The authors examined the bases for fairness reactions to different selection practices and considered cross-cultural differences in these reactions by comparing respondents from 2 cultures. College students (A r = 259) from France and the United States rated the favorability of 10 selection procedures and then indicated the bases for these reactions on 7 procedural dimensions. Selection decisions based on interviews, work-sample tests, and resumes were perceived favorably in both cultures. Graphology was perceived more favorably in France than in the United States, but even French reactions toward graphology were somewhat negative. The perceived face validity of the selection procedure was the strongest correlate of favorability reactions among both samples. Beyond comparing the results from each culture, the discussion addresses implications for multinational companies establishing selection systems in foreign countries.Applicant reactions to specific selection procedures have had a research tradition in the United States for at least two decades (Dodd, 1977;Ryan & Sackett, 1987;Schmitt & Coyle, 1976). More recently, research has compared the favorability or the acceptability of different selection procedures (e.g., Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, & Stoffey, 1993), and researchers have begun to identify the bases for these reactions. For example, Rynes and Connerley (1993) found that beliefs regarding scoring and the organization's need to know were the strongest predictors of reactions to a variety of selection procedures. The limited research to date on the bases of selection reactions has identified determinants through inductive or empirical means. One of the principal purposes of our study was to examine these bases from a more systematic, theoretical perspective. Gilliland (1993) approached this issue by using organizational justice theories and developed a justice-based

Suppressing and faking emotional expressions depletes personal resources and predicts job strain for customer-contact employees. The authors argue that personal control over behavior, in the job and within the national culture, provides compensatory resources that reduce this strain. With a survey study of 196 employees from the United States and France, the authors supported that high job autonomy buffered the relationship of emotion regulation with emotional exhaustion and, to a lesser extent, job dissatisfaction. The relationship of emotion regulation with job dissatisfaction also depended on the emotional culture; the relationship was weaker for French customer-contact employees who were proposed to have more personal control over expressions than U.S. employees. Theoretical and research implications for the emotion regulation literature and practical suggestions for minimizing job strain are proposed.

We review the literature on the relationship between job satisfaction and life satisfaction on its theoretical, empirical, and methodological bases. Our review indicates that recent theoretical work is too often characterized by repeatedly confirming the spillover hypothesis to the exclusion of advancing further theoretical developments. The greater sophistication of statistical analyses is cited as one of the few recent methodological advances. Our review focuses on theoretical and methodological developments needed in future research. The areas of multiple links between job and life satisfactions, life stages, and satisfaction as a disposition are described as potential areas for theoretical advances. Methodologically, we suggest improvements by focusing attention on construct validity and the use of longitudinal designs.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the usefulness of the organizational justice approach to applicant reactions. We begin with an overview of the research relating the fairness of selection procedures (''selection fairness'') to individual and organizational outcomes. Next we propose boundary conditions defining when fairness should matter, the appropriate outcomes to examine in applicant reactions research, and methodological issues limiting the contribution of much of the current literature. We then consider a range of questions that remain to be addressed and new issues such as high-tech testing. Finally, we propose a series of applied questions and recommendations based on both theory and empirical research.