| Abstract: | 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. |
