Test-Taker Reactions to the Selection Process: Effects of Outcome Favorability, Explanations, and Voice on Fairness Perceptions

This study examined the effects of providing an explanation and voice on fairness perceptions and reactions of test takers under favorable and unfavorable selection decisions. Participants took either a cognitive ability test or an overt integrity test in a simulated selection situation. Then, the voice manipulation was introduced. Participants were informed of the hiring decision with or without an explanation. Results showed that type of test had effects on procedural fairness perceptions such that these reactions were more positive when a cognitive ability test was used. The results of voice and explanation manipulations on fairness perceptions indicated that providing an explanation had a positive effect on perceptions but, surprisingly, face-validity perceptions were less favorable when participants had voice opportunity.     

The Role of Attributions and Fairness in Understanding Job Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures and Decisions

Purpose

Drawing mainly upon Applicant Attribution-Reaction Theory (AART), we clarify and underscore the role of attribution dimensions (personal control, external control, and stability) in forming applicant fairness perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral reactions.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Students seeking (or about to seek) jobs (N = 264) participated in an experimental study in which procedural justice rules and outcome favorability (selected or rejected) were manipulated. Participants reported their attributions, fairness perceptions, and behavioral intentions. Hypotheses were tested through SEM and bootstrapping.

Findings

Applicant attributions were predicted by outcome favorability and the extent to which the interview process satisfied/violated procedural justice rules. In line with AART, process fairness perceptions mediated relationships between applicant attribution dimensions and both organizational perceptions and behavioral intentions.

Implications

Organizations should satisfy justice rules in employee selection processes because such rules affect applicant attributions, which in turn predict perceptions and behavioral intentions. In addition to identifying antecedents and consequences of fairness perceptions, antecedents and consequences of applicant attributions should be investigated, as both relate to important organizational outcomes.

Originality/Value

This study is one of a very few to test propositions from AART. Through an experimental design of high internal validity, we show that outcome favorability and the satisfaction/violation of justice rules predict job applicant attributions (personal control, external control, and stability). We further show that applicants’ attributions explain unique variance in their perceptions of the employing organization and in their behavioral intentions (e.g., recommend organization to others; litigate) beyond that explained by selection outcome and fairness perceptions.     

Applying organizational justice theory to admission into higher education: Admission from a student perspective

Applicant perceptions of methods used in admission procedures to higher education were investigated using organizational justice theory. Applicants to a psychology study program completed a questionnaire about several admission methods. General favorability, ratings on justice dimensions, relationships between general favorability and these dimensions, and differences in perceptions based on gender and on the aim of the admission procedure (selection or matching) were studied. In addition, the relationship between favorability and test performance, and the relationship between favorability and behavioral outcomes were investigated. Applicants rated interviews and trial‐studying tests most favorably. Contrary to expectations based on the existing literature, high school grades were perceived least favorably and there was no relationship between applicant perceptions and enrollment decisions. In line with previous research in the employment literature, general favorability was most strongly related to face validity, study‐relatedness, applicant differentiation, the chance to show skills, perceived scientific evidence, and perceived wide‐spread use. We found no differences in applicant perceptions based on gender and small differences based on the aim of admission procedures. These results extend the applicant perceptions literature to educational admission and the results are useful for administrators when choosing methods to admit students.     

Outcome favorability as a boundary condition to voice effect on people's reactions to public policymaking

Regarding people's reactions to public policymaking, an organizational justice framework has been introduced. Although these studies showed a link between fairness perceptions and attitudes toward public policy and authority, results concerning more behavioral consequences and the moderation of outcome favorability are less clear. The present research explored the voice effect on people's reactions to public policymaking, as well as outcome favorability as a boundary condition to it. Two different settings and use of different designs (a scenario and an experiment) yielded convergent results that people's reactions to public policymaking were more favorable when they had voice than they did not and outcome favorability moderated the voice effect. More precisely, the voice effect was stronger when the outcome was unfavorable than favorable.     

The self-serving attributional bias: Beyond self-presentation

An experiment was conducted to provide empirical support for the notion that asymmetrical causal attributions for favorable and unfavorable outcomes result from a self-serving attributional bias that occurs independently of self-presentational concerns. Subjects did either well or poorly on an ego-involving test for which their performance, attributions, and evaluations of the test were either public or private. A pattern of self-serving responses for subjects' attributions and evaluations of the test was found in the private conditions, thus providing evidence of the influence of outcome favorability on individuals' perceptions of causality. Theoretical and practical implications of these finding are discussed and suggestions for future research are offered.     

Perceptions of Justice in Employment Selection Decisions: The Role of Applicant Gender

In contrast to the vast majority of justice literature that controls for applicant gender, the present study investigated the role of applicant gender in relation to applicant procedural and distributive justice perceptions after being informed of an organization's reject/accept decision. A sample of 503 students completed a selection test, believing the results would be used to make initial selection decisions for an organization recruiting from a university. Two weeks later, participants were given selection decisions (randomly assigned), and procedural and distributive justice perceptions were assessed. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated gender moderated the relationship between selection decision favorability and organizational justice perceptions. As hypothesized, in comparison with rejected males, rejected female applicants reacted most negatively to both forms of justice. On the other hand, selected female applicants had a more positive reaction than selected male applicants to both procedural and distributive justice. Potential implications for these and other findings are discussed.     

Preference,Expectations, and Attributional Bias: Two Field Studies1

Two quasi-experiments were conducted to test the relationship among a perceiver's preference, expectations, and causal attributions for an event, when the outcome of the event ran for and counter to expectation and preference. Following the 1976 Superbowl, fans of Dallas and Pittsburgh and fans with no preference were asked to attribute causality for a series of game events, counterbalanced for (un)favorability for each team. Following the 1976 Presidential election, fans of Carter and Ford were asked to attribute causality for the election outcome and estimate its repeatability and mutability. Both studies revealed that fans exhibit a biased attributional pattern, offering more credit to their own side for their successes than to the opponents for their successes. Furthermore, fans see their side's successes as replicable and their side's failures as nonreplicable. The implications of the data patterns for real world manifestations of attributional bias are discussed.     

Procedural Fairness,the Economy,and Support for Political Authorities

A vast literature in social and organizational psychology suggests that support for authorities is driven both by the outcomes they deliver to people and by the extent to which they employ fair decision making processes. Furthermore, some of that literature describes a process‐outcome interaction, through which the effect of outcome favorability is reduced as process fairness increases. However, very few studies have been conducted to determine whether such interaction is also present in the explanation of support for political authorities. Here, we start by analyzing whether individual perceptions of the political system’s procedural fairness moderate the well‐known individual‐level relationship between perceived economic performance and government approval. Then, we explore the implications of such process‐outcome interaction to the phenomenon of “economic voting,” testing whether impartiality in governance moderates the effect of objective economic performance on aggregate incumbent parties’ support. In both cases, we show that the interaction between processes and outcomes seems to extend beyond the organizational contexts where it has been previously observed, with important implications for the study of political support.     

Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Methods: A look at professionals in Mumbai,India

This study expands upon Steiner and Gilliland's selection fairness research. Professionals (N = 114) from Mumbai, India rated 12 employee selection methods on favorability and provided the bases for those ratings. In line with previous research, interviews and resumes were rated most favorably, while graphology and honesty tests were rated least favorably. Perceived face validity, opportunity to perform, and widespread use of selection methods were highly correlated with favorability ratings, while interpersonal warmth, scientific evidence, and respectful of privacy exhibited weak correlations with favorability ratings. Work sample tests, which have previously been rated favorably, were rated unfavorably. Exploratory analysis showed that participants viewed assessment centers favorably and online information unfavorably. Outcome favorability was highly correlated with favorability ratings.     

Job context, selection decision outcome, and the perceived fairness of selection tests: biodata as an illustrative case

S. W. Gilliland (1993) has proposed a model of perceived selection system fairness to help understand applicants' prehire and posthire behavior. The present study aimed to verify and extend his framework by investigating the role of job context in the formation of fairness perceptions of biodata. A sample of 255 students (108 men, 147 women) completed an operational biodata instrument, believing that it would be used to hire persons for either international, local, or unspecified entry-level managerial positions. Participants were then presented with outcome information (selected or rejected for further consideration). Consistent support was found for the research hypotheses derived from the Gilliland model. Participants' perceptions of the fairness and job relatedness of biodata were affected by the selection context and decision outcome. The importance of considering selection context in assessments of perceived test fairness is discussed.     

Applicant Reactions in Selection: Comprehensive meta‐analysis into reaction generalization versus situational specificity

This paper reports a comprehensive quantitative summary into applicant reactions to popular methods of employee selection. A detailed search of published and unpublished studies resulted in a final sample (k) of 38 independent samples covering 10 popular candidate assessment methods. Applicant reactions primary studies included samples from 17 countries internationally. Counter to previous suggestions for the situational specificity of applicant reactions, findings showed considerable similarity supporting the reaction generalizability hypothesis. Reaction favorability was structurally similar across countries and revealed a three‐tier clustering of overall favorability perceptions –most preferred (work samples, interviews), favorably evaluated (resumes, cognitive tests, references, biodata, personality inventories), and least preferred (honesty tests, personal contacts, graphology). Some differences in applicant reactions to dimension‐specific perceptions were found, however. Further analyses revealed strong positive correlations between favorability ratings and their validity and international usage. Implications for future research and ramifications for practice are considered in conclusion.     

Back to the future: Temporal perspective in the explanation of events

Prospective hindsight involves generating an explanation for a future event as if it had already happened; i.e., one goes forward in time, and then looks back. In order to examine how shifts in perspective might influence people's perceptions of events, we investigated two possible factors: temporal perspective (whether an event is set in the future or past) and uncertainty (whether the event's occurrence is certain or uncertain). In the first experiment, temporal perspective showed little influence while outcome uncertainty strongly affected the nature of explanations for events. Explanations for sure events tended to be longer, to contain a higher proportion of episodic reasons, and to be expressed in past tense. Evidence from the second experiment supports the view that uncertainty mediates not the amount of time spent explaining, but rather subjects' choice of explanation type. The implications of these findings for the use of temporal perspective in decision aiding are discussed.     

The Effect of Legitimizing Explanations on Applicants’ Perceptions of Selection Assessment Fairness1

This study investigated the effects of legitimizing explanations for selection test use on simulated applicants’ perceptions of fairness. The specificity of the explanation was varied. After receiving an explanation, a sample of 157 undergraduates completed 2 assessments (cognitive ability and personality), and reported their reactions to the assessments. Results indicate that for the cognitive ability assessment, general explanations increased fairness perceptions, but specific explanations did not. This relationship was fully mediated by perceptions of content and predictive validity. No effects for the personality assessment were found.     

Understanding Applicant Reactions to Credit Checks: Uncertainty,information effects and individual differences

Credit checks are an increasingly common selection procedure for American jobs, and they are distinct in a number of ways from the selection tests typically studied by researchers. With a credit check, applicants do not actually take a test or answer questions, and most will be uncertain about what information a credit report contains, why one is being requested, and how it will be evaluated. In two experiments we assess the effects of explanations and individual differences. Experiment 1 used a sample of 408 undergraduate business students to examine reaction dimensions relevant to credit checks, and found perceptions to be mainly negative. The type of explanation read, however, interacted with perceived credit report impact to influence reactions. Results of Experiment 2 , with a sample of students from a more non‐traditional population, were similar, but age was associated with greater skepticism of credit report accuracy. Privacy perceptions were the strongest predictor of intention to withdraw from the selection process.     

The Role of Person Characteristics in Perceptions of the Validity of Cognitive Ability Testing

Individuals vary in how they perceive cognitive ability tests; thus, it is useful for organizations to consider how individual differences influence applicant perceptions of selection tools. The present study examined the influence of implicit theories of ability and locus of control on perceptions of face validity and predictive validity for two cognitive ability tests. Relationships between perceptions and test experience, job‐relevant experience, and job familiarity were also examined. Interactions between implicit theories and self‐assessed performance in predicting perceptions were found, although not of the form hypothesized. Furthermore, job familiarity and prior success in selection contexts were related to perceptions. Finally, sample type interacted with test type to influence perceptions. Implications for selection system design and research on applicant perceptions are discussed.     

Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation

Although organizational justice scholars often describe unfairness as an emotionally laden experience, the role of emotion is underresearched. In a study of individuals who experienced being laid off (N = 173), the authors found that outcome favorability interacts with both procedural and interactional justice to predict participants' emotions. The pattern of interaction differed for inward-focused (i.e., shame and guilt) and outward-focused (i.e., anger and hostility) negative emotions. Attributions of blame mediated the relationship between fairness perceptions and outward-focused negative emotion. Outward-focused emotion mediated the relationship between fairness perceptions and retaliation.     

The Role of Leader Morality in the Interaction Effect of Procedural Justice and Outcome Favorability

The present research explored the role of leader morality in the interaction effect of procedural justice and outcome favorability, and attempted to connect justice and morality construct in a new direction. Two studies in different settings and using different designs (a scenario experiment and a survey) yielded convergent results. When leader morality was high, the interaction effect of procedural justice and outcome favorability was significant, and fair procedures mitigated the negative effect of low outcome favorability. When leader morality was low, however, the interaction between procedural justice and outcome favorability was absent.     

Effects of Test Interpretation Style and Favorability in the Counseling Process

Two styles of test interpretation (TI), delivered and interactive, were manipulated in a 1‐session counseling interview. The favorability of the interpretations (i.e., positive only and mixed) was also manipulated. After completing a well‐known personality test, 46 participants completed the TI session. Participants' thoughts and perceptions of their sessions and counselors did not differ across the 4 experimental conditions. However, their TI acceptance and helpfulness ratings did differ. Implications for TI research and practice are discussed.     

High procedural fairness heightens the effect of outcome favorability on self-evaluations: An attributional analysis

Previous research has shown that outcome favorability and procedural fairness often interact to influence employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, the form of the interaction effect depends upon the dependent variable. Relative to when procedural fairness is low, high procedural fairness: (a) reduces the effect of outcome favorability on employees’ appraisals of the system (e.g., organizational commitment), and (b) heightens the effect of outcome favorability on employees’ evaluations of themselves (e.g., self-esteem). The present research provided external validity to the latter form of the interaction effect (Studies 1 and 4). We also found that the latter form of the interaction effect was based on people’s use of procedural fairness information to make self-attributions for their outcomes (Studies 2 and 3). Moreover, both forms of the interaction effect were obtained in Study 4, suggesting that they are not mutually exclusive. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

To justify or excuse?: A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations

The authors used R. Folger and R. Cropanzano's (1998, 2001) fairness theory to derive predictions about the effects of explanation provision and explanation adequacy on justice judgments and cooperation, retaliation, and withdrawal responses. The authors also used the theory to identify potential moderators of those effects, including the type of explanation (justification vs. excuse), outcome favorability, and study context. The authors' predictions were tested by using meta-analyses of 54 independent samples. The results showed strong effects of explanations on both the justice and response variables. Moreover, explanations were more beneficial when they took the form of excuses rather than justifications, when they were given after unfavorable outcomes, and when they were given in contexts with instrumental, relational, and moral implications.