On this page: Key takeaways · How should you handle CV claims? A three step routine · Where do the "most people lie on their CV" figures come from? · What does the peer reviewed research show? · Is lying on a CV common in the Netherlands? · What are the common mistakes when reading CV claims? · What should you tell a manager who asks how many people lie on their CV? · How Radius helps · Frequently asked questions
Key takeaways
- The popular "most people lie" figures come mostly from CV companies' online surveys, never checked against a real CV. We found no reliable figure for frontline CVs.
- In the main peer reviewed study (US, self reported), an average of 72% reported embellishing, 61% omitting and 31% fabricating, at least to some extent.
- You do not need a lie rate: turn the three CV lines the decision rests on into questions, and check only what the job needs.
How should you handle CV claims? A three step routine
Ask about the claims that matter, and check only what the job needs.
A CV is a claim, not a record. Use a routine that works the same way for an accurate, a polished or a thin CV, and treats no candidate as a suspect.
- Pick the three lines the decision rests on. For most frontline roles: a job title, the equipment or tasks behind it, and a certificate the site requires.
- Turn each line into one structured question. Ask how, where and when. Ask every candidate the same question, and decide beforehand what a good answer sounds like (how to run structured interviews at high volume).
- Check only what the job needs. Verify the documents the role depends on, such as a certificate the client or site requires, and record everything else as what the candidate said. Anything unresolved stays open: a gap to close, not a reason to reject.
Record each line the same way for every candidate: said, checked or open. A claim is not an accusation. For a staffing agency, that record is also what to send the client instead of a forwarded CV, because it shows how the candidate was screened. Identity and right to work checks are a separate subject, covered in our article on verifying frontline candidates before the offer.
To see requirements and evidence side by side for one role, look at how Match works.
Illustrative example: "three years on reach trucks"
A CV for a warehouse role says "Reach truck driver, three years". Here is that line as two questions and one check. The questions are illustrations, not a validated assessment.
| Step | What you ask or do | What it tells you |
|---|---|---|
| Question 1 | "On a normal shift in your last job, how much of the time were you driving the reach truck, and what did you do the rest of the time?" | Whether "three years" means full shifts on the truck or an hour now and then |
| Question 2 | "When did you last drive one, and what have you worked on since?" | How recent the skill is, and a neutral way into any gap |
| Check | If the site requires a reach truck certificate, look at the certificate itself and its date; record it as checked or open | Whether the document the site depends on is in place |
The answers are still the candidate's own account, but now they are specific and comparable. Our blog Three Years on Reach Trucks Tells You Less Than You Think explains why years alone are weak evidence.
Where do the "most people lie on their CV" figures come from?
Mostly from online surveys commissioned by CV writing and CV builder companies.
They fill the first page of results, often repeated by HR news sites, with headline figures from a minority to a large majority. They share the same weaknesses:
- Self reported and undefined. "Lied" can mean a rounded date to one person and a fake degree to another, and nobody checks the CV.
- Narrow samples. Mostly UK or US adults answering online, not frontline applicants in the Netherlands.
- Mixed questions. Different wordings give very different answers, and the results get quoted as if they measured the same thing.
- A commercial interest. The companies running them sell CV services or templates.
We do not repeat their numbers: none traces back to a checked CV or describes the people you hire.
What does the peer reviewed research show?
One validated measure found exaggeration common and invention less common.
The most careful study we found, by Christine Henle, Brian Dineen and Michelle Duffy in the Journal of Business and Psychology (Henle, Dineen and Duffy, 2019), built a questionnaire on three kinds of intentional CV fraud:
- Fabrication: making things up, such as a degree never earned.
- Embellishment: exaggerating something otherwise accurate, such as a job title.
- Omission: deliberately leaving out relevant information, such as dates that would show a gap.
Honest mistakes were excluded. Respondents rated each kind for their current or most recent job search, on a seven point scale from "not at all" to "completely". The table shows the share reporting each kind at least to some extent.
| Sample (all US) | Fabricated | Embellished | Omitted |
|---|---|---|---|
| 194 business students, two universities | 27% | 73% | 63% |
| 176 business students, several universities | 31% | 76% | 59% |
| 262 employed adults recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk, all of whom had found their current job in the previous six months | 34% | 66% | 62% |
| Average of the three | 31% | 72% | 61% |
Source: Henle, Dineen and Duffy (2019), studies 2 to 4. Self reported; US samples.
Share reporting each kind at least to some extent
One dot per study; the bar is the average of the three
Among the working adults, fabrication was linked to lower job performance and more misbehaviour at work; embellishment and omission were not. Both outcomes were reported by the participants themselves.
The limits matter as much as the numbers. The threshold is low: "at least to some extent" includes small exaggerations. Everything is self reported, at one point in time, by US business students and adults recruited online, so it says nothing direct about Dutch warehouse or logistics applicants. And the authors built a research tool, writing that "Our measure is not intended to be a selection test."
A second study found that people were more likely to call a misrepresentation on a job application a lie, and less likely to hire, when it was relevant to the job and stated outright rather than left out; people with HR management experience were less likely to see a lie and more likely to hire (Wood, Schmidtke and Decker, 2007). Readers judge the same line differently, so agree in advance what matters for the role.
Is lying on a CV common in the Netherlands?
We found no reliable Dutch figure, for frontline roles or in general.
In October 2026, Dutch search results for "liegen op cv" were mostly blogs, news items and polls, and we found no recent, representative study of Dutch CVs. If someone quotes a Dutch percentage, ask where it comes from.
What are the common mistakes when reading CV claims?
Treating claims as facts, gaps as lies, and checking everything.
- Treating the CV as a record. Each line is the candidate's claim until you have asked about it or checked it.
- Treating every gap as a lie. Gaps have ordinary reasons, such as care, illness, study, short agency contracts or moving country. Ask "What were you doing between those two jobs?" and record the answer.
- Checking everything. Calling every past employer slows hiring and adds little the role needs. Check the documents the job depends on, and write down per role which claims those are.
What should you tell a manager who asks how many people lie on their CV?
Say that nobody knows, and explain what you do instead.
There is no reliable figure for our candidates, and US research suggests exaggerating and leaving things out are more common than inventing. So we ask every candidate the same questions about the claims that matter and check what the job needs. That holds whatever the true rate is, and it is why we say we hate CVs: a CV is where the questions start.
How Radius helps
Radius Hire is the AI hiring platform for frontline roles. It is built to turn CV claims into answers you can compare and evidence you can check, while a recruiter makes every hiring decision.
- The AI Interviewer puts the same role specific questions to every applicant in a short, structured voice interview that candidates can take on their phone, whenever it suits them, in the language set for the role.
- Match shows, for each requirement, whether it is backed by a document or a check, rests only on what the candidate said, or is still missing, with the moment in the interview that answered it.
- Where the employer uses Radius Passport, it checks identity and right to work with a trusted verification partner and records certificates with their expiry dates, so a recruiter can review the evidence before an offer.
Radius never rejects a candidate on its own. A recruiter reviews the evidence and makes every hiring decision. See how this looks for warehouse roles.