Effects of Individual Differences on the Perceived Job Relatedness of a Cognitive Ability Test and a Multimedia Situational Judgment Test

Abstract

Although there is a growing number of publications concerning applicant reactions to different selection instruments, the relationships between individual differences and applicant reactions have largely remained unexplored. The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of several testing-related and general individual differences (anxiety, self-evaluations, and personality) on the most commonly studied dimension of applicant reactions, namely the perceived job relatedness of selection instruments. Participants were 153 psychology students, who completed a cognitive ability test and a multimedia situational judgment test as part of their educational program. Our results indicated that computer anxiety negatively affected perceived job relatedness and core self-evaluations, subjective well-being, agreeableness, emotional stability, and openness to experience positively affected perceived job relatedness. Openness to experience was the most consistent predictor of perceived job relatedness. The results of our study suggest that certain individuals may be more predisposed to react positively to selection instruments. Therefore, we concluded that the nature of the applicant pool should be carefully considered when designing interventions to improve applicant reactions.

Factors affecting the effectiveness and acceptance of electronic selection systems

“…The findings of yet other studies (e.g., Oostrom, Born, Serlie, & Van Der Molen, 2010;Potosky & Bobko, 2004;Sylva & Mol, 2009;Wiechmann & Ryan, 2003) showed that reactions to computerized tests depend on a host of other factors (e.g., computer anxiety, computer self-efficacy, test-taking experience or self-efficacy). Several of these factors are considered below in a subsection that focuses on adverse impact.…”

Applicant Personality and Procedural Justice Perceptions of Group Selection Interviews

“…This is surprising considering the widespread use of interviews in selection (Salgado et al 2001). Applicant personality traits and selection methods may interact so that relationships between traits and reactions do not generalize from one selection tool to another (Merkulova et al 2014; Oostrom et al 2010). It is therefore important to study relationships between applicant personality and fairness reactions also in the context of interviews.…”

Applicant Perspectives During Selection: A Review Addressing “So What?,” “What’s New?,” and “Where to Next?”

“…The idea here is that, regardless of what an employer does, some applicants will be negatively or positively predisposed to the selection procedures and the selection system, depending on what personal characteristics they bring to the situation. Researchers have continued to examine personality traits of job applicants for their effects on applicant reactions (e.g., Honkaniemi, Feldt, Metsäpelto, & Tolvanen, 2013;Oostrom et al, 2010). Positive and negative affectivity also have been found to affect the relationship between justice and outcomes such as recommendations and litigation intentions .…”

“…This theoretical expansion has advanced our knowledge about the mechanisms underlying applicant reactions. Third, researchers have expanded the focus of applicant reactions research beyond perceptions of justice to include additional test-taking reactions, such as test-taking motivation, anxiety, and efficacy (Lievens, De Corte, & Brysse, 2003;Oostrom, Born, Serlie, & van der Molen, 2010), with a corresponding expansion of underlying theories, such as cognitive interference (McCarthy et al, 2013). Finally, there has been increased effort to bridge the gap between theory and practice by developing techniques to mitigate negative reactions, such as incorporating feedback explanations to candidates (e.g., Truxillo, Bauer, Campion, & Paronto, 2002).…”

“…A number of additional reactions are acknowledged as important considerations, such as belief in tests (e.g., , positive and negative psychological effects (Anderson & Goltsi, 2006), perceived job discrimination (e.g., Anderson, 2011aAnderson, , 2011b, stress and health outcomes (e.g., Ford et al, 2009), and the perceived usefulness and ease of selection procedures (e.g., Oostrom et al, 2010). A useful taxonomy is to conceptualize these constructs as either dispositionally based (e.g., test anxiety, motivation, efficacy, test beliefs) or situationally based (e.g., fairness, job discrimination, test usefulness; McCarthy et al, 2013).…”