an employee who takes it easy at work cheating his employer?" or "Do you think a person should be fired by a company if it is found that he helped employees cheat the company out of overtime once in a while?" These ask you for your reaction to hypothetical dishonest situations. "If you are a particularly kind- hearted person who isn't sufficiently punitive, you fail," says Lewis Maltby, director of the workplace rights office at the American Civil Liberties Union. "Mother Teresa would never pass some of these tests." A big part of some tests is a behavioral history of the appli- cant. Applicants are asked to reveal the nature, frequency, and quantity of specific drug use, if any. They also must indicate if they have ever engaged in drunk driving, illegal gambling, traf- fic violations, forgery, vandalism, and a host of other unseemly behaviors. They must also state their opinions about the social acceptability of drinking alcohol and using other drugs. Some testing companies go further in this direction. Instead of honesty exams, they offer tests designed to draw a general psychological profile of the applicant, claiming that this sort of analysis can predict more accurately than either the polygraph or the typical honesty test how the person will perform on the job. Keith M. Halperin, a psychologist with Personnel Decision, Inc. (PDI), a company that offers such tests, complains that most paper-and-pencil honesty tests are simply written equivalents of the polygraph. They ask applicants whether they have stolen from their employers, how much they have taken, and other questions directly related to honesty. "But why," asks Halperin, "would an applicant who is dishonest enough to steal from an employer be honest enough to admit it on a written test?" It is more difficult for applicants to fake their responses to PDI's tests, Halperin contends. Not everyone is persuaded. Phyllis Bassett, vice president of James Bassett Company of Cincinnati, believes tests developed by psychologists that do not ask directly about the applicant's past honesty are poor predictors of future trust- worthiness. This may be because, as some psychologists report, "it is very difficult for dishonest people to fake hon- esty." One reason is that thieves tend to believe that "every- body does it" and that therefore it would be implausible for them to deny stealing. In general, those who market honesty exams boast of their validity and reliability, as established by field studies. They insist that the tests do make a difference, that they enable employers to ferret out potential trouble- makers—as in the Salvation Army case. Dr. Jones administered London House's PSI to eighty ket- tler applicants, which happened to be the number that the particular theft-ridden center needed. The PSls were not scored, and the eighty applicants were hired with no screen- ing. Throughout the fund-raising month between Thanksgiving and Christmas, the center kept a record of each kettler's daily receipts. After the Christmas season, the tests were scored and divided into "recommended" and "not recommended" for employment. After accounting for the peculiarities of each collection neighborhood, Jones discovered that those kettlers the PSI had not recommended turned in on the average $17 per day less than those the PSI had recommended. Based on this analysis, he estimated the center's loss to employee theft during the fund drive at $20,000. The list of psychological-test enthusiasts is growing by leaps and bounds, but the tests have plenty of detractors. Many psychologists have voiced concern over the lack of standards governing the tests; the American Psychological Association favors the establishment of federal standards for written honesty exams. But the chief critics of honesty and other psychological exams are the people who have to take them. They complain about having to reveal some of the most intimate details of their lives and opinions. For example, until an employee filed suit, Rent-A-Center, a Texas corporation, asked both job applicants and employ- ees being considered for promotion true-false questions like these: "I have never indulged in any unusual sex prac- tices," "I am very strongly attracted by members of my own sex," " go to church almost every week," and "I have diffi- culty in starting or holding my bowel movements." A man- ager who was fired for complaining about the test says, "It was ridiculous. The test asked if I loved tall women. How was I supposed to answer that? My wife is 5 feet 3 inches." A spokesman for Rent-A-Center argues that its question- naire is not unusual and that many other firms use it. Firms who use tests like Rent-A-Center's believe that no one's privacy is being invaded because employees and job applicants can always refuse to take the test. Critics disa- gree. "Given the unequal bargaining power," says former ACLU official Kathleen Bailey, "the ability to refuse to take a test is one of theory rather than choice—if one really wants the job." DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Describe how you'd feel if you had to take a psychologi- cal test or an honesty test either as an employee or as a precondition for employment. Under what conditions, if any, would you take such a test? 2. How useful or informative do you think such tests are? Is their use a reasonable business policy? Assuming that tests like those described are valid and reliable, are they fair? Explain. 3. Do you think tests like these invade privacy and, if so, that this invasion is justified? Explain why or why not. 4. What ideals, obligations, and effects must be consid- ered in using psychological tests as pre-employment screens? In your view, which is the most important consideration? 5. If you were an employer, would you require either employ- ees or job applicants to pass an honesty exam? Explain the moral principles that support your position. 6. What do you think a business's reaction would be if the government required its executive officers to submit to an honesty test as a precondition for the company's getting a government contract? If, in your opinion, the business would object, does it have any moral grounds for subject- ing workers to comparable tests? 7. Utilitarians would not find anything inherently objec- tionable about psychological tests as long as the interests of all parties were taken into account and given equal consideration before such tests were made a pre-employment screen. Do you think this is generally the case? 8. Should there be a law prohibiting or regulating psychological tests as a pre-employment screen? Should a decision to use these tests be made jointly by management and labor, or is testing for employment an exclusive employer right? CASE 9.2 Testing for Honesty "CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME." IF YOU DON'T think so, ask the Salvation Army. Some years ago, one of the Army's local branches discovered that it had a problem with theft among its kettle workers, the people who collect money for the Army during the Christmas season. Some of the Army's kettlers were helping themselves to the Army's donations before the organization had a chance to dole out the money. To put a stop to the problem, Army officials sought the assistance of Dr. John Jones, director of research for London House Management Consultants. London House is one of several companies that market honesty tests for prospective employees. 117 Although reliable figures are impossible to come by, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce believes that as many as 75 percent of employees may steal and that 30 percent of bankruptcies stem from employee theft. Even if these figures are exaggerated, no one doubts the problem is serious. Honesty-test makers say the only way to deal with the problem is before workers are hired by subjecting them to a pre-employment psychological test that will identify those prospective employees who are likely to steal. James Walls, one of the founders of Stanton Corporation, which has offered written honesty tests for twenty-five years, says that dishonest job applicants are clever at hoodwinking potential employers in a job interview. "They have a way of conducting themselves that is probably superior to the low- risk person. They have learned what it takes to be accepted and how to overcome the normal interview strategy," he says. "The high-risk person will get hired unless there is a way to screen him." For this reason, Walls maintains, written, objec- tive tests are needed to weed out the crooks. Millions of written honesty tests are given annually, thanks to congressional restrictions on polygraph testing. In addition to being legal, honesty tests are also economical because they cost only a fraction of what polygraph tests cost. Furthermore, honesty tests are easily administered at the workplace and can be quickly evaluated by the test maker. The tests also are nondiscriminatory because the race, gender, or ethnicity of applicants has no significant impact on scores. A typical test begins with some cautionary remarks. Test tak- ers are told to be truthful because dishonesty can be detected, and they are warned that incomplete answers will be considered incorrect, as will any unanswered questions. Then applicants ordinarily sign a waiver permitting the results to be shown to their prospective employer and authorizing the testing agency to check out their answers. Sometimes, however, prospective employees are not told that they are being tested for honesty, only that they are being asked questions about their background. James Walls justifies this less-than-frank explanation by saying that within a few questions it is obvious that the test deals with attitudes toward honesty. "The test is very transparent, it's not subtle." Some questions do indeed seem transparent-for example, "If you found $100 that was lost by a bank truck on the street yesterday, would you turn the money over to the bank, even though you knew for sure there was no reward?" But other questions are more controversial: "Have you ever had an argu- ment with someone and later wished you had said something else?" If you were to answer no, you would be on your way to failing. Other questions that may face the test taker are "How strong is your conscience?" "How often do you feel guilty?" "Do you always tell the truth?" "Do you occasionally have thoughts you wouldn't want made public?" "Does everyone steal a little?" "Do you enjoy stories of successful crimes?" "Have you ever been so intrigued by the cleverness of a thief that you hoped the person would escape detection?" Or consider questions like "Is
Purchase answer to see full attachment