The Role of Job Relatedness and Self‐efficacy in Applicant Perceptions of Fairness in a High‐stakes Selection Setting

Zibarras, Lara; Patterson, Fiona

doi:10.1111/ijsa.12118

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 68 publications

(189 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Schleicher et al (2006) found that opportunity to perform had a different relationship with fairness depending on whether it was measured before or after feedback, and Walker, Bauer, Cole, Bernerth, Feild, and Short (2013) found that justice differentially affected organizational attractiveness at different points in the recruitment process. Similarly, Zibarras and Patterson (2015) found that job relatedness measured pre- and postfeedback differentially predicted fairness. In other words, the research to date suggests that applicant reactions are dynamic in nature, and when they are measured in the selection process can affect reactions as well as their correlates.…”

Section: Addressing the “What’s New?” Question: An Updated Model Of Amentioning

confidence: 91%

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

McCarthy

Bauer²,

Truxillo

et al. 2017

Journal of Management

163

216

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Addressing the “What’s New?” Question: An Updated Model Of Amentioning

confidence: 91%

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

McCarthy

Bauer²,

Truxillo

et al. 2017

Journal of Management

163

216

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Withholding the presence of AIE in the selection process may not only lead to applicants selecting out when this information is discovered but also tamper any signaling benefits arising from its use. Organizations should also clearly explain the link of AIE to the job and organization early in the process, as well as make efforts to engage applicants in other aspects of the company identity (A. M. Ryan et al., 2000; Zibarras & Patterson, 2015). Such increased engagement early on can reinforce the correct signaling properties of the AIE and potentially maintain high‐quality, curious job seekers in the applicant pool.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preferring the devil you know: Potential applicant reactions to artificial intelligence evaluation of interviews

Mirowska

Mesnet

2021

Human Res Mgmt Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In search of greater resource savings and efficiencies, companies are turning to new technologies in the interview process, such as artificial intelligence evaluation (AIE). However, little is known about candidate reactions to this new tool. We identified outstanding questions regarding reactions to AIE arising from justice and signaling theories and conducted interviews with 33 professionals to understand their perceptions of AIE use in selection. Participants raised issues related to all four types of justice and indicated that there is a signaling effect of AIE use. Despite acknowledging the superior objectivity of AIE, participants expressed a desire for the maintenance of human elements in the evaluation process, seemingly preferring ‘the devil they know’ (human biases and intuition) rather than the one they do not (AIE algorithm). This result is explored through the lens of uncertainty reduction, discussing theoretical implications for justice and signaling theories, and providing implications for the implementation of AIE in the selection process.

show abstract

“…Given their ability to generate humor, we expect people with high humor production to be more confident in a job interview context when presented with humorous interview questions. Past research has found that the applicant's confidence is associated with their motivation and anxiety on employment tests (Bauer et al, 1998;Zibarras & Patterson, 2015). For these reasons, we expect job seekers who are high on humor production to be more motivated and report less anxiety toward responding to OPQs for a job interview.…”

Section: Study 2: Jobseeker Sense Of Humormentioning

confidence: 92%

Horse-sized ducks or duck-sized horses? Oddball Personality Questions are likable (but useless) for organizational recruitment

Zhang¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To stand out, some organizations have started asking unorthodox interview questions to uncover unique qualities of the candidates while signaling the playful culture of their organization (e.g., “Would you rather fight a horse-sized duck or 100 duck-sized horses?”). Despite its growing popularity, there is no empirical research on the organizational impact of these unusual questions. In this paper, we introduce Oddball Personality Questions (OPQs) and a theoretical model of its impact on recruitment. We test our theoretical model in two studies. In Study 1 (n = 275), we found that compared to traditional interview questions, people judged OPQs to be less useful, but more likable. The negative effect of decreased usefulness judgments on organizational attraction was offset by the positive effect of increased likability judgments. Participants were not more attracted to organizations that asked OPQs. In Study 2 (n = 266), using a multi-wave time-lagged study, we find job seekers with a greater sense of humor reported more favorable reactions toward oddball personality questions and subsequent attraction to the organization. Despite the double-edged nature of OPQs for recruitment, we believe that its limitations outweigh the benefits. Until the validity of OPQs as an assessment tool is established, its use in employment interviews remains dubious and cannot be recommended.

show abstract

The Role of Job Relatedness and Self‐efficacy in Applicant Perceptions of Fairness in a High‐stakes Selection Setting

Abstract: AQ1 8This article presents results from two samples of applicants (total N 5 368) for general prac-

Cited by 11 publications

References 68 publications

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

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

Preferring the devil you know: Potential applicant reactions to artificial intelligence evaluation of interviews

Horse-sized ducks or duck-sized horses? Oddball Personality Questions are likable (but useless) for organizational recruitment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About