI-44)题目进行工作赞许性评定。然后采用被试内模拟实验设计, 在诚实和作假两种情境下由另外50名被试在计算机上作答BFI-44, 使用Tobbi 120眼动仪记录被试作答人格测验时对每道题目的作答反应、反应潜伏期和眼动指标。结果显示, 在作假情境下, 应聘者在5个人格维度上都会作假。在作答受工作赞许题目或不受工作赞许的题目时, 作假反应潜伏期更短, 眼动注视点更少, 更多集中在极端选项上; 在作答无工作赞许性的题目时, 作假反应潜伏期更长, 更多集中在中间选项上。据此结果, 提出了一个基于工作赞许性的“混合加工模型”构想, 解释应聘情境中人格测验作假反应过程。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
徐建平
陈基越
张伟
李文雅
盛毓
关键词 作假人格测验人事选拔眼动    
Abstract

 

One of the important concerns in personnel selection process has been job applicants’ faking behaviors in Personality tests (or measurement or evaluation). Although many studies have been done on faking behaviors in personality tests, no consensus has yet reached regarding the response processes of faking behaviors in personality tests. At present, researchers have proposed three mutually incompatible social–desirability–based response process models of faking in personality tests: the Self–Schema Model, the Sematic–Exercise Model and the Adopted–Schema Model. In the Adopted–Schema Model, test items are classified as social desirable and social undesirable, but items unrelated to social desirability are neglected. Besides, more and more researchers are inclined to consider faking in personnel selection as a job desirable behavior instead of a social desirable one. Therefore, this study tried to explore job applicants’ faking response in personality tests from the perspective of job desirability with the help of eye–tracking techniques.
First, fifty participants rated the job desirability of 44 items in Big Five Inventory (BFI-44). Based on the rating scores, BFI-44 items were classified into three categories: job desirable items, job undesirable items and items unrelated to job desirability. Second, in a within–subject simulation experiment design, another fifty participants completed the BFI-44 in two conditions – honest vs. faking in an eye–tracking laboratory. To eliminate order effect, these 50 participants were randomly assigned to the two groups. The first group went through the honest condition and then the faking condition. The second group followed the reversed order. The participants were instructed to complete six items from Mensa IQ test as a filler task between the two sessions. Item responses, response latencies, and eye movement index were recorded using Tobii 120.
The results showed that test scores on all of the five dimensions of the Big Five Inventory under the faking condition were significantly higher than the scores under the honest condition.The response latencies on items in the categories of job desirable and job undesirable were significantly shorter in the faking condition than the response latencies in both categories in the honest condition. The number of eye fixations was significantly lower on the question stems than on the extreme options of the categories of items on job desirable and job undesirable in the faking condition, when compared with the honest condition. In the category of items unrelated to job desirability, the number of eye fixations was significantly more in the faking condition than in the honest condition. The same pattern of eye fixations was found on the options in the middle. In the faking condition, the participants’ eyes fixed on extreme options (i.e., strongly disagree and strongly agree) more directly after reading the questions.
These findings support the idea that faking leads to semantic–exercise interpretations on job desirable and job undesirable items, as well as self–schema interpretations on items unrelated to job desirability. The response process in the faking condition seemed to be simpler than the response process in the honest condition, when answering the items in the categories of job desirability and job undesirability. Based on the findings, the job–desirability–based Mixed–Exercise Model has been proposed, in an attempt to explain faking response in personality tests.
Key wordsfaking    personality test    personnel selection    eye movement
收稿日期: 2014-12-23      出版日期: 2015-11-25
通讯作者: 徐建平, E-mail: xujp@bnu.edu.cn   
引用本文:   
徐建平;陈基越;张伟;李文雅;盛毓. 应聘者在人格测验中作假的反应过程:基于工作赞许性的眼动证据[J]. 心理学报, 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.01395.
XU Jianping; CHEN Jiyue; ZHANG Wei; LI Wenya; SHENG Yu. Faking in Job Applicants' Responses in Personality Tests: #br# Evidence from A Eye-Tracking Study of Job Desirability. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(11): 1395-1404.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.01395      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2015/V47/I11/1395
[1] 白学军;高晓雷;高蕾;王永胜. 藏语阅读知觉广度的眼动研究[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(5): 569-576.
[2] 梁菲菲;王永胜;杨文;白学军. 阅读水平调节儿童阅读眼动注视模式的发展:基于9~11岁儿童的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(4): 450-459.
[3] 孙俊才; 石荣. 哭泣表情面孔的注意偏向:眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(2): 155-163.
[4] 刘志方;张智君;杨桂芳. 中文阅读中的字词激活模式:来自提示词边界延时效应的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(9): 1082-1092.
[5] 苏衡;刘志方;曹立人. 中文阅读预视加工中的词频和预测性效应及其对词切分的启示:基于眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(6): 625-636.
[6] 王福兴;侯秀娟;段朝辉;刘华山;李卉. 中国象棋经验棋手与新手的知觉差异:来自眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(5): 457-471.
[7] 王福兴;李文静;颜志强;段朝辉;李卉. 幼儿对威胁性刺激蛇的注意觉察:来自眼动证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(6): 774-786.
[8] 闫国利;刘妮娜;梁菲菲;刘志方;白学军. 中文读者词汇视觉信息获取速度的发展 ——来自消失文本的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(3): 300-318.
[9] 王福兴;段朝辉;周宗奎;陈珺. 邻近效应对多媒体学习中图文整合的影响:线索的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(2): 224-233.
[10] 陈双;陈黎静;杨晓虹;杨玉芳. 语篇背景在语义整合中的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(2): 167-175.
[11] 陈洁彬;鲁忠义. 路径转弯对语篇空间情境模型建构的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(2): 176-189.
[12] 白学军;王永胜;郭志英;高晓雷;闫国利. 汉语阅读中词N+2的预视对高频词N+1 加工影响的眼动研究[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(2): 143-156.
[13] 寇慧;苏艳华;罗小春;陈红. 相貌负面身体自我女性对相貌词的注意偏向眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(10): 1213-1222.
[14] 汪海彬;卢家楣;姚本先;桑青松;陈宁;唐晓晨. 职前教师情绪复杂性对情绪面孔加工的影响 ——来自行为、ERP和眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(1): 50-65.
[15] 迟慧;闫国利;许晓露;夏萤;崔磊;白学军. 声旁语音信息对形声字加工的影响——来自眼动研究的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(9): 1242-1260.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn