Job insecurity is related to many detrimental outcomes, with reduced job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment being the 2 most prominent reactions. Yet, effect sizes vary greatly, suggesting the presence of moderator variables. On the basis of Lazarus's cognitive appraisal theory, we assumed that country-level enacted uncertainty avoidance and a country's social safety net would affect an individual's appraisal of job insecurity. More specifically, we hypothesized that these 2 country-level variables would buffer the negative relationships between job insecurity and the 2 aforementioned job attitudes. Combining 3 different data sources, we tested the hypotheses in a sample of 15,200 employees from 24 countries by applying multilevel modeling. The results confirmed the hypotheses that both enacted uncertainty avoidance and the social safety net act as cross-level buffer variables. Furthermore, our data revealed that the 2 cross-level interactions share variance in explaining the 2 job attitudes. Our study responds to calls to look at stress processes from a multilevel perspective and highlights the potential importance of governmental regulation when it comes to individual stress processes.

This study contributes to the literature on why selection procedures that are based on the behavioral consistency logic (e.g., structured interviews and assessment centers) are valid predictors of job performance. We rely on interactionist theories to propose that individual differences in assessing situational demands explain true variance in performance in selection procedures and on the job. Results from 124 individuals in a simulated selection process showed that the assessment of situational demands was related to both selection and job performance. Individual differences in assessing situational demands also contributed to the criterion-related validity of assessment center and structured interview ratings, offering a complementary explanation as to why selection procedures based on the notion of behavioral consistency predict job performance.

The scientist-practitioner gap in personnel selection is large. Thus, it is important to gain a better understanding of the reasons that make organizations use certain selection procedures or not.Based on institutional theory, we predicted that six variables should determine the use of selection procedures: the procedures' diffusion in the field, legal problems associated with the procedures, applicant reactions to the procedures, their usefulness for organizational selfpromotion, their predictive validity, and the costs involved. To test these predictions, 506 HR professionals from the German-speaking part of Switzerland filled out an online survey on the selection procedures used in their organizations. Respondents also evaluated five procedures (semi-structured interviews, ability tests, personality tests, assessment centers, and graphology) on the six predictor variables. Multilevel logistic regression was used to analyze the data. The results revealed that the highest odd ratios belonged to the factors applicant reactions, costs, and diffusion. Lower (but significant) odds ratios belonged to the factors predictive validity, organizational self-promotion, and perceived legality.

To remain viable in today's highly competitive business environments, it is crucial for organizations to attract and retain top candidates. Hence, interviewers have the goal not only of identifying promising applicants but also of representing their organization. Although it has been proposed that interviewers' deliberate signaling behaviors are a key factor for attracting applicants and thus for ensuring organizations' success, no conceptual model about impression management (IM) exists from the viewpoint of the interviewer as separate from the applicant. To develop such a conceptual model on how and why interviewers use IM, our qualitative study elaborates signaling theory in the interview context by identifying the broad range of impressions that interviewers intend to create on applicants, what kinds of signals interviewers deliberately use to create their intended impressions, and what outcomes they pursue. Following a grounded theory approach, multiple raters analyzed in-depth interviews with interviewers and applicants. We also observed actual employment interviews and analyzed memos and image brochures to generate a conceptual model of interviewer IM. Results showed that the spectrum of interviewers' IM intentions goes well beyond what has been proposed in past research. Furthermore, interviewers apply a broad range of IM behaviors, including verbal and nonverbal as well as paraverbal, artifactual, and administrative behaviors. An extensive taxonomy of interviewer IM intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes is developed, interrelationships between these elements are presented, and avenues for future research are derived.

In selection procedures like assessment centers (ACs) and structured interviews, candidates are often not informed about the targeted criteria. Previous studies have shown that candidates' ability to identify these criteria (ATIC) is related to their performance in the respective selection procedure. However, past research has studied ATIC in only one selection procedure at a time, even though it has been assumed that ATIC is consistent across situations, which is a prerequisite for ATIC to contribute to selection procedures' criterion-related validity. In this study, 95 candidates participated in an AC and a structured interview. ATIC scores showed cross-situational consistency across the two procedures and accounted for part of the relationship between performance in the selection procedures. Furthermore, ATIC scores in one procedure predicted performance in the other procedure even after controlling for cognitive ability. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.