The utility estimate as a communication device: Practical questions and research directions

Highhouse, Scott

doi:10.1007/bf02278258

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The higher acceptance of causal chain analysis fits in nicely with the finding of Hazer and Highhouse (1997), who argued that the Cascio‐Ramos estimate of performance in dollars (CREPID) methodology to determine SD y is particularly difficult to explain and understand (Highhouse, 1996). This argument was supported by their finding that the CREPID methodology of determining SD y yielded the least favorable reactions.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

Single‐attribute Utility Analysis May Be Futile, but This Can’t Be the End of the Story: Causal Chain Analysis as an Alternative

Winkler

König

Kleinmann

2010

Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on providing single-attribute utility analysis has shown moderate or even negative effects on the acceptance of selection and training tests by human resource decision makers. In this study, we contrasted the perceived utility of single-attribute utility analysis with causal chain analysis as an alternative way of conducting utility analysis. Causal chain analysis focuses on measuring the linkages between HRM interventions and organizational outcomes mediated by employee attitudes and customer perceptions. We compared 144 managers' reactions to both methods of utility analysis concerning the variables understandability, information quality, perceived usefulness, user information satisfaction, and intention to use. Causal chain analysis yielded higher results than single-attribute analysis for these variables, and a compound measure of these constructs supported this finding. This indicates that causal chain analysis is a valuable alternative method of communicating the utility of HRM interventions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

Single‐attribute Utility Analysis May Be Futile, but This Can’t Be the End of the Story: Causal Chain Analysis as an Alternative

Winkler

König

Kleinmann

2010

Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another fruitful direction for future research consists in framing the provision of pre-test information into broader models of social persuasion, belief change, and attitude change (e.g., Carson et al 1998;Highhouse 1996;Morley 1987;Petty and Cacioppo 1981). This social psychology literature on persuasion might be useful to construct ideal methods of presenting pre-test information to applicants.…”

Section: Implications For Practice and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applicant Perceptions of Selection Procedures: The Role of Selection Information, Belief in Tests, and Comparative Anxiety

Lievens

Corte

Brysse

2003

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study addresses the effects of the provision of information on the reliability and validity of selection procedures and the effects of test-taker attitudes (i.e., belief in tests and comparative anxiety) on fairness perceptions. Prior to an actual selection process, applicants (N 118) were given either information about the reliability and validity of various selection procedures or no information. Next, they evaluated the fairness of eight selection procedures. No significant effect of selection information was found. Belief in tests had significant effects, with applicants high on test belief giving higher fairness ratings than applicants low on test belief. In addition, an interaction effect between test belief and selection procedure was found. For example, test belief had larger effects on fairness for structured interviews, personality inventories, and cognitive ability tests. No significant effect of comparative anxiety on fairness was found.

show abstract

“…Persuasive communication research may shed light on this issue (Highhouse, 1996). Petty and Cacioppo (1986) suggested that when selling an argument, one should decrease the level of complexity in the message.…”

Section: Presentation Of Ua Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Utility analysis: do estimates and format matter?

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The present study aims to examine how adjustments to utility analysis (UA) estimates and restructuring UA information to include a tabular format affect managerial acceptance of a selection test. Design/methodology/approach -Managers across organizations (n ¼ 185) indicated whether they would accept and implement a new selection test based on a hypothetical scenario. They were randomly assigned to different scenarios based on UA dollar estimate size and visual format of the information. Findings -Overall, managers were indifferent to the dollar size of the UA estimate and were not influenced by presentation format. Managers did report use of UA information when making decisions and qualitative analyses revealed several patterns that help explain why this information was useful. Practical implications -When presenting UA information, practitioners should reexamine how they build support for both sides of the benefits-costs equation, potentially adding information beyond UA dollar amounts such as legal liability and company reputation. Originality/value -The quandary remains regarding how to communicate the value of human resource initiatives to organizational stakeholders. The paper adds to the literature by investigating two variables not previously examined, the size of UA dollar estimates and the format used to present UA information. More importantly, the study incorporates a unique qualitative component to better understand managers' use or non-use of UA and corresponding rationale.

show abstract

The utility estimate as a communication device: Practical questions and research directions

Cited by 14 publications

References 58 publications

Single‐attribute Utility Analysis May Be Futile, but This Can’t Be the End of the Story: Causal Chain Analysis as an Alternative

Single‐attribute Utility Analysis May Be Futile, but This Can’t Be the End of the Story: Causal Chain Analysis as an Alternative

Applicant Perceptions of Selection Procedures: The Role of Selection Information, Belief in Tests, and Comparative Anxiety

Utility analysis: do estimates and format matter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About