Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, have reshaped opportunities and challenges across various fields, including human resources (HR). Concerns have arisen about the potential for personality assessment manipulation using LLMs, posing a risk to the validity of these tools. This threat is a reality: recent research suggests that many candidates are using AI to complete pre-hire assessments. This study addresses this problem by examining whether ChatGPT can outperform humans in faking personality assessments while avoiding detection. To explore this, two experiments were conducted focusing on assessing job-relevant traits, with and without coaching, and with two methods of identifying faking, specifically using an impression management (IM) measure and an overclaiming questionnaire (OCQ). For each study, we used responses from 100 working adults recruited via the Prolific platform, which were compared to 100 replications from ChatGPT. The results revealed that while ChatGPT showed some ability to manipulate assessments, without coaching it did not consistently outperform humans. Coaching had a minimal impact on reducing IM scores for either humans or ChatGPT, but reduced OCQ bias scores for ChatGPT. These findings highlight the limitations of current faking detection measures and emphasize the need for further research to refine methods for ensuring the integrity of personality assessments in HR, particularly as artificial intelligence becomes more available to candidates.

This interview-based article addresses the question of how management educators can increase their effectiveness in communicating with their students. A challenge for management educators who are looking to bring their teaching and impact to the next level is that there is a voluminous literature regarding effective communication best practices. The current article focuses on what management educators should prioritize to better engage their students, communicate with their students, and disseminate their work beyond academia. To help management educators determine which of the many effective communication practices should be focused on, the current article presents an interview with someone who is among the most influential scientist-practitioners in the field of management, Gary Latham. We advocate for management educators to set a specific, challenging goal for improving their teaching performance, and to also implement one or more of the following recommendations to communicate memorably when teaching management education students: (1) using everyday, layperson rather than scientific language; (2) emphasizing the value of behavioral science theory for practice; (3) explaining the danger of ignoring conditional variables; and (4) capturing and keeping students' attention by presenting surprising findings.

Personnel PsychologyEarly View BOOK REVIEW Personnel Psychology by Alexandra Luong, Justin M. Sprung, and Michael J. Zickar. New York: Routledge, 2024, 250 pages, $170, hardcover Stephen D. Risavy, Corresponding Author Stephen D. Risavy [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-3293-8549 Lazaridis School of Business & Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Correspondence Stephen D. Risavy, Lazaridis School of Business & Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3C5, Canada. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Stephen D. Risavy, Corresponding Author Stephen D. Risavy [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-3293-8549 Lazaridis School of Business & Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Correspondence Stephen D. Risavy, Lazaridis School of Business & Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3C5, Canada. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 17 February 2024 https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12642Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. REFERENCES Gatewood, R. D., Feild, H. S., & Barrick, M. (2019). Human resource selection. ( 9th ed.). Wessex Press Inc. Google Scholar Latham, G. P., & Wexley, K. N. (1994). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal. ( 2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar Roulin, N., & Stronach, R. (2022). LinkedIn-based assessments of applicant personality, cognitive ability, and likelihood of organizational citizenship behaviors: Comparing self-, other-, and language-based automated ratings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 30(4), 503–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12396 10.1111/ijsa.12396 Web of Science®Google Scholar Sackett, P. R., Demeke, S., Bazian, I. M., Griebie, A. M., Priest, R., & Kuncel, N. R. (2023). A contemporary look at the relationship between general cognitive ability and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001159 10.1037/apl0001159 Web of Science®Google Scholar Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040–2068. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994 10.1037/apl0000994 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Shaffer, J. A., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2012). A matter of context: A meta-analytic investigation of the relative validity of contextualized and noncontextualized personality measures. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 445–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01250.x 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01250.x Web of Science®Google Scholar Stone, D. L., Lukaszewski, K. M., Stone-Romero, E. F., & Johnson, T. L. (2013). Factors affecting the effectiveness and acceptance of electronic selection systems. Human Resource Management Review, 23(1), 50–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.06.006 10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.06.006 Web of Science®Google Scholar Zottoli, M. A., & Wanous, J. P. (2000). Recruitment source research: Current status and future directions. Human Resource Management Review, 10(4), 353–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(00)00032-2 10.1016/S1053-4822(00)00032-2 Google Scholar Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue ReferencesRelatedInformation

The current study examines the riskiest forms and sources of potential bias in the employment interview. A mixed methods survey focused on interviewers' attention to various potentially biasing applicant characteristics, how interviewers learn about such characteristics, the traits of interviewers who are sensitive to such characteristics, and how knowledge of such characteristics affects interviewers' opinions of applicants. Participants were 680 professional interviewers from the U.S., U.K., and Canada. High risks of bias were associated with six applicant characteristics (as targets of bias), three interviewer characteristics (as predisposing toward bias), and three sources of information in the interview process. Interviewers commonly rationalized their judgments in job-relevant terms. These results have implications for understanding and limiting the risk of common selection biases.

Personnel PsychologyEarly View BOOK REVIEW Advanced Introduction to Negotiation by Leigh Thompson and Cynthia S. Wang. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. 2022. 170 pages, $24.95 softcover Stephen D. Risavy, Corresponding Author Stephen D. Risavy [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-3293-8549 Lazaridis School of Business & Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Correspondence Stephen D. Risavy, Lazaridis School of Business & Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3C5, Canada. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Stephen D. Risavy, Corresponding Author Stephen D. Risavy [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-3293-8549 Lazaridis School of Business & Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Correspondence Stephen D. Risavy, Lazaridis School of Business & Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3C5, Canada. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 23 April 2024 https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12648Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. REFERENCES Babcock, L., Wang, X., & Loewenstein, G. (1996). Choosing the wrong pond: Social comparisons in negotiations that reflect a self-serving bias. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2946655 10.2307/2946655 Web of Science®Google Scholar Bazerman, M. H., Moore, D. A., & Gillespie, J. J. (1999). The human mind as a barrier to wiser environmental agreements. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(8), 1277–1300. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921954868 10.1177/00027649921954868 Web of Science®Google Scholar Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 477–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.477 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.477 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Brooks, A. W., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2011). Can Nervous Nelly negotiate? How anxiety causes negotiators to make low first offers, exit early, and earn less profit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.01.008 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.01.008 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. HarperCollins. Google Scholar Cialdini, R. B. (2016). Pre-suasion: A revolutionary way to influence and persuade. Random House Books. Google Scholar Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Houghton Mifflin Company. Web of Science®Google Scholar Jordan, J. M., & Roloff, M. E. (1997). Planning skills and negotiator goal accomplishment. Communication Research, 24(1), 31–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365097024001002 10.1177/009365097024001002 Google Scholar Thompson, L. L. (2020). The mind and heart of the negotiator ( 7th ed.). Pearson. Google Scholar van Kleef, G. A., & Coté, S. (2007). Expressing anger in conflict: When it helps and when it hurts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1557–1569. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1557 10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1557 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue ReferencesRelatedInformation