LinkedIn has become a more prevalent recruitment and selection tool for employers. However, two issues that could potentially arise in the usage of LinkedIn in the hiring process are fraud and racial discrimination. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine the effect of type of LinkedIn fraud (embellishment vs. fabrication) on ratings of forgivability and hireability based on an applicant’s race (Black vs. White). Using a 2 x 2 between-subjects factorial design, 179 participants recruited from Prolific were randomly assigned to one of four hypothetical LinkedIn profiles: Black applicant with an embellished LinkedIn profile, Black applicant with a fabricated LinkedIn profile, White applicant with an embellished LinkedIn profile, or White applicant with a fabricated LinkedIn profile. After reviewing the profile, participants were asked to rate their likelihood of hiring the applicant and forgiving them for committing fraud. Results revealed that the main effect of type of fraud was significant, such that it was significantly more likely for participants to forgive and hire an applicant if they embellished rather than fabricated their LinkedIn profile. Therefore, it was easier to excuse a less harsh lie. However, the current study did not find evidence of an interaction between applicant race and type of fraud committed on either forgivability or hireability, suggesting that no racial discrimination was detected in this study. Tendency to forgive and religiosity were also included as covariates in further analyses, but neither changed the pattern of results. These findings suggest that forgiveness and hiring decisions may not be based on who committed the lie, but the nature of the lie itself.
AdamsG. S.InesiM. E. (2016). Impediments to forgiveness: Victim and transgressor attributions of intent and guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(6), 866–881. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000070
2.
AguadoD.RicoR.RubioV. J.FernándezL. (2016). Applicant reactions to social network web use in personnel selection and assessment. Revista de Psicologia Del Trabajo Y De Las Organizaciones, 32(3), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpto.2016.09.001
3.
Al-ShattiE.OhanaM. (2021). Impression management and career related outcomes: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 701694. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.701694
4.
AyoobiN.ShahriarS.MukherjeeA. (2023). The looming threat of fake and LLM-generated LinkedIn profiles: Challenges and opportunities for detection and prevention. Proceedings of the 34th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (HT’23), Article 38, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3603163.3609064
5.
BerryZ.FredericksonJ. (2015). Explanations and implications of the fundamental attribution error: A review and proposal. Journal of Integrated Social Sciences, 5(1), 44–57.
6.
BerryJ. W.WorthingtonE. L.Jr. (2001). Forgivingness, relationship quality, stress while imagining relationship events, and physical and mental health. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(4), 447–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.4.447
7.
BertrandM.MullainathanS. (2004). Are emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review Review, 94(4), 991–1013. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002561
8.
BradyD. L.SaldanhaM. F.BarclayL. J. (2023). Conceptualizing forgiveness: A review and path forward. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(2), 261–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2632
9.
BrownR. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: Construct validity and links with depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 759–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029006008
10.
BrownV. R.VaughnE. D. (2011). The writing on the (Facebook) wall: The use of social networking sites in hiring decisions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9221-x
11.
ButlerD. S.MullisF. (2001). Forgiveness: A conflict resolution strategy in the workplace. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 57(3), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.21818/001c.17256
ClarkL. A.RobertsS. J. (2010). Employer’s use of social networking sites: A socially irresponsible practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0436-y
15.
ColeM. S.RubinR. S.FeildH. S.GilesW. F. (2007). Recruiters’ perceptions and use of applicant résumé information: Screening the recent graduate. Applied Psychology International Review, 56(2), 319–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00288.x
16.
DaroliaR.KoedelC.MartorellP.WilsonK.Perez-ArceF. (2016). Race and gender effects on employer interest in job applicants: New evidence from a résumé field experiment. Applied Economics Letters, 23(12), 853–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2015.1114571
17.
dos SantosN. R.PaisL.Cabo-LeitãoC.PassmoreJ. (2017). Ethics in recruitment and selection. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Recruitment, Selection and Employee Retention, 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118972472.ch6
18.
EatonJ.StruthersC. W.SantelliA. G. (2006). Dispositional and state forgiveness: The role of self-esteem, need for structure, and narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(2), 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.02.005
19.
FehrR.GelfandM. J.NagM. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 894–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019993
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everything life. Doubleday.
22.
GorbatovS.KhapovaS. N.LysovaE. I. (2018). Personal branding: Interdisciplinary systematic review and research agenda. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2238. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02238
23.
GoslingS. D.VazireS.SrivastavaS.JohnO. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93
24.
HärtelT. M.SchulerB. A.BackM. D. (2024). ‘LinkedIn, LinkedIn on the screen, who is the greatest and smartest ever seen?’: A machine learning approach using valid LinkedIn cues to predict narcissism and intelligence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 97(4), 1572–1602. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12531
25.
HartwellC. J.HarrisonJ. T.CampionM. A. (2025). Social media profiling: The influence of personal and professional social media content on hiring ratings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 33(1), Article e12502. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12502
HendersonK. E.WelshE. T. (2023). Potential bias when using social media for selection: Differential effects of candidate demographic characteristics, race match, perceived similarity, and profile detail. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 32(1), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12454
28.
HenleC. A.DineenB. R.DuffyM. K. (2019). Assessing intentional résumé deception: Development and nomological network of a résumé fraud measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(1), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9527-4
29.
HosainS.Manzurul ArefinA. H. M.HossinM. (2020). E-Recruitment: A social media perspective. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting, 16(4), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.9734/AJEBA/2020/v16i430248
IngoldP. V.LangerM. (2021). Résumé = résumé? The effects of blockchain, social media, and classical résumés on résumé fraud and applicant reactions to résumés. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, Article 106573. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2020.106573
JonesE. E.NisbettR. E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. General Learning Press.
34.
KuhnK. M.JohnsonT. R.MillerD. (2013). Applicant desirability influences reactions to discovered résumé embellishments. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21(1), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12021
35.
LearyM. R.KowalskiR. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34
36.
LeungW.ZhangZ.JibutiD.ZhaoJ.KleinM.PierceC.RobertL.ZhuH. (2020). Race, gender and beauty: The effect of information provision on online hiring biases. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1145/331383
MaD. S.CorrellJ.WittenbrinkB. (2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1122–1135. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5
McCulloughM. E.BonoG.RootL. M. (2005). Religion and forgiveness. In PaloutzianR. F.ParkC. L. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 394–411). Guilford Press.
42.
McCulloughM. E.WorthingtonE. L.Jr. (1999). Religion and the forgiving personality. Journal of Personality, 67(6), 1141–1164. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00085
NikolaouI. (2014). Social networking Web sites in job search and employee recruitment. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12067
PalanS.SchitterC. (2018). Prolific.ac—a subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004
47.
PeerE.BrandimarteL.SamatS.AcquistiA. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Psychology, 70, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006
PodsakoffP. M.OrganD. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408
50.
QuillianL.PagerD.HexelO.MidtbøenA. H. (2017). Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(41), 10870–10875. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706255114
51.
RiceL.BarthJ. (2016). Hiring decisions: The effect of evaluator gender and gender stereotype characteristics on the evaluation of job applicants. Gender Issues, 33(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-015-9143-4
52.
RothP. L.HuffcuttA. I.BobkoP. (2003). Ethnic group differences in measures of job performance: A new meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 694–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.694
53.
RuiJ.StefanoneM. A. (2013). Strategic self-presentation online: A cross-cultural study. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.022
54.
SallachT.MönkeF. W.SchäpersP. (2024). Cybervetting of organizational citizenship behavior expectations: Profile summary as a key in LinkedIn-based assessments. Computers in Human Behavior, 154, Article 108113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108113
55.
SchlenkerB. R. (1985). Introduction: Foundations of the self in social life. In SchlenkerB. R. (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 1–28). McGraw-Hill.
StaufferJ. M.BuckleyM. R. (2005). The existence and nature of racial bias in supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 586–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.586
58.
StewartL. D.PerlowR. (2001). Applicant race, job status, and racial attitude as predictors of employment discrimination. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(2), 259–275. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25092768
59.
StoughtonJ. W.ThompsonL. F.MeadeA. W. (2015). Examining applicant reactions to the use of social networking websites in pre-employment screening. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9333-6
60.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
61.
TruxilloD. M.BauerT. N.GarciaA. M. (2017). Applicant reactions to hiring procedures. In GoldsteinH. W.PulakosE. D.PassmoreJ.SemedoC. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention (pp. 53–70). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118972472.ch4
62.
Van IddekingeC. H.LanivichS. E.RothP. L.JuncoE. (2016). Social media for selection? Validity and adverse impact potential of a facebook-based assessment. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1811–1835. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313515524
63.
WaltherJ. B.ParksM. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529–563). Sage.
64.
WaltherJ. B.Van Der HeideB.HamelL. M.ShulmanH. C. (2009). Self-generated versus other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 36(2), 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208330251
65.
ZhaoS.GrasmuckS.MartinJ. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1816–1836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012
66.
ZiegertJ. C.HangesP. J. (2005). Employment discrimination: The role of implicit attitudes, motivation, and a climate for racial bias. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 553–562. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.553
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
