Applicant reactions to test score banding in entry-level and promotional contexts.

This series of field studies used a fairness framework to investigate applicant reactions to test score banding in 3 police selection contexts. Studies 1 (N = 85) and 2 (N = 369) involved applicants for entry-level positions, and Study 3 (N = 39) involved applicants for promotion. Across all 3 studies, race interacted with applicants' belief that banding is associated with affirmative action to affect measures of fairness and organizational outcomes such as attractiveness and perceived employee relations. Reactions were also related to applicants' perceived outcomes as a result of banding. Results are explained in terms of self-interest and suggest that reactions to banding are largely a function of the association of banding with affirmative action.

[1]  Michael A. Campion,et al.  Longitudinal Assessment of Applicant Reactions to Employment Testing and Test Outcome Feedback , 1998 .

[2]  Robert E. Ployhart,et al.  Applicants' reactions to the fairness of selection procedures: the effects of positive rule violations and time of measurement. , 1998, The Journal of applied psychology.

[3]  David Chan.  Current Issues in Applicant Reactions Research , 1998 .

[4]  Christopher P. Parker,et al.  Support for affirmative action, justice perceptions, and work attitudes: a study of gender and racial-ethnic group differences. , 1997, The Journal of applied psychology.

[5]  N. Schmitt,et al.  Reactions to cognitive ability tests: the relationships between race, test performance, face validity perceptions, and test-taking motivation. , 1997, The Journal of applied psychology.

[6]  David A. Kravitz,et al.  Affirmative Action: A Review of Psychological and Behavioral Research , 1997 .

[7]  J. Brockner,et al.  An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. , 1996, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  M. Heilman,et al.  The other side of affirmative action: reactions of nonbeneficiaries to sex-based preferential selection. , 1996, The Journal of applied psychology.

[9]  Stan Malos.  Legal issues in affirmative action: Recent developments on executive, judicial, and legislative fronts , 1996 .

[10]  S. Zedeck,et al.  Selective science or selective interpretation , 1995 .

[11]  Twenty issues and Answers About sliding Bands , 1995 .

[12]  K. Murphy,et al.  Evaluating the Logical Critique of Banding , 1995 .

[13]  F. Schmidt,et al.  The Fatal Internal Contradiction in Banding: Its Statistical Rationale is Logically Inconsistent With Its Operational Procedures , 1995 .

[14]  R. Brown,et al.  Neosexism: Plus Ça Change, Plus C'est Pareil , 1995 .

[15]  Attitudes Toward Different Methods of Affirmative Action1 , 1995 .

[16]  MODELING THE EFFECTS OF BANDING IN PERSONNEL SELECTION , 1995 .

[17]  Donald M. Taylor,et al.  Women's Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action: Putting Actions in Context1 , 1994 .

[18]  David E. Smith,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF APPLICANTs' REACTIONS TO COGNITIVE ABILITY TESTS AND AN ASSESSMENT CENTER , 1994 .

[19]  Steffanie L. Wilk,et al.  Within-group norming and other forms of score adjustment in preemployment testing. , 1994, The American psychologist.

[20]  L. Gottfredson.  The science and politics of race-norming. , 1994, The American psychologist.

[21]  S. Gilliland,et al.  Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. , 1994 .

[22]  Talya N. Bauer,et al.  The Effect of a Managing Diversity Policy on Organizational Attractiveness , 1994 .

[23]  K. Murphy.  POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF BANDING AS A FUNCTION OF TEST RELIABILITY , 1994 .

[24]  J. Wagner,et al.  Percept-Percept Inflation in Microorganizational Research: An Investigation of Prevalence and Effect , 1994 .

[25]  R. Peterson.  The Role of Values in Predicting Fairness Judgments and Support of Affirmative Action , 1994 .

[26]  David A. Kravitz,et al.  Attitudes and beliefs about affirmative action: effects of target and of respondent sex and ethnicity , 1993 .

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

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

[29]  Paul R. Sackett,et al.  Fairness in selection: Current developments and perspectives , 1993 .

[30]  Heinz Schuler,et al.  Social validity of selection situations: A concept and some empirical results. , 1993 .

[31]  James L. Farr,et al.  Personnel selection and assessment : individual and organizational perspectives , 1993 .

[32]  K. Murphy.  Personnel Selection in Organizations , 1992 .

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

[34]  Debra L. Shapiro,et al.  Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural fairness judgments. , 1988 .

[35]  T. Tyler,et al.  The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice , 1988 .

[36]  Rupert W. Nacoste.  But Do They Care About Fairness? The Dynamics of Preferential Treatment and Minority Interest , 1987 .

[37]  J. Greenberg,et al.  A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories , 1987 .

[38]  Rupert W. Nacoste.  Selection procedure and responses to affirmative action , 1985 .

[39]  Wayne F. Cascio,et al.  OPEN A NEW WINDOW IN RATIONAL RESEARCH PLANNING: ADJUST ALPHA TO MAXIMIZE STATISTICAL POWER , 1983 .

[40]  J. Thibaut,et al.  Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis , 1976 .