APPLICANT REACTIONS TO SELECTION PROCEDURES

We note that applicant reactions to selection procedures may be of practical importance to employers because of influences on organizations’attractiveness to candidates, ethical and legal issues, and possible effects on selection procedure validity and utility. In Study 1, after reviewing sample items or brief descriptions of 14 selection tools, newly hired entry-level managers (n= 110) and recruiting/employment managers (n= 44) judged simulations, interviews, and cognitive tests with relatively concrete item-types (e.g., vocabulary, standard written English, mathematical word problems) to be significantly more job related than personality, biodata, and cognitive tests with relatively abstract item-types (e.g., quantitative comparisons, letter sets). A measure of new managers’cognitive abilities was positively correlated with their perceptions of the job relatedness of selection procedures. In Study 2, applicant reactions to a range of entry-level to professional civil service examinations (assessed immediately after tasting the exam) were positively related to (procedural and distributive) justice perceptions and willingness to recommend the employer to others (assessed one month after the exam, n= 460).

[1]  Ute R. Hülsheger,et al.  Validity of General Mental Ability for the Prediction of Job Performance and Training Success in Germany: A Meta-Analysis , 2007 .

[2]  S. Rynes,et al.  The Importance of Recruitment in Job Choice: A Different Way of Looking , 2006 .

[3]  Fritz Drasgow,et al.  Personality assessment: Does the medium matter? No☆ , 2006 .

[4]  Iain Coyne,et al.  The Impact of Mode of Administration on the Equivalence of a Test Battery: A Quasi‐Experimental Design , 2005 .

[5]  David M. Lahuis.  Individual Differences in Applicant Reactions: A Job-Search Perspective , 2005 .

[6]  Anna Brown,et al.  Online Testing: Mode of Administration and the Stability of Opq 32i Scores , 2004 .

[7]  John P. Hausknecht,et al.  Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: An Updated Model and Meta-Analysis , 2004 .

[8]  A. V. Vianen,et al.  Perceived Fairness in Personnel Selection: Determinants and Outcomes in Different Stages of the Assessment Procedure , 2004 .

[9]  Donald M. Truxillo,et al.  Applicant Reactions to Different Selection Technology: Face-to-Face, Interactive Voice Response, and Computer-Assisted Telephone Screening Interviews , 2004 .

[10]  Robert E. Ployhart,et al.  The Applicant Attribution-Reaction Theory (AART): An Integrative Theory of Applicant Attributional Processing , 2004 .

[11]  Peter Herriot,et al.  Social Identities and Applicant Reactions , 2004 .

[12]  Neil Anderson,et al.  Technology and Discourse: A Comparison of Face‐to‐face and Telephone Employment Interviews , 2003 .

[13]  N. Anderson.  Applicant and Recruiter Reactions to New Technology in Selection: A Critical Review and Agenda for Future Research , 2003 .

[14]  F. Lievens,et al.  Applicant Perceptions of Selection Procedures: The Role of Selection Information, Belief in Tests, and Comparative Anxiety , 2003 .

[15]  Jerard F. Kehoe,et al.  General Mental Ability and Selection in Private Sector Organizations: A Commentary , 2002 .

[16]  Gerald R. Ferris,et al.  Cognitive Ability and Personality Predictors of Training Program Skill Acquisition and Job Performance , 2001 .

[17]  D. Bartram.  Internet Recruitment and Selection: Kissing Frogs to find Princes , 2000 .

[18]  Robert E. Ployhart,et al.  Applicants’ Perceptions of Selection Procedures and Decisions: A Critical Review and Agenda for the Future , 2000 .

[19]  A. Colman,et al.  Comparing Rating Scales of Different Lengths: Equivalence of Scores from 5-Point and 7-Point Scales , 1997 .

[20]  I. Walker,et al.  Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction , 1996 .

[21]  S. Gilliland.  The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice Perspective , 1993 .

[22]  Hannah R. Rothstein,et al.  The influence of selection test type on applicant reactions to employment testing , 1993 .

[23]  S. Rynes,et al.  Applicant reactions to alternative selection procedures , 1993 .

[24]  Ann Marie Ryan,et al.  Test-taking dispositions: A missing link? , 1992 .

[25]  M. Konovsky,et al.  Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. , 1991, The Journal of applied psychology.

[26]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYSIS , 1991 .

[27]  G. Powell.  APPLICANT REACTIONS TO THE INITIAL EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW: EXPLORING THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES , 1991 .

[28]  Richard D. Arvey,et al.  MOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS OF TEST TAKING , 1990 .

[29]  George C. Thornton,et al.  COLLEGE STUDENTS’ATTITUDES TOWARD EMPLOYEE DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS , 1990 .

[30]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow , 1990 .

[31]  T. S. Bateman,et al.  An experimental test of the impact of drug-testing programs on potential job applicants' attitudes and intentions. , 1990, The Journal of applied psychology.

[32]  S. Rynes,et al.  Applicant Attraction Strategies: An Organizational Perspective , 1990 .

[33]  R. Folger,et al.  Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions , 1989 .

[34]  F. Schmidt.  The Problem of Group Differences in Ability Test Scores in Employment Selection , 1988 .

[35]  Richard T Seymour.  Why plaintiffs' counsel challenge tests, and how they can successfully challenge the theory of “validity generalization” , 1988 .

[36]  Michael A. Campion,et al.  Structured Interviewing: Raising the Psychometric Properties of the Employment Interview. , 1988 .

[37]  Michael M. Harris,et al.  A FIELD STUDY OF APPLICANT REACTIONS TO EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES: DOES THE RECRUITER MAKE A DIFFERENCE? , 1987 .

[38]  T. Tyler,et al.  Why procedural justice in organizations? , 1987 .

[39]  P. M. Podsakoff,et al.  Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects , 1986 .

[40]  B. Weiner.  An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. , 1985, Psychological review.

[41]  Michael P. Kirsch,et al.  METAANALYSES OF VALIDITY STUDIES PUBLISHED BETWEEN 1964 AND 1982 AND THE INVESTIGATION OF STUDY CHARACTERISTICS , 1984 .

[42]  J. Hunter,et al.  Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance , 1984 .

[43]  H. Gough.  A managerial potential scale for the California Psychological Inventory. , 1984 .

[44]  Tom Janz,et al.  Initial comparisons of patterned behavior description interviews versus unstructured interviews. , 1982 .

[45]  Ivan T. Robertson,et al.  Work sample tests: Validity, adverse impact and applicant reaction , 1982 .

[46]  R. Reilly,et al.  VALIDITY AND FAIRNESS OF SOME ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCEDURES , 1982 .

[47]  Barry Z. Posner,et al.  COMPARING RECRUITER, STUDENT, AND FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF IMPORTANT APPLICANT AND JOB CHARACTERISTICS , 1981 .

[48]  Donald P. Schwab,et al.  INDIVIDUAL REACTIONS TO ORGANIZATIONAL RECRUITING: A REVIEW , 1980 .

[49]  Michael A. Campion,et al.  The situational interview. , 1980 .

[50]  Wayne F. Cascio,et al.  PERFORMANCE TESTING: A ROSE AMONG THORNS? , 1979 .

[51]  John Thibaut,et al.  A Theory of Procedure , 1978 .

[52]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Job sample vs. paper-and-pencil trades and technical tests: Adverse impact and examinee attitudes. , 1977 .

[53]  Neal Schmitt,et al.  Applicant decisions in the employment interview. , 1976 .

[54]  M. Spence.  Job Market Signaling , 1973 .

[55]  Benjamin Schneider,et al.  Organizational climate: Individual preferences and organizational realities. , 1972 .

[56]  Gerald E. Larson,et al.  Social desirability effects on computerized and paper-and-pencil questionnaires , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[57]  F. Schmidt,et al.  The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. , 1998 .

[58]  Kevin R. Murphy,et al.  When your top choice turns you down: Effect of rejected offers on the utility of selection tests. , 1986 .

[59]  H. Kelley.  Attribution theory in social psychology , 1967 .