Decision bias and personnel selection strategies

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of two decisional biases—framing and cost salience—on personnel selection decisions. One hundred twenty-eight graduate and undergraduate students participated in a personnel selection simulation. Framing was manipulated by inducing participants to use either a “rejecting” strategy (identify those applicants whom you would not interview) or an “accepting” strategy (list those applicants whom you would interview). Cost salience was manipulated by making selection-related costs either implicit or explicit. Results showed that “accepting” strategy subjects selected less applicants to be interviewed than “rejecting” strategy subjects, but only when selection-related costs were made salient. More time was required for subjects to make their selection decisions when selection-related costs were made salient. Framing and cost salience also influenced the success probability thresholds used by subjects to select applicants. Limitations of this research and directions for future study were discussed.

[1]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[2]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[3]  Jay J.J. Christensen-Szalanski,et al.  Effects of expertise and experience on risk judgments. , 1983, The Journal of applied psychology.

[4]  R. Jacobs,et al.  Utility concepts in performance measurement , 1982 .

[5]  S. Oskamp OVERCONFIDENCE IN CASE-STUDY JUDGMENTS. , 1965, Journal of consulting psychology.

[6]  Vandra L. Huber,et al.  The framing of negotiations: Contextual versus task frames , 1987 .

[7]  Margaret A. Neale,et al.  The effects of negotiation and arbitration cost salience on bargainer behavior: The role of the arbitrator and constituency on negotiator judgment , 1984 .

[8]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Employment testing: Old theories and new research findings. , 1981 .

[9]  Max H. Bazerman,et al.  Perspectives for Understanding Negotiation , 1985 .

[10]  P. C. Wason,et al.  The Processing of Positive and Negative Information , 1959 .

[11]  Hubert E. Brogden,et al.  When Testing Pays Off , 1949 .

[12]  W. Cascio Responding to the demand for accountability: A critical analysis of three utility models , 1980 .

[13]  G. Northcraft,et al.  Opportunity costs and the framing of resource allocation decisions , 1986 .

[14]  A Mathematical Structure for Analyzing Fairness in Selection. , 1980 .

[15]  Terence Connolly,et al.  Information search in judgment tasks: The effects of unequal cue validity and cost , 1984 .

[16]  B Walton,et al.  Job and Task Analysis. , 1979 .

[17]  J. Ledvinka THE STATISTICAL DEFINITION OF FAIRNESS IN THE FEDERAL SELECTION GUIDELINES AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MINORITY EMPLOYMENT , 1979 .

[18]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .