Ethics Case 6
Case 6.1 Psychological Testing at Dayton Hudson This case is based on psychological testing for prospective employees at a Target store located in California, during 1989. The test in question is a combination of two standard tests given to applicants in public safety positions such as a prison guard. Once the test is complete the consulting psychologists rate the job seeker on the following traits: emotional stability, interpersonal style, addiction potential, dependability, and rule following behavior (pg. 113). Sibi Soroka, along with other rejected job applicants filed a class action lawsuit against the Target Store owners, Dayton Hudson Corporation for violating their privacy with the questions asked. The owners defended the psychological test known as Psychscreen. It was used to determine if the potential store security officers judgment, emotional stability, and willingness to take direction was adequate while doing their job apprehending shoplifters. During the court proceedings it was discovered that Dayton Hudson did not check on the reliability of Psychscreen nor did the company have any supporting documentation stating improvements with the performance of SSO’s. The plaintiff’s witness stated the test had not been proven valid for screening the job applicants. Dayton Hudson’s witness admitted that 61% rate of false positives were present. The organization realized the intimate questions used in the Psychscreen did create an invasion of privacy but they felt the interference was negligible and acceptable for their needs. Some analysts contend the psychological test is an invasion of privacy due to the intimate questions and because they want psychological traits, which is something an individual has no control over. They still consider invasion of privacy even if they did not question religion, sex and intimate matters. Based on the facts of the case it does not appear to be a benefit using the Psychscreen since it has a proven track record