{"id":{"repo_id":"cape-town","oai_identifier":"oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/37460"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/cape-town/oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/37460","repository":{"repo_id":"cape-town","name":"University of Cape Town","base_url":"https://open.uct.ac.za/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Understanding the relationship between interviewers' dispositional reasoning and judgement accuracy of deceptive impression management in interviews: does the accuracy measure matter?","abstract":"Deceptive impression management (DIM) refers to faking to create a positive image of oneself in an interview. The use of DIM poses a potential risk to organisations and threatens the validity of interviews. The risks of hiring an employee who does not meet the required performance standards and unnecessary turnover emphasise the importance to detect DIM in interviews. Previous research suggested that judges with higher dispositional reasoning ability are better at accurately judging DIM in interviews. However, recent research suggests that accuracy measures that distinguish between normative and distinctive elements may shed light on unique aspects of accuracy. For example, normative profile accuracy refers to the degree to which a judge can consistently judge a target in line with the expected trait profile average, whereas distinctive profile accuracy refers to the extent to which a judge can differentiate trait levels across targets. This secondary research study sought to understand the relationship between raters' dispositional reasoning and their DIM detection accuracy, operationalised as both normative and distinctive accuracy. To this end, primary data from a previous study were re-analysed, but using fresh operationalisations of accuracy that distinguished between normative and distinctive elements. The primary study, conducted in a sample of South African university students (N = 516), required students to rate the levels of DIM in interview transcripts written to depict different levels and types of impression management. Results show that judges who were higher in dispositional reasoning ability were able to accurately judge DIM in interviews, irrespective of how accuracy was operationalised. As criterion validity was consistent across normative and distinctive profile accuracy measures, the results of the study suggest the choice of accuracy measure in the study was not a study artefact. Keywords: deceptive impression management, dispositional reasoning, individual differences, normative profile accuracy, distinctive profile accuracy, interviews.","abstract_html":"Deceptive impression management (DIM) refers to faking to create a positive image of oneself in an interview. The use of DIM poses a potential risk to organisations and threatens the validity of interviews. The risks of hiring an employee who does not meet the required performance standards and unnecessary turnover emphasise the importance to detect DIM in interviews. Previous research suggested that judges with higher dispositional reasoning ability are better at accurately judging DIM in interviews. However, recent research suggests that accuracy measures that distinguish between normative and distinctive elements may shed light on unique aspects of accuracy. For example, normative profile accuracy refers to the degree to which a judge can consistently judge a target in line with the expected trait profile average, whereas distinctive profile accuracy refers to the extent to which a judge can differentiate trait levels across targets. This secondary research study sought to understand the relationship between raters' dispositional reasoning and their DIM detection accuracy, operationalised as both normative and distinctive accuracy. To this end, primary data from a previous study were re-analysed, but using fresh operationalisations of accuracy that distinguished between normative and distinctive elements. The primary study, conducted in a sample of South African university students (N = 516), required students to rate the levels of DIM in interview transcripts written to depict different levels and types of impression management. Results show that judges who were higher in dispositional reasoning ability were able to accurately judge DIM in interviews, irrespective of how accuracy was operationalised. As criterion validity was consistent across normative and distinctive profile accuracy measures, the results of the study suggest the choice of accuracy measure in the study was not a study artefact. Keywords: deceptive impression management, dispositional reasoning, individual differences, normative profile accuracy, distinctive profile accuracy, interviews.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Magangane, Yoliswa Mzuzile"],"institution":"Organisational Psychology","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["de Kock, Francois S"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2022,"date_issued":"2022","date_published":"2022","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:23:39Z","subjects":["Organisational psychology"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/11427/37460","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["de Kock, Francois S"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Magangane, Yoliswa Mzuzile"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2023-03-15T13:49:41Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2023-03-15T13:49:41Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2022"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.department","label":"Dc Publisher Department","values":["Organisational Psychology"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Master Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Masters","MSc"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Organisational psychology"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/11427/37460"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Deceptive impression management (DIM) refers to faking to create a positive image of oneself in an interview. The use of DIM poses a potential risk to organisations and threatens the validity of interviews. The risks of hiring an employee who does not meet the required performance standards and unnecessary turnover emphasise the importance to detect DIM in interviews. Previous research suggested that judges with higher dispositional reasoning ability are better at accurately judging DIM in interviews. However, recent research suggests that accuracy measures that distinguish between normative and distinctive elements may shed light on unique aspects of accuracy. For example, normative profile accuracy refers to the degree to which a judge can consistently judge a target in line with the expected trait profile average, whereas distinctive profile accuracy refers to the extent to which a judge can differentiate trait levels across targets. This secondary research study sought to understand the relationship between raters' dispositional reasoning and their DIM detection accuracy, operationalised as both normative and distinctive accuracy. To this end, primary data from a previous study were re-analysed, but using fresh operationalisations of accuracy that distinguished between normative and distinctive elements. The primary study, conducted in a sample of South African university students (N = 516), required students to rate the levels of DIM in interview transcripts written to depict different levels and types of impression management. Results show that judges who were higher in dispositional reasoning ability were able to accurately judge DIM in interviews, irrespective of how accuracy was operationalised. As criterion validity was consistent across normative and distinctive profile accuracy measures, the results of the study suggest the choice of accuracy measure in the study was not a study artefact. Keywords: deceptive impression management, dispositional reasoning, individual differences, normative profile accuracy, distinctive profile accuracy, interviews."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Understanding the relationship between interviewers' dispositional reasoning and judgement accuracy of deceptive impression management in interviews: does the accuracy measure matter?"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["de Kock, Francois S"],"dc:creator":["Magangane, Yoliswa Mzuzile"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2023-03-15T13:49:41Z"],"dc:date.available":["2023-03-15T13:49:41Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2022"],"dc:description.abstract":["Deceptive impression management (DIM) refers to faking to create a positive image of oneself in an interview. The use of DIM poses a potential risk to organisations and threatens the validity of interviews. The risks of hiring an employee who does not meet the required performance standards and unnecessary turnover emphasise the importance to detect DIM in interviews. Previous research suggested that judges with higher dispositional reasoning ability are better at accurately judging DIM in interviews. However, recent research suggests that accuracy measures that distinguish between normative and distinctive elements may shed light on unique aspects of accuracy. For example, normative profile accuracy refers to the degree to which a judge can consistently judge a target in line with the expected trait profile average, whereas distinctive profile accuracy refers to the extent to which a judge can differentiate trait levels across targets. This secondary research study sought to understand the relationship between raters' dispositional reasoning and their DIM detection accuracy, operationalised as both normative and distinctive accuracy. To this end, primary data from a previous study were re-analysed, but using fresh operationalisations of accuracy that distinguished between normative and distinctive elements. The primary study, conducted in a sample of South African university students (N = 516), required students to rate the levels of DIM in interview transcripts written to depict different levels and types of impression management. Results show that judges who were higher in dispositional reasoning ability were able to accurately judge DIM in interviews, irrespective of how accuracy was operationalised. As criterion validity was consistent across normative and distinctive profile accuracy measures, the results of the study suggest the choice of accuracy measure in the study was not a study artefact. Keywords: deceptive impression management, dispositional reasoning, individual differences, normative profile accuracy, distinctive profile accuracy, interviews."],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/11427/37460"],"dc:publisher.department":["Organisational Psychology"],"dc:subject":["Organisational psychology"],"dc:title":["Understanding the relationship between interviewers' dispositional reasoning and judgement accuracy of deceptive impression management in interviews: does the accuracy measure matter?"],"dc:type":["Master Thesis"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Masters","MSc"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:23:39Z"}