Abstract
Zusammenfassung. Die - vielfach belegte - Tatsache, dass Testpersonen in der Lage sind, ihre Ergebnisse in nicht leistungsbezogenen Testverfahren in Richtung sozialer Erwünschtheit zu erhöhen, wenn sie entsprechend instruiert werden, wird häufig als Begründung für die Empfehlung angeführt, auf den Einsatz von Persönlichkeitstests in der Personalauswahl generell zu verzichten. In dem Beitrag wird aufgezeigt, dass (a) dieser Schluss logisch falsch ist, (b) die empirische Befundlage nicht für eine Beeinträchtigung der Validität von Persönlichkeitstests durch “soziale Erwünschtheit“ spricht, (c) bei der Interpretation der Folgen von “faking“ oder “impression management“ eine sehr viel differenziertere Betrachtung der Implikationen theoretischer Überlegungen und empirischer Befunde notwendig ist sowie (d) die besonderen Anregungsbedingungen einer Bewerbungssituation sogar genutzt werden können, um die kriterienbezogene Validität von Persönlichkeitstests zu verbessern. Eine alternative Sichtweise der Selbstdarstellung in Persönlichkeitstests in Auswahlsituationen wird vorgestellt und es wird diskutiert, welche möglichen Folgen sich aus den Komponenten der Fähigkeit und Motivation zur Selbstdarstellung ergeben, die zusammen die Ergebnisse in Persönlichkeitstests determinieren.
Abstract. There is unequivocal evidence that test-takers are able to deliberately alter their scores on non-cognitive measures if instructed to do so. Based on this result, many scholars of personality have recommended to refrain from using personality tests for personnel selection. In the present paper, potential arguments in favor of this position are critically examined. It is concluded that (1) these arguments are logically erroneous, (2) empirical evidence showing a negative impact of “social desirability” on criterion-related validity of personality testing for personnel selection is virtually non-existent, (3) the consequences of “faking” or “impression management” for personnel selection are much too complex to justify labelling them as “response bias”, and (4) the validity of personality tests may even benefit from the motivational conditions of a selection situation. An alternative conception of self-presentation in assessment for personnel selection is presented and the implications of distinct determinants of individual personality test scores (ability to identify social expectations, motivation to adapt to these expectations) for validity are discussed.
Literatur
Alliger, G. M. , Dwight, S. A. (2000). A meta-analytic investigation of the susceptibility of integrity tests to faking and coaching. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60 , 59– 72Amelang, M. , Bartussek, D. (2001). Differentielle Psychologie und Persönlichkeitsforschung (5. aktual. und erw. Aufl.) . Stuttgart: KohlhammerBarrett, P. , Hutton, R. (2000, January). The distortion of meaning and measurement in applicant sample personality questionnaire responses. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society’s 2000 Occupational Psychology Conference. Presentation available per download from: www.liv.ac.uk/~pbarrett/paulhome.htmBarrick, M. R. , Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 , 261– 272Barrick, M. R. , Mount, M. K. , Judge, T.A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9 , 9– 30Bliesener, T. (1995). Methodological moderators in validating biographical data in personnel selection. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69 , 107– 120Borkenau, P. , Ostendorf, F. (1989). Descriptive consistency and social desirability in self- and peer reports. European Journal of Personality, 3 , 31– 45Brown, R. , Barrett, P. (1999). Differences between applicant and non-applicant personality questionnaire data: Some implications for the creation and use of norm tables . Paper presented at the British Psychological Society’s 1999 Test User Conference. Presentation available per download from: www.liv.ac.uk/~pbarrett/paulhome.htmCellar, D. F. , Miller, M. L. , Doverspike, D. D. , Klawsky, J. D. (1996). Comparison of factor structures and criterion-related validity coefficients for two measures of personality based on the five factor model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 , 694– 704Collins, J. M. , Gleaves, D. H. (1998). Race, job applicants, and the Five-Factor Model of Personality: Implications for Black psychology, industrial/organizational psychology, and the Five-Factor Theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 , 531– 544Cunningham, M. R. , Wong, D. T. , Barbee, A. P. (1994). Self-presentation dynamics on overt integrity tests: Experimental studies of the Reid Report. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 , 643– 6582002). DIN 33430. Anforderungen an Verfahren und deren Einsatz bei berufsbezogenen Eignungsbeurteilungen . Berlin: Beuth
(Ellingson, J. E. , Sackett, P. R. , Hough, L. M. (1999). Social desirability corrections in personality measurement: Issues of applicant comparison and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 , 155– 166Ellingson, J. E. , Smith, D. B. , Sackett, P. R. (2001). Investigating the influence of social desirability on personality factor structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 , 122– 133Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life . New York: DoubledayHeilmann, K. (1999). Das Bochumer Inventar zur berufsbezogenen Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung (BIP). In E. Fay (Hrsg.), Tests unter der Lupe II (S. 19-38). Lengerich: PabstHoffmann, K. , Kubinger, K. D. (2001). Herkömmliche Persönlichkeitsfragebogen und objektive Persönlichkeitstests im “Wettstreit“ um (Un-)Verfälschbarkeit. Report Psychologie, 26 , 298– 304Hogan, R. (1998). Reinventing personality. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17 , 1– 10Hossiep, R. , Paschen, M. (1998). Bochumer Inventar zur berufsbezogenen Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung (BIP) . Göttingen: HogrefeHossiep, R. , Paschen, M. , Mühlhaus, O. (2000). Persönlichkeitstests im Personalmanagement . Göttingen: Verlag für Angewandte PsychologieHough, L. M. (1998). Effects of intentional distortion in personality measurement and evaluation of suggested palliatives. Human Performance, 11 , 209– 244Hough, L. M. , Eaton, N. K. , Dunnette, M. D. , Kamp, J. D. , McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 , 581– 595Hough, L. M. , Paullin, C. (1994). Construct-oriented scale construction: The rational approach. In G. S. Stokes, M. D. Mumford & W. A. Owens (Eds.), Biodata handbook: Theory, research, and use of biographical information in selection and performance prediction (pp. 109-145). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists PressKanning, U. P. , Holling, H. (2001). Struktur, Reliabilität und Validität des NEO-FFI in einer Personalauswahlsituation. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 22 , 239– 247Kleinmann, M. (1993). Are rating dimensions in assessment centers transparent for participants? Consequences for criterion and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 , 988– 993Kubinger, K. D. (2002). On faking personality inventories. Psychologische Beiträge, 44 , 10– 16Kubinger, K. D. , Karner, T. , Menghin, S. (1999). Multiple moderator effects on a testee’s answers to personality questionnaire items. Review of Psychology, 6 , 25– 31Laux, L. , Weber, H. (1993). Emotionsbewältigung und Selbstdarstellung . Stuttgart: KohlhammerMarcus, B. (2000). Kontraproduktives Verhalten im Betrieb. Eine individuumsbezogene Perspektive . Göttingen: Verlag für Angewandte PsychologieMarcus, B. (2003). When social desirability is really desirable: A new procedure for scoring personality tests and its implications for personnel selection. Manuscript in preparation for publication . Chemnitz: Chemnitz University of TechnologyMcDaniel, M. A. , Whetzel, D. L. , Schmidt, F. L. , Maurer, S. D. (1994). The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 , 599– 616McFarland, L. A. , Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 , 812– 821Moorman, R. H. , Podsakoff, P. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behaviour research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65 , 131– 149Mount, M. K. , Barrick, M. R. (1995). The big five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resource management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13 , 153– 200Mummendey, H. D. (1995). Psychologie der Selbstdarstellung (2. Aufl.) . Göttingen: HogrefeOnes, D. S. , Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects of social desirability and faking on personality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance, 11 , 245– 269Ones, D. S. , Viswesvaran, C. , Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 , 660– 679Ones, D. S. , Viswesvaran, C. , Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 , 679– 703Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 , 598– 609Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. Shaver & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (Vol. 1, pp. 17-60). New York: SpringerRichter, G. , Kleinmann, M. (2002, September). Personenmerkmale und Konstruktvalidität im Multimodalen Interview . Vortrag auf dem 43. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, BerlinRosse, 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– 644Schmidt, F. L. , Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of personnel selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124 , 262– 274Schmit, M. , Ryan, A. (1993). The big five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and non-applicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 , 966– 974Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40 , 437– 453Seisdedos, N. (1993). Personnel selection, questionnaires, and motivational distortion : An intelligent attitude of adaptation. In H. Schuler, J. L. Farr & M. Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 91-108). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumTsaousis, I. , Nikolaou, I. E. (2001). The stability of the five-factor model of personality in personnel selection and assessment in Greece. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9 , 290– 301Viswesvaran, C. , Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59 , 197– 210Viswesvaran, C. , Ones, D. S. , Hough, L. M. (2001). Do impression management scales in personality assessment predict managerial job performance ratings?. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9 , 277– 289Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, orientation, and socialization . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley