Don’t Let the Truth Stop You: Moral Disengagement Mediates the Relationship Between the Dark Triad of Personality and Deceptive Impression Management
Alaïa Y. Plieger, 11845775
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam
6013B0510Y: Bachelor's Thesis and Thesis Seminar Management in the Digital Age BSc BA Specialization of Management in the Digital Age
Dr. Samuel Mayoral Rodríguez July 10, 2020
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Alaïa Yasmin Plieger, who declares that she takes full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision and completion of the work, not for its contents.
Acknowledgment
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Samuel Mayoral
Rodríguez, for his invaluable guidance throughout the writing process. His humbleness has inspired and motivated me, and his expertise and guidelines have caused me to learn a lot. Therefore, I would like to thank him for his support and dedication during the past few months. Thank you for being such a great supervisor.
Abstract
While deceit during applicant interviews is a paramount problem for organizations, interviewers seldom accurately detect it. To elucidate when applicants use deceptive impression-management tactics, this study draws on the theory about personal characteristics that serve as antecedents of duplicity. This research suggests that employees’ dark personality and their tendency to morally disengage send a signal about their likelihood to exert deceptive behavior. More precisely, this study hypothesizes that the dark-triad personality has a positive relationship with deceptive impression management and that this relationship can also be detected through the mechanism of moral disengagement. The hypotheses were tested using an online cross-sectional survey with a sample of 67 participants from the adult working population. The hypotheses were confirmed by both analyses, indicating that applicants are more inclined to display deceptive behavior when the individuals have a dark personality and/or when they activate the socio-cognitive mechanism of moral disengagement. Interestingly, however, only an indirect effect was found for psychopathy. Advancing the interviewer’s understanding of deceptive impression management’s antecedents may enhance the detection of dishonest candidates, which increases the reliability of the job interview process and prevents them from negatively impacting the enterprise in the future.
Keywords: deceptive impression management, personality, dark triad, moral disengagement, interviews, organizations
Table of Contents
List of Figures ... 7
Don’t Let the Truth Stop You: Moral Disengagement Mediates the Relationship Between the Dark Triad of Personality and Deceptive Impression Management ... 8
Theoretical Framework ... 10
Impression Management ... 10
The Dark Triad and Deceptive Impression Management ... 12
Moral Disengagement as an Explanatory Mechanism ... 15
Methods ... 18
Participants and Procedure ... 18
Measures ... 19
The Dark Triad ... 19
Moral Disengagement ... 19
Deceptive Impression Management ... 19
Analytical Plan ... 20
Results ... 21
Correlations ... 21
Testing of Assumptions ... 24
The Dark Triad Personality Traits and Deceptive Impression Management ... 24
Mediation Analysis: The Dark Triad Personality Traits, Moral Disengagement, and Deceptive Impression Management ... 25
Discussion ... 27
Summary of the Findings ... 27
Theoretical Contributions ... 27
Practical Implications ... 29
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ... 31
Conclusion ... 33 References ... 35 Appendix A ... 47 Appendix B ... 49 Appendix C ... 51 Appendix D ... 53 Appendix E ... 55 Appendix F ... 57 Appendix G ... 59 Appendix H ... 61
List of Figures
Figure 1: A graphical depiction of the theoretical model behind H1 ... 15
Figure 2: A graphical depiction of the theoretical model behind H2 ... 17
Figure 3: The indirect effect of MAC on DIM through MD ... 25
Figure 4: The indirect effect of NAR on DIM through MD ... 26
Don’t Let the Truth Stop You: Moral Disengagement Mediates the Relationship Between the Dark Triad of Personality and Deceptive Impression Management
Have you ever lied to get a job? Maybe you have inflated your credentials because you wanted your dream job, or you needed the income, stability, and security that the job
provided, or you might have thought that a little lie for your own good would not hurt anybody (McGregor, 1989). According to research, the odds are that you probably have, as experimental (Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997; Levashina & Campion, 2006) and theoretical (Higgins & Judge, 2004; Stevens & Kristof, 1995) studies indicate that most candidates make use of deceptive impression-management tactics to control interviewers’ perceptions and ratings during job interviews (Gilmore et al., 1999; Roulin, 2016).
However, for organizations, personnel selection is a high-stakes process (Weiss & Feldman, 2006), as finding the right people for the right job is one of the crucial factors contributing to a company's success. Indeed, research shows that personnel can be a source of strategic advantage and that organizations can achieve competitive success through their employees (Pfeffer, 2005). Therefore, the hiring process should be optimized in search of the most competent individuals. Amongst the selection methods that companies utilize, the applicant interview is recognized as the most common one (Bourdage et al., 2018; Huffcutt & Culbertson, 2011).
Howbeit, the prevalent phenomenon of deceit within the applicant interview context hinders the proper functioning of the vital selection method by making it unreliable and even unfair (Rosenfeld, 1997). According to Roulin et al. (2015), deceptive impression
management can reduce the effectiveness of job interviews if interviewers are unable to detect it, leading enterprises to select less competent but more deceitful applicants. Indeed, prior studies suggest that this is often the case, as interviewers’ attempts to detect applicants’
be cautious in relying exclusively on applicant interviews and should implement subsequent measures to discern and phase out dishonest individuals (Bourdage et al., 2018). If companies and human-resource professionals do not recognize the negative impact that deceptive
impression management can have on the hiring process and the business as a whole, they might pay a high price as a result of hiring less qualified workers, including reductions in productivity, counterproductive work behaviors, and sometimes even ruined reputations (Bourdage et al., 2018; Hogue et al., 2013). Furthermore, employee duplicity can also produce adverse outcomes for co-workers. For instance, collisions in moral principles could increase stress and diminish job satisfaction and efficiency (Hogue et al., 2013).
Despite the high stakes experienced by companies, the antecedents of guileful
behaviors remain under-researched; academics have stressed that interviewers are in need of more precise information concerning which individual and contextual factors predict
dishonesty during personnel selection (Roulin et al., 2015). As such, this study contributes an updated and more recent view on the previously researched relationship between the dark triad of personality and the use of deceptive impression management (see e.g., Jonason et al., 2012; Roulin & Bourdage, 2017; Roulin & Krings, 2016). Additionally, this paper advances the existing literature by addressing a new combination of variables in relation to deceptive impression management: the dark triad, which consists of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy, and moral disengagement. All these personal characteristics serve as a red flag for counterproductive work behavior and reductions in the quality of job performance (Boyle et al., 2012; Moore, 2015). As a result, insight into these antecedents of duplicity may aid recruiters in identifying users of deceptive impression-management techniques, thereby preventing dishonest applicants from negatively influencing an organization in the future. Hence, the present study assists interviewers in the “battle against deceit” by exploring the influence of the dark triad of personality, via moral disengagement, on the use of deceptive
impression management. Specifically, this study suggests that individuals who score high on the dark-triad traits exhibit higher moral disengagement, which in turn promotes deceptive impression management. Therefore, the specific research question that this study answers is, “Does the dark triad influence the use of deceptive impression management, and is this relationship mediated by moral disengagement?”
This paper contributes to organizational science by providing managers with practical solutions for optimizing their recruitment process and by providing insight into how they should detect and address deceit. As explained in the discussion section of this
research, personality tests, moral warnings, and organizational architecture and culture adjustments play a vital role in fighting dishonesty. Consequently, these practical guidelines will also improve companies as a whole, as effective hiring decisions potentially yield manifold organizational benefits in the form of revenue and clientele, an increase in high performers, enhanced productivity, and an enjoyable work climate (Roulin, 2016; Weiss & Feldman, 2006).
Theoretical Framework
Impression Management
Impression management refers to behaviors that individuals direct towards others in order to establish a favorable image of themselves (Gardner & Martinko, 1988; Jones & Pittman, 1982; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Rosenfeld et al., 2005; Roulin, 2016; Schlenker, 1980). These impressions can be honest or deceptive. Honest impression management entails creating a perception of capability and belong by accentuating positive actual past experiences and matching values with an organization (Roulin et al., 2015). For example, an applicant might emphasize their genuine characteristics of being innovative and a risk-taker if this aligns with the organizational culture of a company. By contrast, deceptive impression management implies faking particular competencies, skills, or knowledge for which an
organization is searching (Miller & Stiff, 1993; Roulin et al., 2015). For instance, an interviewee might enthusiastically discuss their wholly or partly fabricated experience with innovative and risky projects at a high-tech company solely to arouse the interest of the interviewer. In sum, impression management, whether factual or fraudulent, is used to present a desired image and prevent an undesirable one (Turnley & Bolino, 2001). Impression
management thus aims to positively influence evaluations of fit and competence during job interviews (Tsai et al., 2005) and to persuade the interviewer that the applicant is the perfect candidate for the job (Kacmar et al.,, 1992).
Therefore, impression management is a double-edged sword, as it comprises a variety of behaviors that fall on a continuum from deceitful and manipulative on the one hand to sincere and authentic on the other (Rosenfeld, 1997). If applicants are capable of legitimately promoting their candidacy by emphasizing their truthful strengths, this is perceived to be a positive quality, both during the personnel selection process and in the future organizational context (Rosenfeld, 1997; Roulin et al., 2014; Ralston & Kirkwood, 1999, pp. 202-203). Essentially, honest impression management is a way to create a desirable image in the mind of the interviewer based on the real capabilities that an interviewee expresses (Gardner & Martinko, 1988; Roulin et al., 2014; Roulin & Bourdage, 2017). Therefore, this factually accurate form of impression management can be a legitimate means by which to influence evaluations beneficially and is sometimes even expected of applicants (Roulin et al., 2014; Roulin et al., 2015). By contrast, Rosenfeld (1997) argued that organizations are eager to detect the deceptive aspect of the impression management continuum, as it indeed impedes the proper functioning of the job interview process and the organization as a whole
(Rosenfeld, 1997; Roulin et al., 2015; Roulin, 2016).
In general, individuals are driven to employ deceptive impression management because they presume that it will bring them benefits at the individual level. In particular,
researchers have found that candidates who exhibit deceit expect this tactic to result in better evaluations of future performance, higher chances of receiving an offer of employment, and additional career-advancement opportunities (Auer, 2018; Barrick et al., 2009; Bourdage et al., 2018; Carlson et al., 2011; Wayne & Liden, 1995). However, prior research also indicated that applicants’ decisions to engage in deceptive impression management are influenced by a number of individual differences (Burgoon & Buller, 2015). For instance, it has been shown that men are more prone to use severe forms of duplicity to produce their desired outcomes than women (Dreber & Johanesson, 2008; Hogue et al., 2013). Deceptive impression
management is also more common in individuals who harbor competitive worldviews, exhibit more creativity, and score lower on honesty–humility and conscientiousness (see e.g., Gino & Ariely, 2012; Roulin & Bourdage, 2017). These findings suggest that a particular personality profile of deceptive impression management users can be sketched. As introduced earlier, in the present paper, the potential influence of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy on individuals’ propensity to use deceptive impression management is investigated. Taken together, these three personality traits are known as the dark triad.
The Dark Triad and Deceptive Impression Management
The dark triad is a construct consisting of three different yet related character traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy (Bertl et al., 2017; Book et al., 2015; Furnham et al., 2013; Jones & Figueredo, 2013; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Pechorro et al., 2018). Machiavellianism involves interpersonal manipulation and the belief that others are credulous and foolish. Those who score high on Machiavellianism tend both to exhibit intense praise and duplicity and to apply cold, cynical, and unethical measures to be able to elevate personal goals and interests, often at the expense of others (Al Aïn et al., 2013; O’Boyle et al., 2012). The personality construct of narcissism consists of an excessive feeling of
privilege, an absence of understanding of others, and a willingness to misuse people (American Psychiatric Association, 1994; Blair et al., 2008). Furthermore, narcissists are characterized by an overly superior self-image while simultaneously belittling others,
frequently alongside preeminent egotism, self-centeredness, and arrogance (Raskin & Terry, 1988; Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012). Finally, psychopathy is marked by an absence of regret or remorse for deeds that harm other individuals (Harrison et al.,2018). Those who score high on this trait tend to exhibit impulsive, anti-social, manipulative, and exploitative behaviors (Book et al., 2015; Lee & Ashton, 2005; Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012).
Prior studies indicated that these three characteristics are also related to unethical intentions and behavior. For example, Machiavellianism is associated with immoral conduct such as stealing, cheating, or fraud (see e.g., Christie & Geis, 1970; Harrell & Hartnagel 1976; Jones & Paulhus, 2009). This characteristic is also acknowledged as a predictor of tactical personal presentation to impress and persuade others (Christie & Geis, 1970; Levashina & Campion, 2006; Snell et al.,1999). Furthermore, the use of deceptive, Machiavellian tactics is most prominent in short-term face-to-face interactions between strangers (Wilson et al., 1998). In line with this finding, Fletcher (1990) found that Machiavellian applicants are more likely to display dishonest behavior during an applicant interview, which can be classified as such a short-term interaction.
Narcissists have diminished ethical values, tend to trespass on social norms, are associated with fraudulent motivations, and display dishonorable financial behavior (see e.g., Duchon & Drake, 2009; Harisson et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2013; O’Reilly III & Doerr, 2020). Taken together, according to O’Reilly III and Doerr (2020), narcissistic individuals are more inclined to lie, cheat, and steal than those who are less narcissistic, which leads them to pose a threat to the organizations for which they work. In addition, they are mainly driven to pursue their own interests and exhibit a positive correlation with pathological lying, chiefly
with the aim of self-enhancement, of which an example could be during job interviews (Ford et al., 1988; Giammarco et al., 2013; O’Reilly III & Doerr, 2020).
Finally, psychopathy is related to academic and organizational misconduct and minor legal violations (see e.g., Mullins-Nelson et al., 2006; Nathanson et al., 2006; Williams et al., 2007). Corporate psychopaths are responsible for increases in bullying and conflict within a company, which negatively impacts employee well-being and leads to counterproductive work behaviors (Boddy, 2014). For instance, psychopathic individuals cause group
performance to decrease, and team commitment and cohesion to be lower (Baysinger et al., 2014; LeBreton et al., 2018). Furthermore, they are seen as “masters of the game of deceit,” as they perfectly control their impressions and excel in exploiting others for their own good (LeBreton et al., 2018).
Importantly, academics have argued that individuals who score high on the dark triad of personality might harbor more positive sentiments towards fraud and deception, and that the presence of the dark triad traits should be seen as a red flag for fraudulent behaviors (Harrison et al., 2018; Jonason et al., 2012; Roulin & Bourdage, 2017). Taken together, these arguments suggest that the dark triad could also be associated with other forms of unethical behavior, such as deceptive impression management during job interviews. As such, it is hypothesized that higher scores on the dark triad will predict the use of deceptive impression management (Figure 1):
H1: The dark triad personality is positively associated with the use of deceptive impression management.
Figure 1
A graphical depiction of the theoretical model behind H1
Moral Disengagement as an Explanatory Mechanism
Prior studies showed that the socio-cognitive mechanism known as moral
disengagement is often a prerequisite for people to engage in unethical practices (Bandura, 1999; Law et al., 2016; Ogunfowora et al., 2013). Moral disengagement is a combination of psychological mechanisms that separates a person's internal moral principles from their actions, facilitating individuals to engage in unethical behavior without feeling upset (Moore, 2015). Such individuals might justify their actions or diminish the improperness of their behavior (Bandura et al., 1996). More precisely, in the setting of personnel selection, someone who morally disengages might tell themselves that “everyone uses deceit during their
interview,” which is a false assumption (Law et al., 2016). This belief could be explained by Bandura’s (1991) social cognitive theory of self-regulation, which states that internalized moral standards only have an effect in the condition that they are activated. However, moral disengagement, renders self-regulatory processes obsolete, as it leads individuals to detach their intuitive standards from how they elucidate their behavior. Therefore, moral
disengagement is seen as a driver of immoral conduct (Moore et al., 2012).
clarification of how individuals are capable of performing human unethicality, such as corporate wrongdoing and dishonesty (Moore et al., 2012). Specifically, the authors believed that the tendency to make use of moral disengagement is a reliable indicator of work-relevant unethical manners such as general workplace misconduct, deceit, self-reported immoral behavior, or immoral work behaviors documented by managers and colleagues (Moore, 2015; Moore et al., 2012). Consequently, managers who aim to identify disadvantageous workplace behaviors such as deceptive impression management can consider an applicant's tendency to morally disengage (Moore et al., 2012). In this current research, it is argued that moral disengagement could facilitate dishonesty during applicant interviews, as deceptive
impression management requires the deliberate presentation of false information. This form of duplicity could be easier to rationalize if one’s moral self-punishment against this conscious form of deceit is disengaged (Moore, 2008). For example, some applicants believe that they are expected to depict themselves positively, which leads them to justify their wrongdoing (Law et al., 2016). This self-justification could be seen as a form of moral disengagement, as such applicants might convince themselves that the typical ethical standard of not telling lies does not apply to them in their specific job-interview context.
Similar to the dark triad traits, moral disengagement is labeled as a dark-personality characteristic (Sijtsema et al., 2019). Indeed, researchers have found that the dark triad of personality is associated with a propensity to morally disengage, as all three traits are proven predictors of moral disengagement (Egan et al., 2015; Roeser et al., 2016). Psychopathy and Machiavellianism, in particular, appear to be more strongly related to moral disengagement (Egan et al., 2015). Machiavellianism, for example, is an essential predictor, as this cognitive tool allows a Machiavellian individual to more easily chase their own goals without
condemning themselves (Moore et al., 2012). Psychopathy might also facilitate moral disengagement because it involves a lack of empathy and concern for the negative
consequences that unethical behaviors, such as deceptive impression management, might have for others (Giammarco & Vernon, 2015). Furthermore, research has demonstrated that the positive association between psychopathy and immoral decision making is also mediated by the mechanism of moral disengagement (Stevens et al., 2012).
Altogether, as illustrated in Figure 2, the above findings lead to the hypothesis that moral disengagement functions as an explanatory mechanism for the relationship between the dark triad of personality and deceptive impression management.
H2: Moral disengagement mediates the relationship between the dark triad and deceptive impression management.
Figure 2
Methods
Participants and Procedure
Participants were recruited via personal contacts and social media platforms such as LinkedIn and Facebook, which implies that convenience sampling was used. Respondents included 152 individuals who had completed a job interview within the last 12 months. However, the data from 83 participants were removed due to incomplete responses (56), missing attention checks (17), or failure to meet the 12-month criteria (10). Therefore, the final sample consisted of 69 participants (50.7% women, Mage = 26.62, SD = 9.81). Of the respondents, 85.5% reported being Caucasian, 5.8% Hispanic or Latino, 2,9% black or African, and 5.8% of another background, such as Indian or Asian. Most participants had obtained a high school diploma (50.7%) or completed a bachelor’s degree (26.1%). On average, respondents had 6.43 (SD = 9.35) years of work experience and 1.22 (SD = 3.46) years of experience as a leader. Moreover, 50.7% indicated having attended a course on job-application skills. Participants also reported having participated in an average of 7.65 (SD = 10.59) job interviews during their professional career, and the average time that had passed since their last job interview was 5.41 (SD = 3.74) months.
Participants accessed an online survey through a provided link. First, they were asked to answer a few demographic questions (e.g., age, gender, educational level, or work
experience). Then, respondents completed questionnaires designed to measure the dark triad, moral disengagement, and deceptive impression management. Because this project was part of a larger project with other students and other research questions, participants also
completed a number of questionnaires for other variables that are not part of the present research (e.g., overconfidence, honesty-humility, or entitlement). Finally, respondents were thanked and debriefed.
Measures
The Dark Triad
The personality characteristics Machiavellianism (nine items), narcissism (nine items), and psychopathy (six items) were measured through Jones and Paulhus’s (2013) Short Dark Triad (SD3) scale (see Appendix A). Sample items are “It is wise to keep track of information that you can use against people later,” “I insist on getting the respect I deserve,” and “People who mess with me always regret it.” Participants responded to each item on a five-point Likert scale, anchored by 1 (strongly agree) and 5 (strongly disagree). Cronbach's alpha reliabilities for the subscales were .68, .72, and .66, respectively.
Moral Disengagement
To measure moral disengagement, the 16-item Propensity to Morally Disengage scale by Moore et al. (2012) was utilized (see Appendix B). Sample items include “Considering the ways people grossly misrepresent themselves, it's hardly a sin to inflate your credentials a bit” and “Taking something without the owner's permission is okay as long as you're just
borrowing it.” Participants responded to each item on a five-point Likert scale anchored by 1 (strongly agree) and 5 (strongly disagree). Cronbach’s alpha reliability was .84.
Deceptive Impression Management
Impression management was measured with the 28-item short IM scale of Bourdage, Roulin and Tarraf (2018), of which 16 items were specifically designed to measure its deceptive impression management form (see Appendix C). Sample items are “I covered up some ‘skeletons in my closet’” and “When asked directly, I did not mention some problems I had in past jobs.” Participants responded to each item on a five-point Likert scale anchored by
1 (to no extent) and 5 (to a very great extent). The deceptive subscale was proven to be sufficiently reliable, as its Cronbach’s Alpha was .88.
Analytical Plan
For the purpose of analyzing the data, the statistical software SPSS was utilized. To gain a swift impression and overview of the data, the responses collected through the survey were first analyzed via correlation. Next, to assess the relationship between the dark triad and deceptive impression management (Hypothesis 1), three separate simple linear regressions were run in order to gain a deeper understanding of the distinctive influences of all dark-triad traits on the use of deceptive impression management.
Additionally, this study aimed to gain further insight into the reason for the
relationship between the dark triad and deceptive impression management use by including the underlying mechanism of moral disengagement. A mediation analysis suited this goal perfectly, as a mediator variable transmits the influence of an independent variable on a dependent variable, explaining the association between them (MacKinnon et al., 2007). Thus, to assess the indirect relationship between the dark triad and deceptive impression
management via moral disengagement (Hypothesis 2), Model 4 of PROCESS by Hayes (2018) was used. The indirect effects were tested using bootstrapping procedures. More specifically, the unstandardized indirect effects were calculated for each of the
5,000 bootstrapped samples, and the 95% confidence interval was calculated by determining the indirect effects in the -1 SD, mean, and +1 SD conditions.
Results
Correlations
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations between deceptive impression management, educational level, ethnicity, gender, Machiavellianism, moral disengagement, narcissism, psychopathy, and work experience as a manager or team leader.
First, there was a moderate positive correlation between deceptive impression management and Machiavellianism (r = .37, N = 69, p < 0.001) and a similar positive
correlation between deceptive impression management and moral disengagement (r = .47, N = 69, p < .001), providing some initial support for H1.
For Machiavellianism, the results showed a weak and negative correlation with education (r = -.26, N = 69, p = .03). Moreover, a moderate and negative correlation was found between Machiavellianism and a Caucasian ethnic origin (r = -.36, N = 69, p < .001). By contrast, Machiavellianism was shown to correlate moderately but positively with the other race category (r = .35, N = 69, p = .00), gender (r = .31, N = 69, p = .000), narcissism (r = .51, N = 69, p = .000), and psychopathy (r = .46, N = 69, p = .000). Finally, a strong positive correlation between Machiavellianism and moral disengagement (r = .74, N = 69, p = .000) was found, providing some initial support for H2.
Furthermore, for moral disengagement, a moderate negative correlation was found with having a Caucasian origin (r = -.31, N = 69, p = .00). By contrast, the results depicted a weak but positive correlation between moral disengagement and a Hispanic origin (r = .25, N = 69, p = .04), the other origin category (r = .24, N = 69, p = .05), and gender (r = .29, N = 69, p = .02). Similarly, a moderate and positive correlation was found with narcissism (r = .40, N = 69, p = .000) and psychopathy (r = .45, N = 69, p = .000).
Moreover, narcissism exhibited a moderate positive correlation with psychopathy (r = .47, N = 69, p = .000) and, in turn, the psychopathy output suggested a weak but positive correlation with work experience as a manager (r = .29, N = 67, p = .02) and a moderate positive correlation with gender (r = .30, N = 69, p = .01).
As none of the aforementioned variables correlated with deceptive impression management, none of them were taken into consideration as a control variable.
Notes. N = 69. Cronbach’s alphas are in parentheses on the diagonal. a Education level was coded as: 1 = none, 2 = primary school, 3 = high school, 4 = bachelor’s degree, 5 = master’s degree, 6 = PhD. b 1 = white, 0 = all other origins. c 1 = Hispanic or Latino, 0 = all other origins. d 1 = Other origins, 0 = all other origins. e 0 = female, 1 = male. f Work experience as a manager or team leader was measured in years.
**p < 0.01 (two-tailed). *p < 0.05 (two-tailed).
Means, standard deviations, and correlations
Variables M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
1. Deceptive IM 2.14 0.62 (.89)
2. Educational levela 3.74 0.85 -.08
3. Ethnic origin: Whiteb 0.86 0.36 -.06 .31**
4. Ethnic origin: Hispanic or Latinoc 0.06 0.24 .06 -.14 -.60**
5. Ethnic origin: other raced 0.06 0.24 .06 -.22 -.60** -.06
6. Gendere 0.49 0.50 .14 -.07 .24* -.12 -.12
7. Machiavellianism 3.03 0.55 .37** -.26* -.36** .18 .35** .31** (.68)
8. Moral Disengagement 2.41 0.55 .46** -.11 -.31** .25* .24* .29* .74** (.84)
9. Narcissism 2.98 0.54 .15 -.04 -.11 .16 .02 .21 .51** .40** (.72)
10. Psychopathy 2.33 0.59 .12 -.22 -.07 .23 -.09 .30* .46** .45** .47** (.66)
11. Work experience as a manager or team
Testing of Assumptions
First, it was checked whether the data met the assumptions for linear regression. The analyses showed that the assumptions concerning linearity (see Appendix D), normality (See Appendix E), and homoscedasticity (see Appendix F), were all met. By contrast, when transforming the variables into z-scores, it was shown that the data for all dark-triad variables contained two outliers (see Appendix G). When removing these outliers, the R² of the models increased, and the p-values decreased (e.g., for narcissism, the R² increased from 0.02 to 0.06, and the p-value went down from 0.21 to 0.05). Therefore, the decision was made to exclude them in the final analysis, which entailed that from this point on N = 67.
The Dark Triad Personality Traits and Deceptive Impression Management
To assess the relationship between the dark triad and the use of deceptive impression management, participants’ scores on deceptive impression management were separately regressed onto their Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy scores. This revealed a positive and significant association between Machiavellianism and deceptive impression management, β = 0.38, b = 0.38, SE = 0.12, 95% CI [0.15, 0.61], t(66) = 3.27, p = .00; a positive and significant association between narcissism and deceptive impression
management, β = 0.24, b = 0.26, SE = 0.13, 95% CI [0.001, 0.51], t(66) = 2.01, p = .05; and no significant association between psychopathy and deceptive impression management, β = 0.12, b = 0.12, SE = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.36], t(66) = 0.98, p = .33 (see Appendix H). These results supported the prediction that the dark triad was associated with the use of deceptive impression management strategies (Hypothesis 1). However, of the three personality traits captured in the dark triad construct, only Machiavellianism and narcissism (but not
Mediation Analysis: The Dark Triad Personality Traits, Moral Disengagement, and
Deceptive Impression Management
To assess the proposed mediation role of moral disengagement in the relationship between the dark triad of personality and the use of deceptive impression management, Model 4 of PROCESS macro was used (Hayes, 2018). Machiavellianism, narcissism, and
psychopathy were separately introduced as independent variables, deceptive impression management as the dependent variable, and moral disengagement as the mediator. The results showed significant indirect effects of Machiavellianism, IE = 0.32, SE = 0.13, 95% CI [0.06, 0.56] and Narcissism, IE = 0.19, SE = 0.08, 95% CI [0.06, 0.38], on deceptive impression management through moral disengagement. Although no significant direct effect of
psychopathy on deceptive impression management was observed, a significant indirect effect of psychopathy on deceptive impression management through moral disengagement was found, IE = 0.23, SE = 0.08, 95% CI [0.09, 0.42]. These results supported the prediction that moral disengagement mediated the relationship between the dark triad and the use of
deceptive impression-management strategies (Hypothesis 2). Figures 3, 4, and 5 show all direct and indirect effects among the dark-triad personality traits, moral disengagement, and deceptive impression management.
Figure 3
Note. MAC = Machiavellianism. DIM = deceptive impression management. MD = moral disengagement.
Figure 4
The indirect effect of NAR on DIM through MD
Note. NAR = narcissism. DIM = deceptive impression management. MD = moral disengagement.
Figure 5
The indirect effect of PSY on DIM through MD
Note. PSY = psychopathy. DIM = deceptive impression management. MD = moral disengagement.
Discussion
Summary of the Findings
The present study aims to investigate whether moral disengagement explains the association between a dark personality and deceptive impression management use.
In support, it is found that there is a positive association between the dark-triad traits and deceptive impression management. This means that an individual who scores high on the dark triad of personality exhibits more deceptive impression management behavior than an individual who scores low on the dark triad. However, no direct association is found between psychopathy and deceptive impression management use.
As anticipated, moral disengagement proves to be a mechanism through which the positive relationship between the dark-triad personality traits and deceptive impression management emerges. This implies that when interviewees have a dark personality, moral disengagement works as an explanatory mechanism for the applicants’ increased proneness to utilize deceptive impression management tactics. Interestingly, the results do indicate an indirect relationship between psychopathy and deceptive impression management via the construct of moral disengagement.
Theoretical Contributions
As was found in previous papers (Harrison et al., 2018; Jonason et al., 2012; Melchers et al., 2020; Roulin & Bourdage, 2017; Roulin & Krings, 2016), the present research shows that higher scores on the dark triad of personality are associated with more dishonest
impression management use during job interviews. As applicants with a dark personality tend to inflate their credentials during their applicant interviews, they also contribute to the
previously mentioned distortion of the hiring process (Rosenfeld, 1997; Roulin et al., 2015; Roulin, 2016). More specifically, this study also reveals that Machiavellian and narcissistic applicants are most likely to exhibit deceptive behaviors during their job interview, as
Machiavellianism and narcissism exert the most apparent influence on deceptive impression management use. Hence, as these findings advance the existing theory, this research
contributes to the confirmation of existing literature on the antecedents of deceptive impression management use.
The results also contradict the findings of previous research (see e.g., Clarke, 2009; O’Boyle et al., 2012; Roulin & Bourdage, 2017) that psychopathic applicants tend to make more use of deceptive impression management, as this study is not able to demonstrate this. A possible explanation for this was found by reviewing relevant literature. According to
Rauthmann (2011), psychopaths lack the motivation to create positive illusions of themselves. Possibly, the missing relationship between psychopathy and deceptive impression
management during job interviews could be explained thus. Furthermore, Davis and Millon (1998) indicated that there are ten subtypes of psychopathy, which implies that the
relationship between psychopathy and deceptive impression management, might only exist when individuals exert a certain psychotic subtype or gradation of psychopathy. For instance, according to Freeman and Samson (2012), people who demonstrate the most psychopathic characteristics, are actually less likely to use impression management. Furthermore, it has been found that individuals who demonstrate psychopathic traits are not skilled in
misrepresenting the truth in an effective manner; they instead demonstrate a “take it or leave it” attitude (Freeman & Samson, 2012; Hare, 2003).
This study offers further support for Egan et al. (2015) who proposed that all three dark traits are positively related to moral disengagement. Specifically, the aforementioned researchers suggested that Machiavellianism and psychopathy are the strongest predictors of moral disengagement, which this study also confirms. The results of this research also reinforce the assumption by Law et al. (2016) that the tendency to morally disengage increases the willingness to engage in deceptive impression management. Moreover, the
present findings enrich existing theories on deceptive impression management, as to date, insufficient research about this exact mediation has been conducted. Therefore, the findings of this study are, in this way, unique, as the results provide managers and interviewers with new insights concerning important antecedents of deceit, which aids them in further improving the recruitment process and subsequently, the functioning of the enterprise as a whole.
As mentioned previously, this research did find an indirect effect between
psychopathy and deceptive impression management, but not a direct one. This was due to the fact that this study shows that the positive relationship between psychopathic applicants and deceptive impression management use can be fully explained by the moral disengagement mechanism that applicants apply.
Practical Implications
As this research demonstrates, Machiavellianism and narcissism are both antecedents of deceptive impression management use. Hence, to optimize the job interview process, applicants should be screened by means of a personality test. If a candidate scores high on Machiavellianism and/or narcissism, interviewers might benefit from double-checking the references and claims made on their CV. For example, they could contact the applicant’s previous manager to gain further insight into their workplace behavior. Furthermore, if high scores in these traits are consciously taken into account by the interviewers, they could treat the interviewee and their claims with more caution. Consequently, the interviewers might be less prone to base their recruitment decisions on dishonest “fairytale” stories and are therefore also less likely to fall into the trap of deceit. In this way, deceptive applicants are prevented from distorting the recruitment process.
However, one potential pitfall is that individuals might lie during personality tests, trying to produce an outcome that is beneficial to their personal goals. This problem is
detecting deceit (Roulin et al., 2014). Therefore, Law et al. (2016) proposed that applicants must be discouraged from using deception in the first place. Prior research suggests that one means of achieving this is to warn against the use of deceit (Dwight & Donovan, 2003; Goffin & Woods, 1995; Law et al. 2016; McFarland, 2003). These warnings have the effect of
disincentivizing individuals to manipulate their answers during personality tests. Additionally, employing a moral warning decreases applicants’ tendency to morally disengage, which ultimately causes them to be less inclined to engage in deceptive interview tactics (Law et al., 2016). Given the findings of this research that moral disengagement plays an important role in predicting deceptive impression management use, the implementation of these moral
warnings is highly recommended.
Finally, the organizational leaders should strive for an organizational architecture within their company that stands for fairness, justice, and honesty. For instance, the human-resource department should design an incentive and control system that rewards honest behavior and strongly condemns deceitful actions. Additionally, managers should function as exemplars and not tolerate dishonesty in any way, as support from the top is vital. Principals should also prevent an erosion effect, and ensure that within all layers of the company, the values are understood and accepted. This requires all employees to be intolerant of any form of unethicality and to display the attitude that “we are all in this together.” For example, this can be achieved by implementing ethics courses as part of the introduction or training of all employees. The company’s corporate culture should also be representative of the just values desired within the enterprise. A strong corporate culture could, for instance, help to shape employee and applicant behavior (Hill & Hult, 2018; Ruiz-Palomino et al., 2013). Being intolerant of deceit within the company can also often become well-known to the public through word-of-mouth and the subsequent creation of a positive image. However, a company could also clearly communicate its value of honesty to the outside world through its vision
and mission statements. Taken together, all these actions can lead companies to champion self-selection. What you reflect is what you attract, and deceitful applicants will not feel welcome at the enterprise, as these individuals experience an insufficient person–organization fit. This is ascribable to the realization that their deceitful behavior will not get them
anywhere within the company and most certainly will not enable them to attain their personal goals.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
There are also limitations to the current study that could serve as avenues for future research. This paper’s strength is found in the combination of multiple facets into one study, which academics previously have only looked at separately; consequently, new and
interesting relationships are discovered that have further implications for organizations and their managers. However, the sample size was a modest one, as it consisted of 67 participants. As this study was conducted with a relatively small group of participants, it serves as an insightful preliminary study, paving the way for more extensive future research concerning the relationships between moral disengagement, the dark triad, and deceptive impression management use. Future research should try to replicate the findings in a larger sample. The results of this research serve as a foundation for further insight into the antecedents of deceit.
Second, as a result of the method of convenience sampling, the contributed data originated from a largely Caucasian working population whose educational attainment was mainly a high-school diploma. Organizations, however, consist of an increasingly
international and diverse workforce. As this range of diversity grows, companies would benefit from further research investigating whether the outcomes of this study diverge according to ethnic origin. For example, as stated by Hofstede (2013), in Asian countries, employees experience a greater power distance. Hence, as Asian applicants attach more value to authority and the interviewers’ position, they might be less inclined to use deceptive
impression management tactics. Meaningful contributions would arise from the replication of this study with a sample consisting of different ethnicities, as increased insight into this diversion advances existing literature and also allows leaders to better manage their unique workforce.
Third, the current global pandemic has been a significant factor promoting online job interviews in recent months. As the future now has an unpredictable element, the possibility must be considered that this online job interview format might become the standard. Acting on this realization could also prevent the potential adverse consequences of falling prey to a normalcy bias. However, the design of the present study does not allow the exploration of whether the online application environment has an effect on deceptive impression
management use. Therefore, future research would benefit from further investigating whether the applicant behavior detected in this study differs when a job interview is conducted in the online or offline world. As such, this study serves as a basis and opportunity for exploration of the contextual factors influencing the use of deceit during the hiring process.
Finally, a matter of reliability concerning the SD3 scale came to light. The internal validity of the SD3 scale was proven to be acceptable (.66–.72), and its noteworthy construct validity has been confirmed by more than 100 studies (Jones & Paulhus, 2017). However, Jonason and Webster (2010) created another widely used scale to measure the dark triad: “the dirty dozen.” As noted before, Law et al. (2016) and this study both confirm
Machiavellianism and narcissism to be predictors of deceptive impression management use. Nevertheless, their conclusion regarding the positive relationship between psychopathy and deceptive impression management differ from this research, because for Law et al. (2016), the positive relationship was indeed significant. One explanation for this divergence could be the use of different scales. Accordingly, the questions of which scale better measures the
which have come to light because of the contradictory contributions of this study compared to current theory, serve as an opportunity for elaboration. Academics could test the scales by means of field research; for example, researchers could create two groups of applicants, the first taking a personality test including the SD3 and the second taking a personality test including the dirty dozen scale. Subsequently, during their job interviews, the researchers could analyze how applicants score on deceptive impression management and thenceforth conclude which scale best predicted the use of deceptive impression management. In this way, the construct validity of both scales would be strengthened. The results of this field study might also provide managers with increasingly specific outcomes and thus more certain guidelines to put into practice. Therefore, this study serves as a starting point for several directions of further research.
Conclusion
Previous research on deceptive impression management proves to fall short, as interviewers are still trying to master the playing board of deceit, struggling to stay ahead of cunning applicants. Consequently, as interviewers can accurately detect duplicity only
sporadically, they often fail to put the applicants in checkmate. Hence, the present study aims to advance managers’ understanding of the antecedents of deceptive impression management by investigating the effect of a dark personality and moral disengagement on applicants’ tendency to employ deceptive impression management. The results demonstrate that the use of deceptive impression management remains unaffected by psychopathy, but that
Machiavellianism and narcissism lead this deceptive phenomenon to proliferate. Moreover, the findings show that the positive relationship between all dark-triad traits and the
employment of deceptive impression management tactics can be explained through the applicants’ process of moral disengagement. An applicant with a darker personality is more inclined to make use of moral disengagement, as this mechanism enhances the creation of
their own mental utopia, in which the means that they use to achieve their ends are justified. The aforementioned positive association, in turn, stimulates the exhibition of dishonest behavior, as the socio-cognitive process of moral disengagement detaches their moral self-punishment mechanism, allowing the applicants to suppress the thorny feeling of acting unethically (Moore, 2008, 2015; Moore et al., 2012). However, the practical implications of this study grant organizations hope, as they convey the impression that the battle against deceit has not been lost by interviewers; through personality tests, moral warnings, and an organizational architecture and culture which is intolerant of any unethicality, leaders could remain one step ahead of dishonest candidates. Taken together, the aforementioned findings lay the foundation for future research of larger scope and serve as a guideline through the maze of duplicity.
References
Al Aïn, S., Carré, A., Fantini-Hauwel, C., Baudouin, J. Y., & Besche-Richard, C. (2013). What is the emotional core of the multidimensional Machiavellian personality trait? Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1-8.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed). American Psychiatric Association.
Auer, E. M. L. (2018). Detecting Deceptive Impression Management Behaviors in Interviews Using Natural Language Processing (Master’s dissertation).
https://doi.org/10.25777/yx69-dy97
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 248-287.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and social psychology review, 3(3), 193-209.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(2), 364.
Barrick, M. R., Shaffer, J. A., & DeGrassi, S. W. (2009). What you see may not be what you get: Relationships among self-presentation tactics and ratings of interview and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1394.
Baysinger, M. A., Scherer, K. T., & LeBreton, J. M. (2014). Exploring the disruptive effects of psychopathy and aggression on group processes and group effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 48-65
Bertl, B., Pietschnig, J., Tran, U. S., Stieger, S., & Voracek, M. (2017). More or less than the sum of its parts? Mapping the Dark Triad of personality onto a single Dark
Core. Personality and individual differences, 114, 140-144.
Blair, C. A., Hoffman, B. J., & Helland, K. R. (2008). Narcissism in organizations: A
multisource appraisal reflects different perspectives. Human Performance, 21(3), 254-276.
Boddy, C. R. (2014). Corporate psychopaths, conflict, employee affective well-being and counterproductive work behaviour. Journal of business ethics, 121(1), 107-121. Book, A., Visser, B. A., & Volk, A. A. (2015). Unpacking “evil”: Claiming the core of the
Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 73, 29-38.
Bourdage, J. S., Roulin, N., & Tarraf, R. (2018). “I (might be) just that good”: Honest and deceptive impression management in employment interviews. Personnel Psychology, 71(4), 597-632.
Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(1), 9-30.
Burgoon, J. K., & Buller, D. B. (2015). Interpersonal deception theory. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 203-242). Wiley.
C Ford, C. V., King, B. H., & Hollender, M. H. (1988). Lies and liars: Psychiatric aspects of prevarication. The American journal of psychiatry, 145(5), 554-562
Carlson, J. R., Carlson, D. S., & Ferguson, M. (2011). Deceptive impression management: Does deception pay in established workplace relationships? Journal of Business Ethics, 100(3), 497-514.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Machiavellianism. Academic Press.
Clarke, J. (2009). Working With Monsters: How to Identify and Protect Yourself from the Workplace Psychopath. Random House.
Dreber, A., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Gender differences in deception. Economics Letters, 99(1), 197-199.
Duchon, D., & Drake, B. (2009). Organizational narcissism and virtuous behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(3), 301-308.
Dwight, S. A., & Donovan, J. J. (2003). Do warnings not to fake reduce faking? Human Performance, 16(1), 1-23.
Egan, V., Hughes, N., & Palmer, E. J. (2015). Moral disengagement, the dark triad, and unethical consumer attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 123-128. Fletcher, C. (1990). The relationships between candidate personality, self-presentation
strategies, and interviewer assessments in selection interviews: An empirical study. Human Relations, 43(8), 739-749.
Freeman, J., & Samson, F. (2012). Are you telling the truth? Psychopathy assessment and impression management in a community sample. The Open Criminology Journal, 5(1), 16-23.
Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10-year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199-216.
Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of management, 14(2), 321-338.
Giammarco, E. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2015). Interpersonal guilt and the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 96-101.
Giammarco, E. A., Atkinson, B., Baughman, H. M., Veselka, L., & Vernon, P. A. (2013). The relation between antisocial personality and the perceived ability to deceive.
Personality and Individual differences, 54(2), 246-250.
Gilmore, D. C., Stevens, C. K., Harrell-Cook, G., & Ferris, G. R. (1999). Impression
management tactics. In R. W. Eder & M. M. Harris (Eds.), The Employment Interview Handbook (1st ed., pp. 321-336). SAGE publications, Inc.
Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102(3), 445-459.
Goffin, R. D., & Woods, D. M. (1995). Using personality testing for personnel selection: Faking and test‐ taking inductions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 3(4), 227-236.
Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (2nd ed.). Multi-Health Systems.
Harrell, W. A., & Hartnagel, T. (1976). The impact of Machiavellianism and the trustfulness of the victim on laboratory theft. Sociometry, 39(2), 157-165.
Harrison, A., Summers, J., & Mennecke, B. (2018). The effects of the dark triad on unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(1), 53-77.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, Second Edition: A Regression-Based Approach (Methodology in the Social Sciences) (Second ed.). The Guilford Press.
Higgins, C. A., & Judge, T. A. (2004). The effect of applicant influence tactics on recruiter perceptions of fit and hiring recommendations: A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 622-632.
Hill, C., & Hult, G. T. M. (2018). International business: Competing in the global marketplace. McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2013). Hierarchical power distance in forty countries. In C. J. Lammers & D. J. Hickson (Eds.), Organizations alike and unlike: Towards a comparative sociology of organizations (pp. 97-119). Routledge.
Hogue, M., Levashina, J., & Hang, H. (2013). Will I fake it? The interplay of gender, Machiavellianism, and self-monitoring on strategies for honesty in job interviews. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 399-411.
Huffcutt, A. I., & Culbertson, S. S. (2011). Interviews. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 2: Selecting and developing members for the organization, pp. 185- 203). American Psychological Association.
Johnson, E. N., Kuhn, J. R., Apostolou, B. A., & Hassell, J. M. (2013). Auditor Perceptions of Client Narcissism as a Fraud Attitude Risk Factor. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(1), 203–219.
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological assessment, 22(2), 420-432.
Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their way. Personality and individual differences, 52(3), 449-453. Jones, D. N., & Figueredo, A. J. (2013). The core of darkness: Uncovering the heart of the
Dark Triad. European Journal of Personality, 27(6), 521-531.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 93-108). Guilford.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). Introducing the Short Dark Triad
(SD3). Assessment, 21(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2017). Duplicity among the dark triad: Three faces of deceit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(2), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000139
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. Psychological perspectives on the self, 1(1), 231-262.
Kacmar, K. M., Delery, J. E., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). Differential Effectiveness of Applicant Impression Management Tactics on Employment Interview Decisions 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(16), 1250-1272.
Law, S. J., Bourdage, J., & O’Neill, T. A. (2016). To fake or not to fake: Antecedents to interview faking, warning instructions, and its impact on applicant reactions. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 1-13.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological bulletin, 107(1), 34-47.
LeBreton, J., Shiverdecker, L. K., & Grimaldi, E. M. (2018). The Dark Triad and Workplace Behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 387-414.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and Narcissism in the Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1571–1582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.016
Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2006). A model of faking likelihood in the employment interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(4), 299-316. MacKinnon, D., Fairchild, A., & Fritz, M. (2007). Mediation Analysis. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 593-614.
McFarland, L. A. (2003). Warning against faking on a personality test: Effects on applicant reactions and personality test scores. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 11(4), 265-276.
McGregor, D. (1989). The human side of enterprise. In J. W. Newstrom & K. Davis (Eds.), Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work (pp. 14‐ 24). McGraw Hill.
Melchers, K. G., Roulin, N., & Buehl, A. K. (2020). A review of applicant faking in selection interviews. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28(2), 123-142.
Miller, G. R., & Stiff, J. B. (1993). Sage series in interpersonal communication, Vol. 14. Deceptive communication. SAGE publications, inc.
Millon, T., & Davis, R. D. (1998). Ten subtypes of psychopathy. In T. Millon, E. Simonsen, E. Birket-Smith, & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior (pp. 161-170). Guilford.
Moore, C. (2008). Moral disengagement in processes of organizational corruption. Journal of Business ethics, 80(1), 129-139.
Moore, C. (2015). Moral disengagement. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 199-204. Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Klebe Treviño, L., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why
employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 1-48.
Mullins-Nelson, J. L., Salekin, R. T., & Leistico, A. M. R. (2006). Psychopathy, empathy, and perspective-taking ability in a community sample: Implications for the successful psychopathy concept. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 5(2), 133-149. Nathanson, C., Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2006). Predictors of a behavioral measure
of scholastic cheating: Personality and competence but not demographics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(1), 97-122.
O’Boyle, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of applied psychology, 97(3), 557.
Ogunfowora, B., Bourdage, J. S., & Nguyen, B. (2013). An exploration of the dishonest side of self‐ monitoring: Links to moral disengagement and unethical business decision making. European Journal of Personality, 27(6), 532-544.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Doerr, B. (2020). Conceit and deceit: Lying, cheating, and stealing among grandiose narcissists. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, 109627.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of research in personality, 36(6), 556-563.
Pechorro, P., Caramelo, V., Oliveira, J. P., Nunes, C., Curtis, S. R., & Jones, D. N. (2018). The Short Dark Triad (SD3): Adaptation and Psychometrics among At-Risk Male and Female Youths. Deviant Behavior, 40(3), 273–286.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1421120
Pfeffer, J. (2005). Producing sustainable competitive advantage through the effective management of people. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(4), 95-106. Ralston, S. M., & Kirkwood, W. G. (1999). The trouble with applicant impression
management. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 13(2), 190-207.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(5), 890-902.
Rauthmann, J. F. (2011). Acquisitive or protective self-presentation of dark personalities? Associations among the Dark Triad and self-monitoring. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4), 502-508.
Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2012). How “dark” are the Dark Triad traits? Examining the perceived darkness of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(7), 884-889.
Roeser, K., McGregor, V. E., Stegmaier, S., Mathew, J., Kübler, A., & Meule, A. (2016). The Dark Triad of personality and unethical behavior at different times of day. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 73-77.
Rosenfeld, P. (1997). Impression management, fairness, and the employment interview. Journal of business ethics, 16(8), 801-808.
Rosenfeld, P., Edwards, J. E., & Thomas, M. D. (2005). Impression management. In N. Nicholson, P. G. Audia, & M. Pillutla (Eds.), Blackwell encyclopedia of management (2nd ed., pp. 163-165). Blackwell.
Roulin, N. (2016). Individual differences predicting impression management detection in job interviews. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 2(1), 1-12.
Roulin, N., & Bourdage, J. S. (2017). Once an impression manager, always an impression manager? Antecedents of honest and deceptive impression management use and variability across multiple job interviews. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1-13. Roulin, N., & Krings, F. (2016). When winning is everything: The relationship between
competitive worldviews and job applicant faking. Applied Psychology, 65(4), 643-670. Roulin, N., Bangerter, A., & Levashina, J. (2014). Interviewers' perceptions of impression
management in employment interviews. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(2), 141-163.
Roulin, N., Bangerter, A., & Levashina, J. (2015). Honest and deceptive impression
management in the employment interview: Can it be detected and how does it impact evaluations? Personnel Psychology, 68(2), 395-444.
Ruiz-Palomino, P., Martínez-Cañas, R., & Fontrodona, J. (2013). Ethical culture and employee outcomes: The mediating role of person-organization fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 173-188.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations. Brooks/Cole.
Sijtsema, J. J., Garofalo, C., Jansen, K., & Klimstra, T. A. (2019). Disengaging from evil: Longitudinal associations between the dark triad, moral disengagement, and antisocial behavior in adolescence. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 47(8), 1351-1365. Snell, A. F., Sydell, E. J., & Lueke, S. B. (1999). Towards a theory of applicant faking:
Integrating studies of deception. Human Resource Management Review, 9(2), 219-242.
Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L. (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of applicant impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5), 587-606.
Stevens, G. W., Deuling, J. K., & Armenakis, A. A. (2012). Successful psychopaths: Are they unethical decision-makers and why? Journal of Business Ethics, 105(2), 139-149. Tsai, W. C., Chen, C. C., & Chiu, S. F. (2005). Exploring boundaries of the effects of
applicant impression management tactics in job interviews. Journal of Management, 31(1), 108-125.
Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. (2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of applied psychology, 86(2), 351-360.
Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of Impression Management on Performance Ratings: A Longitudinal Study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 232–260. https://doi.org/10.5465/256734
Weiss, B., & Feldman, R. S. (2006). Looking good and lying to do it: Deception as an impression management strategy in job interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4), 1070-1086.
Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D. (2007). Capturing the four-factor structure of psychopathy in college students via self-report. Journal of personality assessment, 88(2), 205-219.
Wilson, D. S., Near, D. C., & Miller, R. R. (1998). Individual Differences in
Machiavellianism as a Mix of Cooperative and Exploitative Strategies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19(3), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1090-5138(98)00011-7
Appendix A
The Short Dark Triad (SD3) Scale The SD3 scale items by Jones and Paulhus (2013)
Machiavellianism items
1. It’s not wise to tell your secrets.
2. I like to use clever manipulation to get my way.
3. Whatever it takes, you must get the important people on your side. 4. Avoid direct conflict with others because they may be useful in the future.
5. It’s wise to keep track of information that you can use against people later.
6. You should wait for the right time to get back at people.
7. There are things you should hide from other people to preserve your reputation.
8. Make sure your plans benefit yourself, not others. 9. Most people can be manipulated.
Narcissism items
1. People see me as a natural leader. 2. I hate being the center of attention. (R)
3. Many group activities tend to be dull without me.
4. I know that I am special because everyone keeps telling me so. 5. I like to get acquainted with important people.
6. I feel embarrassed if someone compliments me. (R) 7. I have been compared to famous people.
