Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The present study sought to assess when and how actual job applicants change their responses when filling out an unproctored personality selection assessment for a second time. It was predicted feedback would be a key contextual motivator associated with how much applicants change their answers during the second administration. Mediation results showed that individuals receiving feedback that showed a low score on the personality assessment was the reason they did not get the job were more likely to employ faking response strategies in the second testing session, predicting the highest change in scores between the first and second testing sessions. Individuals receiving no feedback and those not experimentally motivated to fake (i.e., a comparison group of students) showed less change in responses across administrations.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/03.01.PR0.112.2.486-501 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!