The Effect of Organizational Culture on Faking in the Job Interview
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
Deceptive impression management (i.e., faking) may alter interviewers’ perceptions of applicants’ qualifications and, consequently, decrease the predictive validity of the job interview. In examining faking antecedents, research has given little attention to situational variables. Using a between-subjects experiment, this research addressed that gap by examining whether organizational culture impacted both the extent to which applicants faked and the manner in which they faked during a job interview. Analyses of variance revealed that organizational culture did not affect the extent to which applicants faked. However, when taking into account applicants’ perceptions of the ideal candidate, organizational culture was found to indirectly impact the manner in which applicants faked their personality (agreeableness and honesty-humility). Overall, the findings suggest that applicants may be able to fake their personality traits during job interviews to increase their person–organization fit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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