Do Applicants' Perceptions Matter? Investigating Reapplication Behavior Using Fairness Theory

This study used a fairness theory approach to examine a link between applicants' perceptions and their actual reapplication behavior. We suggested that applicants who do not receive job offers form ‘Would’ counterfactuals based on perceived performance and ‘Should’ counterfactuals based on two procedural justice rules (job relatedness and opportunity to perform). Participants (N=542) were applicants for a United States federal government position. After not being hired in the initial selection process, 9% of the applicants reapplied for the job the following year. We found some support for the hypothesized interactions. The job relatedness–perceived performance interaction was not significant, but the opportunity to perform–perceived performance interaction was. Opportunity to perform had a stronger influence when perceived performance was higher.     

Fairness Perceptions in Web‐based Selection: Impact on applicants’ pursuit intentions,recommendation intentions,and intentions to reapply

This study examines the Gilliland model of applicants’ reactions to selection procedures in a Web‐based context, revealing new theoretical and empirical insights. We extend existing research by further considering a reflective first‐order formative second‐order model consisting of three second‐order justice factors of formal characteristics, explanation, and interpersonal treatment modeled by 11 formative indicators representing the procedural justice rules. Partial least squares path modeling analysis revealed that formal characteristics and interpersonal treatment are positively related to perceptions of process fairness in Web‐based selection. Most salient procedural justice rules revealed were treatment of the applicants, opportunity to perform, propriety of questions, and reconsideration opportunity. Furthermore, process fairness, which was positively related to applicants’ reactions, fully mediated the relationship between justice factors and applicants’ reactions.     

STATUS AND ORGANIZATIONAL ENTRY: HOW ORGANIZATIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL STATUS AFFECT JUSTICE PERCEPTIONS OF HIRING SYSTEMS

Despite the fact that cognitive ability tests are highly predictive of job applicants’ future performance, these tests are often viewed as procedurally unfair by both hiring managers and job applicants. In this paper, we build on existing rationales by theorizing that status—both personal and organizational—may affect individuals’ procedural justice perceptions of selection tests. In 2 quasi‐experimental studies representing 435 managers and executives across both the United States and United Kingdom, we demonstrate that status is a double‐edged sword: helpful for high‐status organizations that use demanding selection tests to choose applicants but harmful because high‐status job applicants view these selection tests as more procedurally unjust than low‐status applicants.     

Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: An Updated Model and Meta-Analysis

An updated theoretical model of applicant reactions to selection procedures is proposed and tested using meta-analysis. Results from 86 independent samples  ( N = 48,750)  indicated that applicants who hold positive perceptions about selection are more likely to view the organization favorably and report stronger intentions to accept job offers and recommend the employer to others. Applicant perceptions were positively correlated with actual and perceived performance on selection tools and with self-perceptions. The average correlation between applicant perceptions and gender, age, and ethnic background was near zero. Face validity and perceived predictive validity were strong predictors of many applicant perceptions including procedural justice, distributive justice, attitudes towards tests, and attitudes towards selection. Interviews and work samples were perceived more favorably than cognitive ability tests, which were perceived more favorably than personality inventories, honesty tests, biodata, and graphology. The discussion identifies remaining theoretical and methodological issues as well as directions for future research.     

Perceived Fairness of Promotion Procedures: Identification of Justice Rules and Consequences for Job Attitudes

Two studies were concerned with the perceived fairness of the promotion procedures adopted by a police organization. The first study used Leventhal's (1980) theory of procedural justice to analyse the reasons given by unsuccessful candidates for their appeals against the decision. A content analysis revealed that the rules of ‘consistency and accuracy’ accounted for 81.8% of all the reasons stated. The second study applied the social cognitive theory (Bandura 1989a; 1989b) to examining the effect of perceived procedural fairness on unsuccessful candidates' self-efficacy and job attitudes related to police work. Results show that ‘procedural fairness’ was predictive of ‘self-efficacy and procedural satisfaction’, both of which in turn predicted officers' organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Theoretical implications of the studies for procedural justice and social cognitive theory were discussed.     

APPLICANT REACTIONS TO SELECTION: DEVELOPMENT OF THE SELECTION PROCEDURAL JUSTICE SCALE (SPJS)

This paper describes research that fills a void in the applicant reactions literature by developing a comprehensive measure of Gilliland's (1993) procedural justice rules, called the Selection Procedural Justice Scale (SPJS). Five separate phases of scale development were conducted. In Phase 1 we generated and refined the items. For Phase 2 we reduced the items through exploratory factor analysis using data gathered from 330 applicants for the job of court officer and found higher-order factors consistent with Greenberg (1993a, 1993b). In Phase 3 we confirmed the factor structure using a separate sample of 242 applicants and trainees for the court officer job. In Phase 4 we assessed the initial convergent and divergent validity of the scale. In Phase 5 we tested the generalizability of these items in general and for those receiving positive and negative selection outcomes using 2 student samples. The results demonstrated the usefulness of the SPJS in differentiating each of Gilliland's procedural justice rules and relating them to outcomes included in his model of applicant reactions. A copy of the SPJS is included in the Appendix.     

Effect of Framing on Applicants' Reactions to Personnel Selection Methods

This research demonstrates the effect of framing on applicants' reactions to two personnel selection methods: undergraduate grade point average and personnel interview scores. Presenting a selection situation framed positively (to accept applicants) caused applicants to rate both selection methods more favorably relative to presenting them with an identical selection situation framed negatively (to reject the remaining applicants). Framing affected reactions that emphasized distributive justice aspects of the selection situation and procedural justice aspects. The results are consistent with Prospect theory and with Fairness Heuristic theory. The paper offers a theoretical explanation for the effect of framing on applicants' reactions to personnel selection methods, discusses the implications of this effect, and suggests directions for future research.     

THE EFFECTS OF APPLICANTs' REACTIONS TO COGNITIVE ABILITY TESTS AND AN ASSESSMENT CENTER

Manufacturing applicants' perceptions of two selection devices were examined. In Study 1, applicants ( n = 3,984) completed cognitive ability tests and a survey of reactions. In Study 2, a subset of applicants from Study 1 ( n = 194) participated in an assessment center and completed the survey. Applicants reacted favorably to the procedures but viewed the assessment center as more face valid than the cognitive tests. Applicants who perceived the selection techniques more favorably were also more satisfied with the selection process, the job, and the organization. Although applicants' perceptions of the procedures were related to job acceptance intentions, applicants' liking of the job and organization explained the largest unique variance. In future studies, applicants' job acceptance intentions and attitudes toward the job and organization should be assessed before and after administration of selection devices; not controlling for prior impressions resulted in overestimation of the contribution of applicants' perceptions of selection procedures.     

Contextualized personality measures in employee selection: Extending frame‐of‐reference research with job applicant samples

This study compared contextualized and non‐contextualized personality measures in operational hiring situations, unlike previous research which has largely relied on student or job incumbent samples. Comparisons were made with regard to (A) the frames‐of‐reference adopted by applicants when responding to the measures, (B) relations with subsequent employment interview scores, (C) applicant reactions, and (D) mean scores for the personality scales. The findings highlight potential concerns with using non‐contextualized personality measures for employee selection, as job applicants will likely adopt various frames‐of‐reference unrelated to the intended focus of measurement (i.e., work). Results also indicated that it may be premature to assume contextualized measures elicit improved applicant reactions despite their apparent job‐relatedness. The discussion concludes with suggested directions for future research.     

A Longitudinal Study of Applicant Reactions to Multiple Selection Procedures and Job and Organizational Characteristics

This longitudinal field study aimed to: (a) examine the relative importance of reactions to psychological tests compared to interviews; (b) compare reactions to selection procedures with perceptions of job and organizational attributes; and (c) examine the relative importance of job acceptance intentions assessed at different stages. Graduate applicants were surveyed at four time points: pre‐selection, after an external interview, after psychological tests and internal interviews, and after actual job acceptance decision. Reactions to psychological tests were unrelated to attractiveness and acceptance intentions, whereas mixed findings were reported on reactions to interviews. Mostly, the findings showed that perceptions of job and organizational attributes explained significant variance in attractiveness and job acceptance intentions, whereas reactions to selection procedures were unrelated. The hypothesis that acceptance intentions closest in time to job acceptance decision would be more strongly related to job acceptance decision compared to intentions assessed at early stages was not supported. In general, the results emphasised the relative importance of initial attitudes of applicants in understanding applicant reactions.     

Fairness Reactions to Selection Methods: An Italian study

This study examined the fairness reactions to 10 personnel selection methods in a sample of Italian students. University students (N=137) were asked to rate the favorability of these selection procedures and then to evaluate them on eight procedural justice dimensions. Work‐sample tests were the most favorably rated of the selection methods, followed by résumés, written ability tests, interviews and personal references. Graphology was perceived negatively. Opportunity to perform and the perceived face validity of selection procedures were the strongest procedural justice dimensions for predicting the process favorability ratings. The results of this study are compared with those from similar studies conducted in other countries. Similar results have been found in the various countries where such research has been conducted to date.     

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.     

Applicant Reactions to Digital Selection Methods: A Signaling Perspective on Innovativeness and Procedural Justice

Research has shown that the use of digital technologies in the personnel selection process can have both positive and negative effects on applicants’ attraction to an organization. We explain this contradiction by specifying its underlying mechanisms. Drawing on signaling theory, we build a conceptual model that applies two different theoretical lenses (instrumental-symbolic framework and justice theory) to suggest that perceptions of innovativeness and procedural justice explain the relationship between an organization’s use of digital selection methods and employer attractiveness perceptions. We test our model by utilizing two studies, namely one experimental vignette study among potential applicants (N?=?475) and one retrospective field study among actual job applicants (N?=?335). With the exception of the assessment stage in Study 1, the positive indirect effects found in both studies indicated that applicants perceive digital selection methods to be more innovative. While Study 1 also revealed a negative indirect effect, with potential applicants further perceiving digital selection methods as less fair than less digitalized methods in the interview stage, this effect was not significant for actual job applicants in Study 2. We discuss theoretical implications for the applicant reactions literature and offer recommendations for human resource managers to make use of positive signaling effects while reducing potential negative signaling effects linked to the use of digital selection methods.

     

Applicant Personality and Procedural Justice Perceptions of Group Selection Interviews

Purpose

We investigated how job applicants’ personalities influence perceptions of the structural and social procedural justice of group selection interviews (i.e., a group of several applicants being evaluated simultaneously). We especially addressed trait interactions between neuroticism and extraversion (the affective plane) and extraversion and agreeableness (the interpersonal plane).

Design/Methodology/Approach

Data on personality (pre-interview) and justice perceptions (post-interview) were collected in a field study among job applicants (N = 97) attending group selection interviews for positions as teachers in a Norwegian high school.

Findings

Interaction effects in hierarchical regression analyses showed that perceptions of social and structural justice increased with levels of extraversion among high scorers on neuroticism. Among emotionally stable applicants, however, being introverted or extraverted did not matter to justice perceptions. Extraversion did not impact on the perception of social justice for applicants low in agreeableness. Agreeable applicants, however, experienced the group interview as more socially fair when they were also extraverted.

Implications

The impact of applicant personality on justice perceptions may be underestimated if traits interactions are not considered. Procedural fairness ratings for the group selection interview were high, contrary to the negative reactions predicted by other researchers. There was no indication that applicants with desirable traits (i.e., traits predictive of job performance) reacted negatively to this selection tool.

Originality/Value

Despite the widespread use of interviews in selection, previous studies of applicant personality and fairness reactions have not included interviews. The study demonstrates the importance of previously ignored trait interactions in understanding applicant reactions.

     

Testing the Rules of Justice: The Effects of Frame‐of‐Reference and Pre‐Test Validity Information on Personality Test Responses and Test Perceptions

The resurgence of personality tests in selection has sparked interest in factors that may increase the utility and acceptability of these tests. Following a justice framework, the present study explores two possible methods for improving the psychometric properties and test‐taker perceptions of a widely used measure of personality, the NEO‐Five Factor Inventory. The first manipulation altered respondents' frame‐of‐reference (FOR) by adding “at‐work” tags to the personality test. The second provided information about the validity and appropriateness of the personality test for selection. Under the controlled setting of a laboratory experiment, participants (n=345) were randomly assigned to one of the conditions in the following between‐subjects design: 2 (FOR: work specific vs. generic) × 2 (information: validity vs. control). The FOR manipulation produced consistent effects on the personality test responses, but in contrast to recent claims, produced no effect on test perceptions. Alternatively, the information manipulation primarily influenced job‐relatedness perceptions, but had a modest negative effect on the psychometric properties of the personality test. These results show some possibilities, and difficulties, for enhancing perceptions of personality tests. They also have important implications for justice theory because they suggest that interactions among the procedural justice rules may yield unexpected and contradictory effects.     

Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Methods: An international comparison between the Netherlands,the United States,France, Spain,Portugal, and Singapore

This paper reports reactions to employee selection methods in the Netherlands and compares these findings internationally against six other previously published samples covering the United States, France, Spain, Portugal, and Singapore. A sample of 167 participants rated 10 popular assessment techniques using a translated version of Steiner and Gilliland's measure. In common with other country samples, we found that the most popular methods among applicants were interviews, work sample tests, and resumes. Least popular methods were graphology, personal contacts, and honesty and integrity tests. Generally, method favorability was found to be highly similar to the US and other published studies internationally. Across the six countries mean process favorability correlated at .87 and mean cross‐national procedural justice correlated .68. Process dimension ratings correlated at between .79 and .97 between the United States and the Netherlands. Only medium effect size differences (Cohen's d) were found between Dutch and US reactions to resumes and personality tests, the former being more favorably rated in the United States (d=.62) and the latter being more positively rated in the Netherlands (d=?.76). Implications for the design of selection procedures are discussed, especially implications for likely similarities and differences in applicant reactions internationally.     

Individual Differences in Applicant Reactions: A Job‐Search Perspective

This study used three variables from a self‐regulatory job‐search framework to investigate individual differences in the relationship between applicants' perceived procedural fairness of selection tests and job‐pursuit intentions. Employment commitment, job‐search self‐efficacy, and motivational control were hypothesized to moderate the procedural fairness – job‐pursuit intentions relationship while controlling for pretest attitudes and perceived performance. Applicants (N=291) for entry‐level clerical jobs with large federal agencies completed pretest and posttest surveys. Results suggested that only job‐search self‐efficacy and motivational control moderated the relationship between perceived procedural fairness and job‐pursuit intentions. The relationship was stronger for applicants with higher levels of job‐search self‐efficacy and lower levels of motivational control.     

Multiple Dimensions of Procedural Justice: Longitudinal Effects on Selection System Fairness and Test‐Taking Self‐Efficacy

To demonstrate the multidimensionality of test fairness, we examined the reactions of 246 police applicants to two consecutive selection tests (written and video‐based) in terms of eight dimensions of fairness. As hypothesized, each test was seen as more fair in terms of certain dimensions. Furthermore, test fairness measured immediately after each test predicted perceptions of overall selection system fairness measured after candidates received their test results and after controlling for applicants’ selection outcomes (i.e., whether they were eligible for further consideration in the selection process). Job‐relatedness/content for the video‐based test interacted with test score to affect test‐taking self‐efficacy. Our discussion focuses on the multidimensionality of test fairness, the contribution of these dimensions to overall selection system fairness, and the consideration of these dimensions in selection system design.