Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 1. The Interactive Effect of Impression Motivation and Cognitive Schema

Transcription

1 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 1 The Interactive Effect of Impression Motivation and Cognitive Schema on Self-Presentation in a Personality Inventory Anne Jansen, Cornelius J. König, Martin Kleinmann, and Klaus G. Melchers University of Zurich, Switzerland In press in Journal of Applied Social Psychology Author Note Anne Jansen, Cornelius J. König, Martin Kleinmann, and Klaus G. Melchers, Department of Psychology, University of Zurich. We thank Eveline H. Stadelmann and Yvonne Brutschy for their help with the data collection. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Anne Jansen, Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Binzmühlestrasse 14/12, CH-8050 Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic mail may be sent to a.jansen@psychologie.uzh.ch.

2 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 2 Abstract Applicants usually try to put their best foot forward during personnel selection. Although past research revealed meaningful individual differences in applicants self-presentation in personality tests (often called faking ), it only concentrated on main effects and ignored the interaction of interindividual and intraindividual differences. Based on impression management theory, we hypothesized that interindividual differences in applicants impression motivation interact with intraindividual differences in the perceived relevance of personality facets (applicants cognitive schema). Results of hierarchical linear modeling analyses showed that both impression motivation and cognitive schema significantly affected self-presentation. Furthermore, for participants with high levels of impression motivation, cognitive schema showed a stronger impact on self-presentation than for those with low levels of impression motivation. Keywords: self-presentation, personnel selection, faking

3 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 3 The Interactive Effect of Impression Motivation and Cognitive Schema on Self-Presentation in a Personality Inventory The fairly wide-spread use of personality measures for personnel selection (König, Klehe, Berchtold, & Kleinmann, 2010; Ryan, McFarland, Baron, & Page, 1999; Schuler, Hell, Trapmann, Schaar, & Boramir, 2007) parallels the increasing amount of studies dealing with potential effects of applicants faking behavior in personality tests (e.g., Berry & Sackett, 2009; Converse et al., 2008; Converse, Peterson, & Griffith, 2009; Ellingson, Sackett, & Connelly, 2007; Hogan, Barrett, & Hogan, 2007; Mueller-Hanson, Heggestad, & Thornton 2003; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998; Robson, Jones, & Abraham, 2008; Winkelspecht, Lewis, & Thomas, 2006). Usually, faking refers to the finding that people s personality test scores differ significantly when they are assessed under the instruction to answer the test honestly compared to the instruction to fake good or to behave like they are applying for a job (Furnham, 1990, 1997; Holden, 2008; Hooper & Sackett, 2008; Mahar et al., 2006; Martin, Bowen, & Hunt, 2002; McFarland & Ryan, 2000; but also see e.g., Paulhus, 1984). Based on the results of these studies, it is a common conclusion that at least some people distort their personality scores when personality tests are administered in employment selection settings. Thus, it is not surprising that researchers and practitioners fear that the quality of selection decisions suffers from faking (e.g., Bott, O'Connell, Ramakrishnan, & Doverspike, 2007; Christiansen, Rozek, & Burns, 2010; Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005; Peterson, Griffith, & Converse, 2009; Rosse, Stecher, Miller, & Levin, 1998; Tett & Christiansen, 2007). However, others cast doubt on the negative impact of faking, arguing that there is a fair amount of evidence supporting the use of self-report personality scales in personnel selection (e.g., Goffin & Boyd, 2009; Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Judge, 2007). Some researchers even view tailored self-presentation in a personality questionnaire as socialized behavior (Hogan et al., 2007) or suggest that it may even contribute positively to job performance (Marcus, 2009; Murphy in Morgeson et al., 2007b).

4 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 4 Research on the impact of faking on personality test scores has revealed meaningful individual differences in faking behavior (e.g., McFarland & Ryan, 2000; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999). In particular, there exist evidence for interpersonal differences as some individuals change their personality test scores more than others (e.g., LaHuis & Copeland, 2009; McFarland & Ryan, 2000; Raymark & Tafero, 2009), and people may differ in their ability to change scores (Goffin & Boyd, 2009; Grieve & Mahar, 2009; Griffith & McDaniel, 2006; McFarland & Ryan, 2000; Winkelspecht et al., 2006). Other studies provided evidence for intraindividual effects on faking: Individuals do not change their answers to all personality dimensions to the same amount (Furnham, 1990; Krahé, Becker, & Zollter, 2008; Mahar et al., 2006; Mahar, Cologon, & Duck, 1995; Martin et al., 2002; Raymark & Tafero, 2009). To clarify the impact of faking on construct and criterion-related validity, we believe that it is important to continue to examine individual differences in the faking process. Previous studies predominantly examined main effects and focused either on interindividual or on intraindividual effects. The present study goes beyond that as it examines the interaction of impression motivation and applicants cognitive schema about how to answer a personality test on faking. The study contributes to the literature on faking in several ways. First, we use a theory to explain people s faking behavior. More precisely, we followed the advice of Hogan et al. (2007) to use impression management theory for explaining what people do when they respond to personality test items. Second, we examine intraindividual effects on faking and consider personality facets rather than Big Five factors. Previous studies failed to capture the intraindividual differences in faking behavior as they often investigated individuals general tendency to fake good and examined faking only on the factor level which may obscure meaningful patterns of faking effects (cf. Raymark & Tafero, 2009). Third, the interaction between intraindividual differences in faking and interindividual motivation differences has not been studied despite sound theoretical arguments for such an interaction.

5 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 5 Impression Management Theory Impression management theory predicts that in any form of social interaction, people attempt to control the impression others form of them (Goffman, 1959; Schlenker, 2003; Schneider, 1969). Responding to items of a personality inventory can also be considered as social interaction (with the potential employer), and therefore people try to create an appropriate (usually favorable) impression of themselves. Depending on the situational demands in the social interaction, people can convey several different impressions, all of which can be true (Leary, 1995). Usually, people scan the social environment for information regarding how others view them and attend selectively to information that is relevant to making the right impression (Leary & Kowalski, 1990, p. 36). For example, research showed that people create an impression that is consistent (or at least not inconsistent) with the role demands of a particular situation (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Leary, Robertson, Barnes, & Miller, 1986). In a selection setting, people are expected to behave according to the role of an applicant for a certain position. Thus, they will try to fulfill the role expectations (i.e., being the ideal candidate) in a job interview as well as in a personality inventory. Furthermore, people adapt their self-presentation to the perceived values and preferences of significant others (e.g., Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker, 2003). In an employment selection situation, human resource professionals serve as such significant others for job applicants. Therefore, applicants may try to create impressions that are consistent with the perceived preferences of their potential employers and the company s values. For example, if an applicant knows that a cooperative team climate is highly valued by a company, he or she will probably attempt to appear as a cooperative team player in a selection situation. There is also evidence that people try to act in line with the perceived situational demands when answering a personality test. Research has shown that people adapt their responses to personality items to situational requirements (Birkeland, Manson, Kisamore, Brannick, & Smith, 2006; Furnham, 1990, 1997; Holden & Book, 2009; Kroger & Turnbull,

6 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION ; Martin et al., 2002). For example, Kroger and Turnbull (1970) found that participants answered a personality inventory according to the perceived role demands (military vs. artistic). Results from a study by Furnham (1990) revealed that job candidates provided quite specific profiles in line with their perception of the occupation they were told to apply for. In the following, we will first describe the main effects of the two individual difference variables (i.e., cognitive schema and impression motivation) before considering the interaction of both variables. Intraindividual Differences in the Perceived Relevance of Personality Facets The cognitive process specifying how people tailor their self-presentation according to the situational demands has received only modest attention so far. According to a theoretical model of test item responding (Holden, Kroner, Fekken, & Popham, 1992; see also Fekken & Holden, 1992), people compare the trait reflected in the items to a cognitive schema that defines the impression the respondent wishes to create when answering a personality test. This cognitive schema usually defines the traits of an ideal job candidate (see Christiansen, Burns, & Montgomery, 2005; Holden et al., 1992; Vasilopoulos, Cucina, Dyomina, Morewitz, & Reilly, 2006). Intraindividual differences in the perceived relevance of personality facets represented in the cognitive schema may stem from job stereotypes, associated with individuals beliefs about the behavior involved in performing a job successfully and the trait-based requirements (Christiansen et al., 2005, p. 290; see also Furnham, 1990; Goffin & Boyd, 2009; Mahar et al., 2006). Others found that job knowledge influences the response process (McFarland & Ryan, 2006; Miller & Barrett, 2008; Raymark & Tafero, 2009; Vasilopoulos, Reilly, & Leaman, 2000). In line with this, we assume that situational demands activate a specific cognitive schema about how to answer a personality test regarding which personality facets are more or less relevant in a certain situation. Most job advertisements list job requirements that define the situational demands and suggest what is relevant in a selection situation (see Christiansen

7 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 7 et al., 2005; Levashina & Campion, 2006). Depending on these job requirements, individuals may intraindividually perceive certain personality facets to be more or less relevant for making a good impression. Job requirements will activate a specific cognitive schema of the situational demands in the selection situation. According to the perceived relevance of the personality facets, job candidates will decide on their self-presentation in a personality inventory (cf. Goffin & Boyd, 2009). Based on the preceding discussion, we therefore make the following predictions: Hypothesis 1: Personality facets related to job requirements are perceived as more relevant than personality facets that are not related to job requirements. Hypothesis 2: The perceived relevance of different personality facets is related to individuals self-presentation on these personality facets. Interindividual Differences in Individuals Impression Motivation Impression motivation (Leary & Kowalski, 1990) represents the degree to which people are motivated to control how others see them. People are motivated to control how others perceive them when they have a goal that they value highly (e.g., to receive a job offer) and when their self-presentation will help them to attain that goal (Leary, 1995; Schlenker, 2003). In an employment selection situation, impressions are usually of high relevance for job candidates, because getting a job offer depends a great deal on the impression that they convey (i.e., their personality profile). Thus, impression motivation should be higher in an employment selection situation compared to a situation in which impressions are less goalrelevant. More importantly, it is likely that there are interindividual differences in the value of the desired goal (i.e., the job offer). Variables such as a person s job alternatives or the job s attractiveness for the person may influence impression motivation (e.g., Goffin & Boyd, 2009; McFarland & Ryan, 2000).

8 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 8 Many researchers assume that some job candidates are motivated to adjust their answers in order to maximize their chances of being hired (e.g., Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Rosse et al., 1998). However, most of the studies dealing with self-presentation in personality inventories assume that applicants motivation to present themselves positively is higher in a selection situation compared to a situation where there is nothing to gain or to loose, without taking into account that motivation might vary interindividually. Accordingly, they do not measure individual differences in motivation explicitly (e.g., Ellingson et al., 2007; Furnham, 1997; Lodhi & Thomas, 1991; Mahar et al., 1995; Martin et al., 2002; McFarland & Ryan, 2000). To our knowledge, there are only two studies that used a direct measure of (selfreported) motivation (cf. McFarland & Ryan, 2006; Mueller-Hanson, Heggestad, & Thornton, 2006). In both of these studies, motivation was measured with items such as I intended to lie on the test to increase my test score (McFarland & Ryan, 2006, p. 993). Hence, both concepts of motivation are linked to deception and deliberate lying. However, in accordance with impression management theory, impression motivation should be measured differently. Job candidates who show themselves at their best may correctly state that they did not intend to lie. Rather, they would agree that they were motivated to create a particularly favorable but nevertheless accurate impression. Thus, we attempted to measure (self-reported) impression motivation as an interindividual difference variable in a manner that is more consistent with impression management theory. We hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 3: Impression motivation is positively related to self-presentation on personality facets. Interaction between Motivation and Cognitive Schema To gain some insight into a job candidate s response process it is important to investigate interactive effects as an interaction might better represent what really happens in a candidates mind when filling in a personality questionnaire. As already pointed out, the

9 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 9 cognitive schema of applicants about how to fill in a personality test reflects intraindividual differences in the perceived relevance of personality facets. People s response behavior is influenced by cued perceptions of what is desirable, and thus they might tailor their selfpresentation on a personality item or personality facet if they perceive it to be relevant for a good evaluation. This should apply to an even greater extent when people s impression motivation is high (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker, 2003). If, however, people s impression motivation is low, they may not try to tailor their self-presentation on a certain personality facet even though they consider it to be relevant for a good evaluation. Thus, people will engage less in favorable impression management on a certain personality facet when either their impression motivation or the perceived relevance of the facet is low, but will more strongly engage in favorable self-presentation on a certain personality facet as both of these factors increase. To our knowledge, no previous study has yet examined the interactive effect of impression motivation and the cognitive schema on self-presentation. Based on the preceding discussion, the following hypothesis is made: Hypothesis 4: Impression motivation moderates the intraindividual relationship between the perceived relevance of personality facets and self-presentation on personality facets, meaning that for those who score high on impression motivation, self-presentation is more strongly influenced by the perceived relevance of facets than it is for those who score low on impression motivation. Figure 1 summarizes the assumptions of the present study: Received job requirements relates to applicants cognitive schema about the relevance of personality facets. The cognitive schema, in turn, relates to self-presentation on personality facets. Impression motivation directly relates to self-presentation as well as moderates the relationship between cognitive schema and self-presentation.

10 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 10 An experimental setting seemed to be the most appropriate way in which to test these hypothesized relationships, as a recent meta-analysis by Hooper and Sackett (2008) revealed that the estimated magnitude of self-presentation in laboratory and field studies is more similar than previously thought (see also Cunningham, Wong, & Barbee, 1994). Furthermore, in the laboratory, we were able to concentrate on one type of situational demands job requirements provided in the job advertisement. We used a between-subjects design to contrast the effects of different job requirements on self-presentation, together with a withinsubjects analysis to compare differences in self-presentation depending on the situation (i.e., an employment selection situation vs. a neutral situation). Finally, an experimental setting has the advantage that the situational demands can be controlled, compared to a real applicant setting in which there are many possible cues for situational demands that might not be equally available for every candidate (e.g., information received during a telephone call or from other employees). Method Participants and Design The participants of this study were 200 advanced undergraduate and graduate students from a large university who were currently applying for jobs or would be doing so in the near future. Of these, 125 (62.5%) were female, and the average age was years (SD = 3.98). About 43% of the students were majoring in humanities, 15% in economic sciences and 14% in law. All other participants were majoring in various subjects other than psychology. Study participation was voluntary and was rewarded afterwards with advice on job applications. All participants were presented with two conditions: a neutral and a selection condition, serving as within-subject factor. There were two selection conditions serving as a between-subject factor, with both groups receiving job advertisements with different sets of job requirements. Both groups received job requirements that corresponded to facets from one

11 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 11 dimension that was found in previous meta-analytic research to be changed to a greater extent and facets from another dimension that was found to be changed to a lesser extent (Birkeland et al., 2006; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999). The dimensions conscientiousness and emotional stability were selected because both dimensions usually show large effect sizes for response distortion (Birkeland et al., 2006; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999). Furthermore, the dimensions openness to experience and extraversion were selected because they usually show similar but lower effect sizes for response distortion (Birkeland et al., 2006; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999). Agreeableness was left out as it showed the lowest effect sizes for response distortion in previous research (Birkeland et al., 2006; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999). For each of the chosen dimensions, four subject matter experts (I/O psychology faculty members with both research and practical experience in selection and assessment) selected the two facets that seemed most relevant for a management trainee position. Consequently, one group received a job advertisement with job requirements for two facets of extraversion (assertiveness and activity) and emotional stability (poise and hardiness), while the other group received the same advertisement, but with job requirements for facets of openness to experience (openness to actions and openness to ideas) and conscientiousness (achievement striving and selfdiscipline). Apart from these job requirements, both groups received an identical job advertisement that included the same description of the job as a management trainee position at a company offering that job. Measures Personality. To assess the targeted personality facets, we used Ostendorf and Angleitner s (2004) German version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The personality questionnaire used in this study contained the items of the eight facets that served as job requirements for both groups: assertiveness and activity (extraversion), poise and hardiness (emotional stability), openness to actions and openness to ideas (openness to experience), and achievement striving and self-discipline

12 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 12 (conscientiousness). Both groups received the same questionnaire. Altogether, it consisted of 64 items, which were rated on a 5-point scale with response options ranging from 1 = disagree to 5 = agree. Impression motivation. Seven items were used to measure impression motivation: (a) It was important to me to present myself positively in this questionnaire ; (b) I was very motivated to present myself as optimally as possible in this questionnaire ; (c) My motivation was very low to present myself better than I am in this questionnaire (reversecoded); (d) By answering this questionnaire I tried to present myself at my best ; (e) My ambition to present myself at my best was very high ; (f) By answering the questionnaire I tried hard to present myself as well as possible ; (g) In the questionnaire I was only willing to present myself the way I really am (reverse-coded). Items were on a 7-point scale with response options ranging from 1 = disagree to 7 = agree. High scores indicated a higher impression motivation. As this was a new scale, we validated it in several ways. First, we administered the scale after both instructions (neutral and applicant instruction) to test whether participants obtained higher scores in the employment selection condition, as one would expect based on the theoretical considerations outlined above. Indeed, participants did report higher impression motivation in the selection condition (M = 4.99, SD = 1.48, α =.91) than in the neutral condition (M = 2.39, SD = 1.21, α =.89), t(199) = 21.84, p <.01, d = 1.92 (Cohens d for paired samples). The scale had an internal consistency (alpha) estimate of.92 in the selection condition and.90 in the neutral condition. Second, an additional single item measured whether participants felt motivated by the promise of a financial incentive for the top 10% of performers. Impression motivation was significantly correlated with this measure, r =.35, p <.01. In addition, we tested whether our scale correlated with the motivation scale of the Test Attitude Survey (TAS) by Arvey, Strickland, Drauden, and Martin (1990). Their motivation scale captures the exertion of effort and hard work, and the perceived

13 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 13 instrumentality or importance of the test scores, in contrast to our impression motivation scale, which aims to measure the degree to which individuals are motivated to control how others see them. Thus, we expected a medium correlation between the two measures. The correlation between the impression motivation scale and the motivation scale of the TAS was r =.46, p <.01, for a subsample of n = 41. Cognitive schema. To determine the cognitive schema activated by the job requirements, we measured the perceived relevance of the personality facets. Participants received the NEO-PI-R items used in the study with the following instruction: Please rate whether answering the item correctly is relevant or non-relevant for a good evaluation. For each of the 64 items, participants were asked to indicate whether they considered it to be 1 = relevant or 0 = less relevant. We calculated the perceived relevance for each personality facet by taking the mean of all the items corresponding to that facet. Manipulation Check First, two items were created in order to determine whether participants attended to the instructions. The questions asked participants to indicate whether they responded honestly in the neutral condition and as an applicant in the selection condition. About 97% and 87%, respectively, answered these manipulation check questions as expected. All later analyses were conducted twice, including and excluding the participants who did not pass the manipulation check, and the results were virtually identical. Thus, the reported results are based on all 200 participants. Second, at the end of the data collection procedure, participants were provided with a list of all job requirements used in the study and had to mark the job requirements named in the job advertisement they received. To check whether the job requirements provided in the job advertisement were perceived differently between the two groups, we calculated a 2 8 ANOVA with group as a between-subjects factor and job requirement as a within-subjects factor. Results showed a significant Group Job requirement interaction, F(7, 1368) =

14 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION , p <.001. Independent-samples t-tests for all personality facets revealed that participants who received the job requirements assertiveness, activity, poise, and hardiness marked these job requirements significantly more often than participants who received the other job requirements. Similarly, the group that received the job requirements openness to actions, openness to ideas, achievement striving, and self-discipline marked these job requirements significantly more often than the other group, all ts (198) > 8.59, all ps <.001. Procedure The instructor read all instructions aloud and asked the participants to answer the personality inventory honestly only for themselves (neutral instruction). Then, the instructor asked them to fill in an impression motivation scale. This was followed by a distractor task unrelated to this study, which took approximately 15 minutes. Next, participants received a job advertisement for a management trainee position similar to the positions that many large companies offer to university graduates. To be able to test whether the cognitive schema (i.e., the perceived relevance of the personality facets) is related to the job requirements (Hypothesis 1), we randomly assigned participants to two groups. The two groups received different but comparable sets of job requirements (described above). After reading the job advertisement, the participants were asked to fill in the personality questionnaire again. They were instructed to imagine that they had applied for this job and had been invited to the company to complete a personality inventory as part of the selection procedure. They were also told to act as they would in a real application situation. At no point were they instructed to fake the test (cf. McFarland & Ryan, 2006; Mueller-Hanson et al., 2006). Furthermore, we informed participants in both groups that those who scored in the top 10% would receive about $85 U.S., in order to mimic the aspect of an actual application situation, where those who score best reap the rewards (i.e., the job offer). Following this, participants were again asked to complete the impression motivation scale. Then, they rated the perceived relevance of all personality items used in the study. Finally, participants answered some demographic

15 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 15 questions and completed the manipulation check. The experimental procedure lasted for approximately two and a half hours. It should be added that the description of the procedure so far applies only to half of the participants, as we counterbalanced the order of instructions. Thus, the other half completed the measures first as if they were job applicants, and then according to the neutral instructions. Furthermore, a subsample (n = 41) filled out the motivation scale of the TAS after answering the impression motivation scale for validation purposes. Results As we were interested in examining intraindividual differences in self-presentation in a within-subjects design, we followed the procedure used previously (e.g., McFarland & Ryan, 2000, 2006; Nguyen, Biderman, & McDaniel, 2005) and calculated difference scores in order to assess self-presentation. In particular, we calculated difference scores for all eight personality facets by subtracting the scores in the neutral condition from the scores in the selection condition. Positive scores indicate that a higher score was obtained in the selection condition. It should be noted that change scores have been criticized for their unreliability (e.g., Edwards & Parry, 1993). However, the use of difference scores is appropriate for within-subject research when a participant-by-treatment interaction is expected, as they provide unique information about intraindividual change (cf. Tisak & Smith, 1994). Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations of each variable as well as the intercorrelations among the variables and their reliabilities. Impression motivation was high (M = 4.99) and was related to self-presentation. As it was also found in other studies (e.g., McFarland & Ryan, 2000), honest personality scores were negatively correlated with difference scores, indicating that applicants with an lower honest personality score increased their score more in the selection condition and vice versa. The perceived relevance of the

16 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 16 personality facets differed between M = 0.47 and 0.93 and was unrelated to the honest personality scores. To test Hypothesis 1, namely that the perceived relevance of the personality facets is related to the job requirements, we conducted a 2 x 8 ANOVA with group as a betweensubjects factor and personality facet as within-subjects factor. This was done in order to test whether the two groups differed with regard to the cognitive schema depending on the job requirements which the groups received. Results revealed a significant main effect for personality facet, F(7,1386) = , p <.001 (partial η 2 =.42), indicating that personality facets were perceived as differently relevant. For group, the main effect was not significant, F(1, 198) =.013, p >.91, indicating that neither group perceived the personality facets as more or less relevant. Most importantly, a significant Group Personality facet interaction was found, F(7,1386) = 16.87, p <.001 (partial η 2 =.08), indicating that the two groups differed in their perceived relevance of personality facets depending on the job requirement the groups received. Subsequently, we calculated independent-samples t-tests for all eight personality facets (see Table 2). In line with Hypothesis 1, we expected higher means for the perceived relevance of the personality facets assertiveness, activity, poise, and hardiness for the first group, as these facets were the job requirements for the first group. Conversely, the second group, which received openness to action, openness to ideas, achievement striving, and self-discipline as job requirements, should have higher means in the perceived relevance of those personality facets. Table 2 shows that all personality facets other than the two conscientiousness facets (achievement striving and self-discipline) differed in the hypothesized direction. In other words, the job requirements that individuals received activated a specific cognitive schema, as they perceived the relevance of those personality facets that served as job requirements to be higher. However, only the differences for assertiveness, hardiness, openness to actions, and openness to ideas reached statistical significance. This pattern of results even remains the same when the Bonferroni correction is

17 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 17 used to control Type 1 error (i.e., when p = is used as the required level of significance). Taken together, these results provide partial support for Hypothesis 1. Hypotheses 2 to 4 were tested using HLM, as this procedure simultaneously addresses both levels in a hierarchically nested data set (in this case, personality facets nested within persons). HLM provides independent estimates of the relationships among constructs at the lower level (within persons, Level 1) and models them at the upper level (between persons, Level 2) as a random effect using maximum likelihood estimations. For the analyses, we centered the predictor variable at the person level around the grand mean and the predictor variable at the personality facet level around the respective person mean. Centering the Level 1 variable around the persons mean was necessary in order to analyze personality-facetspecific effects within persons (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). HLM 6.03 (Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2005) was used for the analyses. Before conducting the multilevel analyses, we examined whether self-presentation (i.e., the difference scores) varied substantially within as well as between participants. The ratio of the between-individual variance to the total variance can be described as an intra-class correlation (Hofmann, 1997). An ICC was computed by investigating the following ratio: ICC = τ 00 /(τ 00 + σ 2 ) with τ 00 = between-person variance and σ 2 = within-person variance. The intraclass correlation coefficient for self-presentation was.39, which indicates that 39% of the total variance was between individuals, whereas 61% of the variability was within individuals. To test the intraindividual effect of the perceived relevance of personality facets (i.e., the cognitive schema), the interindividual effect of impression motivation, and the cross-level moderating hypothesis (Hypotheses 2 to 4), we regressed self-presentation on the perceived relevance of facets at the first level (across personality facets). At the second level, we modeled the main effect of impression motivation and the interactive effect of impression

18 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 18 motivation on the magnitudes of the intraindividual effects of the perceived relevance of the facets on self-presentation (across individuals). The equations for our model are shown below: Level 1: SP = π 0 + π 1 PR + e Level 2: π 0 = β 00 + β 01 IM + r 0 π 1 = β 10 + β 11 IM + r 1 (1) where SP is self-presentation, π 0 is the Level 1 intercept, π 1 is the effect of perceived relevance for each personality facet, PR is perceived relevance, and e is the Level 1 error. At Level 2, β 00 is the intercept, β 01 is the main effect of impression motivation, IM is impression motivation, r 0 is the Level 2 error around the intercept, β 10 is the effect of perceived relevance, β 11 is the effect of the cross-level interaction between impression motivation and perceived relevance, and r 1 is the Level 2 error around the slope of the perceived relevance. A significant β 10 coefficient indicates a main effect for the perceived relevance of personality facets, a significant β 01 coefficient indicates a main effect for impression motivation, and a significant β 11 coefficient provides evidence of the cross-level relationship. Table 3 presents parameter estimates of the multilevel model. The model showed support for both Hypothesis 2 (cognitive schema was a significant predictor of selfpresentation, β 10 =.38, p <.001) and Hypothesis 3 (impression motivation had a significant individual effect on self-presentation, β 01 =.17, p <.001). Furthermore, and in line with Hypothesis 4, the results showed strong support for the interactive effect of impression motivation and the cognitive schema on self-presentation. In other words, at the second level, impression motivation significantly predicted the first-level regression coefficient of perceived relevance, β 11 =.13, p <.01. Examining the residual variance revealed that impression motivation explained 47% of the between-individuals variance in the intraindividual slope for predicting self-presentation with cognitive schema. 1 Figure 2 shows the cross-level moderating effect of impression motivation on the intraindividual relationship between the cognitive schema and individuals self-presentation

19 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 19 on the personality facets. This interaction indicates that individuals who score high on impression motivation not only engage more in self-presentation behavior, but also show a more differentiated pattern of self-presentation. In other words, as predicted by Hypothesis 4, when individuals who score high on impression motivation are compared to those who are less motivated, the self-presentation of the motivated individuals is more dependent on their cognitive schema of the situational demands (i.e., the perceived relevance of the personality facets). Discussion The ongoing debate about the usefulness of self-report personality scales for personnel selection and the consequences of response distortion (Morgeson et al., 2007a, 2007b; Ones et al., 2007; Tett & Christiansen, 2007) shows that there are important yet still unanswered questions regarding the process of answering personality test items. This study examined selfpresentation in a personality inventory from an impression management perspective and is the first to shed light on the interaction between interindividual and intraindividual effects on selfpresentation. Overall, the results provide evidence for the influence of both interindividual and intraindividual factors on self-presentation as well as for the interaction between the two. In particular, we analyzed impression motivation as an interindividual difference variable, applicants cognitive schema of the situational demands as an intraindividual difference variable, and the interaction between impression motivation and the cognitive schema on selfpresentation in a personality inventory. The results showed significant support for such an interactive effect, meaning that in particular individuals with a high impression motivation engaged in self-presentation on those personality facets that they considered as relevant. Our findings extend the results of previous research, as they indicate that both motivation and a person s cognitions interactively determine how people fill in a personality inventory.

20 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 20 In line with impression management theory (e.g., Leary & Kowalski, 1990), our findings verify the widespread assumption that motivation is related to self-presentation (e.g., Leary & Kowalski, 1990; McFarland & Ryan, 2000). The results indicate that individuals differ in their amount of impression motivation and that those with high impression motivation engage more in self-presentation behavior. Furthermore, the present study investigated how applicants tailor their selfpresentation to the situational demands. Specifically, we examined whether the perceived relevance of personality facets is related to job requirements stated in a job advertisement, and whether an individual s cognitive schema is related to self-presentation on different personality facets. The results show that people perceive personality facets as more relevant when they were required in the job advertisement, meaning that job requirements activate a specific cognitive schema that reflects the intraindividual differences in the perceived relevance of personality facets. For instance, participants who received openness facets as job requirements perceived the relevance of openness items to be higher for making a good impression than participants who did not receive these job requirements. However, we found no difference between groups in terms of the perceived relevance of the conscientiousness facets. Both groups regarded conscientiousness items as highly relevant, irrespective of whether conscientiousness was named as an explicit job requirement. Hence, it is possible that not only do the job requirements stated in a job advertisement influence people s cognitive schemas, but that the employment selection situation per se also defines what is desirable. There is a great deal of evidence that conscientiousness is a good predictor of job performance across all kinds of jobs (e.g., Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001). It seems likely that an employment selection situation itself may activate a cognitive schema that has integrated the knowledge that personality aspects related to conscientiousness, such as punctuality and reliability, are always important for a job. However, when items are ambiguous and when it is not obvious what, precisely, the situational demands are, people

21 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 21 apparently seem to direct their attention to potential cues (e.g., the job requirements stated in the job advertisement) and activate their cognitive schema accordingly. Furthermore, the results revealed that applicants cognitive schema (i.e., intraindividual differences in the perceived relevance of personality facets) contributed to the extent of self-presentation on personality facets. In other words, people tended to engage in self-presentation on personality facets to a greater extent when they perceived them as more relevant. These results confirm assumptions by Birkeland et al. (2006) that applicants specifically distort their response on personality dimensions that they view as particularly relevant. They are also in line with applicants decisions that the faking decision tree of Goffin and Boyd (2009) assumes. They propose that items that elicit the perception that their responses are relevant to the job will have a higher probability of being faked. Although participants in each group received the same job requirements, there was considerable variance in the perceived relevance of the facets between individuals. According to Kleinmann (1993), individuals differ in their ability to adequately perceive the demands of a situation. These individual differences in how people perceive situations and adjust their behavior to perceived situational demands is one aspect of social effectiveness (Ferris, Perrewe, & Douglas, 2002). People who score high on social effectiveness are typically better able to read between the lines and are more likely than those low in social skills to perceive and accurately interpret subtle social cues (Ferris, Witt, & Hochwarter, 2001, p. 1076). There is evidence that some individuals are better than others in identifying the targeted performance dimensions in a selection procedure. As a consequence, these individuals perform better in selection procedures like assessment centers and interviews (e.g., Kleinmann, 1993; König, Melchers, Kleinmann, Richter, & Klehe, 2007; Melchers et al., 2009). Additionally, people s ability to identify evaluation criteria was also found to be related to their integrity test scores (König, Melchers, Kleinmann, Richter, & Klehe, 2006). Similarly, Kroger and Turnbull (1970) found that people who accurately perceived role

22 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 22 demands showed more effective role enactment in terms of test items. The findings also support a model by Grieve and Mahar (2009): For successful faking, people must alter their original personality profile to a strategically created profile, which in turn need to match the target criteria profile. In the present study, interindividual differences in people s ability to adequately perceive situational demands could also explain interindividual variance in the perceived relevance of personality facets. In other words, people who are better at correctly perceiving situational demands (i.e., the stated job requirements) may activate a more accurate cognitive schema of the situational demands. Consequently, they are more effective in tailoring their self-presentation on those facets that are relevant for the job. It has previously been assumed that individuals with a better knowledge of the constructs being measured have a better ability to fake (McFarland & Ryan, 2000, 2006). However, the present study demonstrated that there may be more to the matter than simply knowing the constructs. Let us imagine, for example, that two job candidates know what is being measured by openness to experience items. However, only one of them correctly perceives the situational demands that a certain job needs especially open-minded people. Accordingly, this person might activate a more accurate cognitive schema and perceive the openness to experience facts as more relevant than the other person, who did not correctly perceive the situational demands. This example indicates that people s self-presentation in a personality inventory may also reveal differences in their ability to adequately perceive situational demands. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research Like all research, this study is not without limitations. First, the study was a simulation study using a student sample rather than actual job applicants. However, most participants were final-year students applying for entry-level jobs, making them comparable to real applicants. In addition, a lab study provides the opportunity to balance the job requirements

23 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 23 and enables the influence of what people know about a company, hear from other job holders, or believe about a job to be controlled for. It was also possible to concentrate on the influence of specific situational demands because both groups in our setting received an identical job advertisement in which only the specified job requirements were varied experimentally. Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis (Hooper & Sackett, 2008) has shown that field and lab studies on faking result in more similar findings than previously thought. Second, we measured impression motivation only with a self-report. Participants possibly also tried to present themselves favorably on this measure. However, conducting a lab study might have another advantage: Whereas real applicants may not trust the instruction that the impression motivation questionnaire is for research purposes only and should be motivated to present themselves favorably on all measures, participants in a lab study are more likely to answer the impression motivation scale honestly. Nevertheless, this comes at the cost of the generalizability of the findings. Future research should proceed by taking a more fine-grained view of the process of answering a personality test in order to examine the specific parts of the process of answering personality test items. First, a potential future study might examine whether and how external factors such as economic factors might affect people s self-presentation. Second, research is needed that examines whether interindividual differences in social effectiveness are related to self-presentation in a personality inventory (cf. Grieve & Mahar, 2009). If it holds true that social effectiveness influences self-presentation in a personality inventory, then we have to consider whether self-presentation in a personality inventory is something negative. Indeed, a possible relationship between social effectiveness and self-presentation could even explain why several studies found little impact of faking on the validity of personality tests (e.g., Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, & McCloy, 1990; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998). Furthermore, we need research that examines how the interactive effect of individual difference variables is related to actual performance. Applicants who are motivated and match the job-specific

24 Running head: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT ON SELF-PRESENTATION 24 requirements may perform better in the job compared with those who just fake good on all facets or on the wrong facets. In particular, we need to investigate if it depends on the job function (e.g. salesperson vs. working on the assembly line) whether the skill of being able to tailor self-presentation on situational cues translates into better job performance. In a similar vein, researchers should compare the relationship between this skill of being able to tailor self-presentation to different measures of job performance: Supervisors ratings of job performance might be influenced by people s ability to present themselves in line with situational demands, whereas objective output figures might not. 2 Taken together, the present study examined the interactive effect of interindividual and intraindividual effects on self-presentation in a personality inventory, revealing that applicants tailor their self-presentation on personality facets depending on their impression motivation and their cognitive schema. Thereby, this study contributes to providing a better understanding of the cognitive process of answering a personality inventory, which will in turn help researchers and practitioners to better appraise the impact of faking in the long run.