Faking to fit in: Applicants’ response strategies to match organizational culture.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine applicant faking as an adaptive response to the specific environment that applicants are confronted with. More specifically, we propose that applicants fake by adapting their responses to the culture of the hiring organization so that they display the personality profile that best matches the organization's culture. In other words, they fake in a targeted manner, to increase their person-organization (P-O) fit. We tested this proposition in 6 studies, including experiments and surveys, and focused on competitiveness and innovativeness as 2 central elements of organizational culture. Results confirm that applicants infer an ideal personality profile from elements of organizational culture and then adapt their responses on personality inventories accordingly. Faking to increase P-O fit was present, albeit slightly weaker, when accounting for the fact that applicants choose organizations that fit their values. Overall, this research highlights the adaptive component of faking and underlines that it should not be considered a behavior that only dishonest individuals show. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it