You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
To Fake or Not to Fake: Antecedents to Interview Faking, Warning Instructions, and Its Impact on Applicant Reactions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01771 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephanie J. Law, Joshua Bourdage, Thomas A. O’Neill |
| Abstract |
In the present study, we examined the antecedents and processes that impact job interviewees' decisions to engage in deceptive impression management (i.e., interview faking). Willingness and capacity to engage in faking were found to be the processes underlying the decision to use deceptive impression management in the interview. We also examined a personality antecedent to this behavior, Honesty-Humility, which was negatively related to the use of deceptive impression management through increased willingness to engage in these behaviors. We also tested a possible intervention to reduce IM. In particular, we found that warnings against faking - specifically, an identification warning - reduced both the perceived capacity to engage in interview faking, and subsequent use of several faking behaviors. Moreover, this warning reduced faking without adversely impacting applicant reactions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 65 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 21 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 31 | 47% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 22 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 February 2020.
All research outputs
#14,301,577
of 24,616,908 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,428
of 33,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,568
of 312,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#231
of 418 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,616,908 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,202 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,075 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 418 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.