IWOHandbookapplicantreactionschapter November 15

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277000722
Applicant Perspectives on Employee Selection

Systems (in press)
Chapter · January 2016
CITATIONS READS
3 848
5 authors, including:
Julie Mccarthy Neil Robert Anderson

University of Toronto Brunel University London
34 PUBLICATIONS 608 CITATIONS 229 PUBLICATIONS 9,766 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Sara Mana Ahmed

University of Surrey
15 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Team Trust in NASA teams View project
MSc Project: Occupational Psychology - Strategic Resource or Purveyor of Tests View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Talya N. Bauer on 09 February 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

APPLICANT PERSPECTIVES 1
APPLICANT PERSPECTIVES ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION SYSTEMS
Donald M. Truxillo
Portland State University
Talya N. Bauer
Portland State University
Julie M. McCarthy
University of Toronto
Neil Anderson
Brunel University
Sara M. Ahmed
Brunel University
ABSTRACT
The field of applicant reactions has grown since the introduction of the original applicant
reactions models over 20 years ago. In this chapter, we describe the theoretical basis for
applicant reactions research. We further summarize the empirical findings about the
antecedents and moderators of applicant reactions in affecting a range of outcomes and which
selection procedures are preferred by applicants. We also describe similarities and differences
in applicant reactions cross-nationally and summarize the findings on test-taking dispositions.
We conclude with a discussion of future research directions in light of changes in selection
practice and provide recommendations for organizations.
Keywords: Applicant reactions, applicant attitudes, test-taking attitudes, test-taker
dispositions.
APPLICANT PERSPECTIVES ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION SYSTEMS
INTRODUCTION
Historically, personnel selection has investigated how to select the right candidate for
the job to benefit the functioning of the organization. The needs of the organization – in terms
of the human capital needed to fill a particular job opening – were the primary focus, with the
predictive validity of selection procedures being paramount. Although some mention was
made regarding concepts like “face validity,” that is, the degree to which the selection
process looks job-related to the applicant, the viewpoint of the applicant was rarely
considered.
Over time, greater attention was placed on personnel selection from the perspective of
job applicants. More specifically, researchers began to investigate how applicants perceive
and react to the hiring process. The source of this interest varied to some degree depending
on the national culture of the researcher. For instance, while the primary motive for interest in
applicant reactions in the US stemmed from a desire to avoid litigation on the part of
applicants, some European researchers (e.g., Schuler, 1993) focused on concepts like “social
validity”, or ensuring applicant dignity and respect. Whatever the motivation, this research
interest was accelerated by the development of theoretical and conceptual models to explain
applicant reactions (e.g., Arvey & Sackett, 1993; Gilliland, 1993; Schuler, 1993). Not only
did these models aim to explain how applicant reactions develop, but the hope was that such
reactions could also explain a number of outcomes, such as perceptions of the organization,
later behavior on the job, and applicant litigation.
Over the past two decades, a rich literature on applicant reactions (and the related
topic of test-taking predispositions such as applicant motivation) has developed. This
literature has provided a number of consistent findings regarding which selection procedures
applicants prefer. It has also shown that applicant reactions affect a number of applicant
attitudes and perceptions that are within the selection arena. Although the original hope was
that applicants’ treatment and perceptions during the hiring process would also affect more
distal outcomes on the job, the effects of applicant reactions on more distal outcomes such as
job performance have not been borne out in the research (McCarthy, Van Iddekinge, Lievens,
Kung, Sinar, & Campion, 2013), and the effects on job attitudes and actual litigation remain
largely unexplored.
Some researchers have thus discounted the ultimate value of applicant reactions
research, but we think that this is too pessimistic, given that applicant reactions clearly do
affect a number of important attitudes and behaviors. For example, perceptions of the hiring
process have a significant effect on organizational attractiveness; certain types of selection
procedures (e.g., interviews) appear to be preferred over others (e.g., cognitive tests) by
applicants around the world; and test-taking predispositions relate to test performance (e.g.
Anderson & Witvliet, 2008; Anderson, Ahmed, & Costa, 2012; Anderson, Salgado, &
Hülsheger, 2010; McCarthy et al., 2013). Moreover, many issues still need to be examined,
such as the way that selection may affect applicants’ self-perceptions, and how reactions to
promotional processes may affect job attitudes and performance.
In this chapter, we provide an overview of the applicant reactions literature, starting
with an in-depth history of this area along with a description of the dominant conceptual and
theoretical models. We next review the selection procedures that applicants tend to prefer,
the outcomes that have been found to relate to applicant reactions, and the international and
cross-cultural studies of applicant reactions. We next move to the antecedents of applicant
reactions as well as factors that may moderate the effects of these reactions. We then review
the growing field of test-taking predispositions. We conclude the chapter by reviewing the
implications for organizations and applicants as well as the many unanswered questions to be
addressed by future research.

RESEARCH HISTORY OF THE APPLICANT REACTIONS FIELD
From its inception, research on selection has predominantly been focused on the
needs of the organization. Questions such as “How can we select the best applicants?” “How
can we make our tests more valid?” “How can we save time and money with our selection
procedures?” had dominated the literature. It was established that work samples and
simulations are rated more favorably than other types of selection procedures (Chan &
Schmitt, 2004). Starting in the 1990s, however, researchers began to adopt a more nuanced
approach to examining applicants’ points of view. At this point, the conversation was slowly
expanded to include questions like “How are applicants feeling about our selection
procedures, and what do they like or dislike?” “Are the best applicants staying in our
selection process?” “Do applicant reactions matter to recruitment outcomes?” Early work
illustrated that applicant reactions did matter to a number or outcomes. However, as
mentioned previously, it wasn’t until the development of models by Arvey and Sackett
(1993), Schmitt and Gilliland (1992), Gilliland (1993), and Schuler (1993) that research in
this area became more theoretically rich and took large strides forward.
Subsequent work has primarily adopted Gilliland’s (1993) fairness approach, perhaps
because of its strong theoretical basis in organizational justice theory. Gilliland argued for
the need to differentiate between procedural and distributive justice (e.g., a fair process
versus fair selection decisions/whether a job offer was made), advanced the idea that different
distribution rules might be used depending upon contextual issues, spearheaded the
development of a list of procedural justice rules that map onto the selection context (e.g., job-
relatedness of procedures; consistency of administration), highlighted the importance of
interactional justice (e.g., treatment at the test site), and proposed that procedural justice
might compensate for lower distributive outcomes.

Gilliland’s (1993) model included 10 procedural justice rules under three categories.
Formal characteristics included job relatedness, opportunity to perform, reconsideration
opportunity, and consistency of administration. Explanations include feedback, selection
information, and honesty. Interpersonal Treatment includes interpersonal effectiveness of
the administrator, two-way communication, and propriety of questions. These 10 “rules” are
defined as follows: Job relatedness is defined as the degree to which the selection process is
(or appears to be in the case of face valid job relatedness) relevant for the job the applicant is
hoping to earn. Opportunity to perform is defined as the ability to express one’s true
ability. Reconsideration is defined as the chance to challenge or modify a decision made
during the selection process. Consistency is defined as the standardization of the process so
that every applicant is treated in the same manner. Feedback refers to the provision of
timely and informative feedback about an applicant’s performance on either their place in the
process or a final decision being made about that selection hurdle or a job offer. Selection
information is defined as how advanced information regarding the selection process they are
going through with an organization. Honesty is defined as truthfully communicating with
applicants. Interpersonal effectiveness is defined as the extent the test administrator treats
applicants with warmth and respect. Two-way communication is defined as the opportunity
for applicants to have their opinions and views known during the selection process and/or to
ask questions about the process. And finally, propriety of questions is defined as the
avoidance of questions which invade the privacy of an applicant. In addition, distributive
justice refers to the perceived fairness of the actual selection outcome, such as whether a
positive outcome was perceived, or what type of outcome was received compared to others.
Bauer, Truxillo, Sanchez, Craig, Ferrara, and Campion (2001) tested and validated a measure
(the Selection Procedural Justice Scales or SPJS) of these 10 rules which supported
Gilliland’s justice model and outcomes and which has subsequently seen wide use. To further
understand the development of this research area, we next turn our attention to the theoretical
foundations of applicant reactions.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE APPLICANT REACTIONS FIELD
To date, the applicant reactions field has been primarily driven by the theoretical
foundation of organizational justice theory, as can be evidenced by its historical roots in
Gilliland’s (1993) justice-based model. Indeed, it is safe to say that a majority of the work
we will review in this chapter is grounded in some form of organizational justice theory, and
research in this area has begun to take a more sophisticated examination of relationships to
examine boundary conditions, such as key interaction effects for applicant reactions. A
recent example by Sumanth and Cable (2011) established that the status of an organization
and applicant interact such that organizations with rigorous procedures allow them to select
the best applicants but that the best applicants are more likely to find such procedures unjust
than low-status applicants. In this section we describe some additional theoretical approaches
beyond justice that have been used to explain applicant reactions.
Attributions. Ployhart and Ryan (1997) describe attributions as a fundamental part of
social perception and are considered the basis for further judgments, emotions, and behaviors.
Ployhart and Harold (2004) further argue that applicants make attributions about the selection
procedures and outcomes they experience. This perspective is different from the theoretical
basis of fairness. As they note, “attributional processing occurs between the presence of an
event… and formation of perceptions (e.g., fairness, attitudes) and behaviour (e.g.,
motivation, test performance)” (p. 89). The theory argues that explanations given to
applicants will vary on the richness of information they convey in terms of consistency,
consensus, and distinctiveness as originally described in work by Kelley (1967). This
cognitive appraisal, which is based on understanding an applicant’s attributional style, has the
potential to expand the theoretical basis and domain of research in the applicant reactions
arena. Although Ployhart and Ryan (1997) were able to establish initial support for the
attribution framework, much more empirical work is needed to confirm this framework. We
support the idea of additional work applying the attribution model as a way to expand our
understanding of this framework.
Self-serving bias. Yet another research stream is embedded in the concept of a self-
serving bias, or social identity. This work is built upon empirical evidence suggesting that
perceived test performance has an influence on applicant reactions (Chan & Schmitt, 2004).
As a result, individuals may protect themselves from threatening situations, such as being
rejected for a job or failing a test, by evaluating the test as unfair because, if the test is faulty,
the outcome is not deemed as that important to worry about. Indeed, applicants may go to
great lengths to protect their identities in a self-serving bias. As Herriot (2004) notes, “It is
argued that this theory [social identity theory] enables an understanding of how applicants’
social identities interact with their perceptions of selection episodes to predict their exit from
the process.” (p. 75). These findings also raise a potential paradox, as a fair procedure may
result in positive attitudes about the organization, but may make the applicant feel even worse
about themselves if they are unsuccessful in obtaining the job.
As these researchers note, studies which combine or examine the relative effects of a
self-serving bias perspective with organizational justice are sorely needed, yet seldom done.
A notable exception is a study conducted by Schmitt, Oswald, Kim, Gillespie, and Ramsay
(2004) which found that both the self-serving bias and organizational justice appeared to
matter in the perceptions of college freshman taking the ACT and SAT. A provocative
finding in this area is that following a negative selection decision where all applicants were
told they had already scored in the top 20% of performers, those participants who were
rejected and received performance feedback suffered lowered core self-evaluations versus
those only being told they were rejected (Schinkel, van Dierendonck, & Anderson, 2004).
This brings into question the advice about how much feedback to provide applicants with, as
well as when to provide it.
In addition, new theoretical streams related to justice and self-concepts have begun
which examine justice expectations. Bell, Ryan, and Wiechmann (2004) theorize that
expectations from direct experience, indirect experience, and other beliefs will influence
attitudes, thoughts, and actual behaviors. More recently, a study by Bell, Wiechmann, and
Ryan (2006) revealed that applicant with higher justice expectations reported higher levels of
pre-test motivation and self-efficacy and more positive intentions to recommend and accept
the job and positive justice perceptions in testing process. Again, although this justice
expectations approach seems promising, far more work is needed.
Justice refinements: Fairness heuristic theory (FHT) and fairness theory.
Beyond traditional organizational justice theory approaches, some refinements and new
perspectives have been introduced. For instance, while still an organizational justice theory,
work by Lind and others (e.g., Lind, 2001) focuses on fairness heuristic theory, which argues
that individuals tend to use the information which they have readily available to them. More
specifically, FHT argues that people normally perceive some risk in giving power to others
and therefore seek to understand where they fit into the situation. In a selection situation this
power is that of rejection or acceptance by a key entity, the organization. Given this, upon
finding themselves in such a situation, individuals immediately begin to assess whether or not
the entity is trustworthy, fair, and respectful (van den Bos, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997), and,
barring later events, this judgment that developed early in the relationship remains as the lens
through which the applicant views the organization thereafter. Further, these judgments are
most salient at the start of interactions because it is at that point when the least amount of
information is known. In this way, an applicant’s fairness perceptions develop as a type of
sense-making about how the organization treats people and, by extension, will treat the
applicant. Although FHT has only received scant attention in the applicant reactions
literature, its focus on the development of the applicant’s relationship with the employer
seems a natural fit for the study of applicant reactions.
Another organizational justice approach is fairness theory, which describes how
persons (in this case, applicants) react to negative outcomes (e.g., Folger & Cropanzano,
2001). Applicants can perceive that the employer could have done something different or
should have done something different; or that the employer would have done something
different if such an alternative had been available. This fairness theory approach has been
particularly useful in understanding how applicants process different types of explanations
given to them when they receive a negative result from a selection procedure (e.g., Gilliland,
Groth, Backer IV, Dew, Polly, & Langdon, 2001; Truxillo, Bodner, Bertolino, Bauer, &
Yonce, 2009). Using this approach, explanations can be broken down into justifications (e.g.,
“we used a good, valid procedure”) versus excuses (e.g., “we had no other choice but to do
what we did because there were too many applicants for the number of jobs”). Although
fairness theory shows promise for understanding a range of explanations that organizations
give to employees (e.g., Shaw, Wild, & Colquitt, 2003), a meta-analysis of the effects of
justifications versus excuses shows that the effects of these different types of explanations on
applicant reactions are still unclear (Truxillo et al., 2009). However, this seems to be a
promising area for future research.
WHICH SELECTION PROCEDURES DO APPLICANTS PREFER?
Numerous studies in many countries have examined which selection techniques job
applicants prefer. Meta-analytic summaries of these studies reveal remarkable consistency
across cultures, such that: interviews and work samples are judged the highest in fairness;
résumés, cognitive ability tests, references, biodata and personality tests are judged moderate
in fairness; and honesty tests, personal contacts and graphology are judged the lowest in
fairness (Anderson et al., 2010; Hausknecht, Day, & Thomas, 2004). Table 1 presents meta-
analytic estimates of favorability ratings for the most common selection procedures. We note,
however, that much of this research on applicant preferences has asked respondents to give
their reactions to different selection procedures simultaneously (e.g., asked their opinion
about a cognitive ability test and also an interview). This raises a question about whether
applicants’ preferences for different types of assessments are quite so clear-cut when they
consider individual assessments (as would be more common in most selection contexts) and
not in comparisons to others. Further, we note that all assessments with a particular label are
not equivalent (e.g., the use of different media in simulations; Bruk-Lee, Drew, & Hawkes,
2013), with considerable variability in content and fidelity. For instance, a non-job-related
structured interview may be viewed less favourably by applicants than a cognitive test
containing job-related questions.
____________________________
Insert Table 1 About Here

____________________________
There are also important findings when it comes to applicant preferences within
specific selection techniques. This is particularly evident with respect to job interviews, with
research indicating that candidates prefer unstructured, as opposed to structured, interviews
(Chapman & Zweig, 2005; Latham & Finnegan, 1993). This is not surprising, as candidates
have more opportunity to voice their opinions and have stronger feelings of control in
unstructured interviews (Madigan & Macan, 2005). Moreover, the standardized nature of
structured interviews may make it more difficult for candidates to manage impressions
(Posthuma, Morgeson, & Campion, 2002). Research also suggests that job applicants prefer
face-to-face interviews over videoconferencing or telephone-based interviews (Bauer,
Truxillo, Paronto, Weekley, & Campion, 2004; Chapman, Uggerslev, & Webster, 2003;
Silvester, Anderson, Haddleton, Cunningham-Snell, & Gibb, 2000). For example, Chapman
and colleagues (2003) found that face-to-face interviews were associated with higher levels
of procedural justice and job acceptance intentions. Similarly, Bauer et al. (2004) found that
face-to-face interviews were associated with higher levels interpersonal justice,
organizational attractiveness, and lower litigation intentions than questions asked and
answered via technology. These findings may be due, in part, to the fact that interviews
which are conducted in person are less contrived and may thus provide a more comfortable
platform for interpersonal interaction.
Research also suggests that certain groups have preferences for specific selection
tools. For example, Nikolaou and Judge (2007) found that a group of students exhibited
stronger preferences for ability, personality, and honesty tests than a group of employees.
However, additional work is needed to assess whether the mechanism underlying the effect is
due to role differences, age differences, and/or other factors. For example, the students in this
sample were an average of ten years younger than the employees, and the observed
differences may be due to different attitudes across the two groups. Cultural differences may
also play a role in specific preferences. Indeed, Hoang, Truxillo, Erdogan, and Bauer (2012)
found that individuals from the United States believe that employers have a greater right to
obtain information from interviews, personal references, and personal contacts than do
individuals from Vietnam.
As technological advances enable an impressive amount of flexibility, creativity, and
realism to be built into computerized tools (Tippins, 2009), the newest online assessments
need further examination for how applicants will react to them. To date, findings indicate that
computerized ability tests are perceived equally or more positively than their paper-and-
pencil counterparts (see Potosky & Bobko, 2004; Salgado & Moscoso, 2003). This finding
holds true for situational judgment tests (see Chan & Schmitt, 1997; Lievens & Sackett,
2006) and video-based résumés (Hiemstra, Derous, Serlie, & Born, 2012). There are,
however, a number of important factors that may influence applicant reactions to
computerized tests, including test anxiety (Oostrom, Born, Serlie, & Van Der Molen, 2010),
computer anxiety (Wiechmann & Ryan, 2003), and computer efficacy (Potosky & Bobko,
2004; Sylva & Mol, 2009). The development of techniques to reduce these potential
impediments is likely to have significant implications for job applicants.
Finally, researchers have started to examine different reactions to assessments
administered via the Internet (see Bauer, Truxillo, Tucker, Weathers, Bertolino, Erdogan, &
Campion, 2006; Konradt, Warszta, & Ellwart, 2013) which allow organizations to test large
numbers of job applicants in a timely and cost-effective manner (Oostrom et al., 2013). In
terms of applicant preferences, findings indicate that internet-based assessments are preferred
by external, as opposed to internal, candidates, and are also preferred by internet-savvy
individuals (Sylva & Mol, 2009). A primary concern with this type of assessment, however,
is privacy (see Bauer et al., 2006). Privacy concerns are particularly salient given recent
trends to use social networking sites for selection purposes (Roth, Bobko, Van Iddekinge, &
Thatcher, 2013; Van Iddekinge, Lanivich, Roth, & Junco, 2013), as well as recent trends
towards data sharing across employers (Bauer et al., 2006). We strongly encourage additional
research that focuses on privacy concerns with respect to Internet-based assessments. The
conceptual model advanced by Bauer and colleagues (2006) provides a solid framework for
additional work in this important area.
THE EFFECTS OF APPLICANT REACTIONS:
INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES
Research has demonstrated that applicant reactions to selection processes can
influence a range of individual and organizational outcomes. Gilliland (1993) proposed that
perceptions of treatment during selection procedures can have an impact in three ways:
during the hiring process, after hiring, and on applicants’ self-perceptions. It has further been
argued that selection process fairness (as opposed to outcome fairness) has been central to
applicant reactions research because organizations have relatively little control over what
outcomes applicants receive (Truxillo & Bauer, 2011). In the following section, we provide a
summary of the empirical research on the relationship between applicant fairness reactions
and a variety of individual and organizational outcomes.
Individual Outcomes
Self-perceptions. Gilliland (1993) proposed that procedural fairness and selection
outcomes interact to affect self-perceptions (e.g., self-efficacy, self-esteem, and core self-
evaluations). Research supports the relationship between applicant reactions and several
types of self- perceptions. For example, Bauer et al. (2001) reported that fairness reactions
were positively related to self-esteem. Hausknecht et al. (2004) found a weak positive
relationship between selection fairness and self-efficacy. A meta-analysis by Truxillo et al.
(2009) showed that providing explanations affected applicants’ fairness and self-perceptions.
Further, several studies have found that fairness reactions were positively related to core self-
evaluation (Anderson et al., 2012; Nikolaou & Judge, 2007). Research also supports the
relationship between selection decisions and self-perceptions. A study by Fletcher (1991)
examined the effects of selection decisions on applicants’ self-esteem longitudinally and
found that assessment decisions had a significant effect, with unsuccessful applicants
showing a drop in self-esteem. Finally, research has found support for the moderating effects
of process fairness and selection outcome on self-efficacy (e.g., Gilliland, 1994; Ployhart &
Ryan, 1997). In summary, therefore, it is apparent that fairness perceptions among applicants
have a number of effects upon self-perceptions such as self-efficacy, and core self-
evaluations.
Positive and negative psychological effects. Anderson (2004) suggested the need for
research related to the negative psychological effects of selection methods, most notably for
those who received a rejection decision given the high ratio of rejected to selected candidates
typical of selection situations. He argued that unsuccessful candidates – but especially those
in internal promotion procedures – could, potentially, claim causal harmful effects upon their
psychological well-being. Indeed several researchers have called for fundamental research
into the mental health outcomes (e.g., well-being) of selection methods upon applicants
(Ford, Truxillo, & Bauer, 2009; Truxillo & Bauer, 2011). However, only limited studies
have been done in this area. Anderson and Goltsi (2006) explored the potential negative
psychological effects of a managerial entry-level assessment center longitudinally. They
found no evidence of negative psychological effects for rejected applicants. On the other
hand, they found that positive effects and psychological well-being declined slightly for
successful applicants. Schinkel et al. (2004) showed that the affective well-being of rejected
participants who received performance feedback was significantly decreased compared to
those who were rejected with no feedback. Bell et al. (2006) found that justice expectations
have a moderating influence, such that perceptions of justice have a greater influence on
negative effects and psychological withdrawal when justice expectations are high.
Selection performance. Research has suggested that applicant reactions influence
applicants’ subsequent selection/test performance (actual and self-evaluation) (e.g., Chan,
1997; Chan & Schmitt, 1997; Gillespie & Ryan, 2012; Hausknecht et al., 2004). An
interaction between process fairness and outcome fairness for self-assessed selection
performance has also been observed (e.g., Ployhart & Ryan, 1997). Similarly, Ployhart and
Ryan (1998) found that the relationship between outcome fairness and performance
expectations was positive when the selection procedure was perceived as fair and negative
when the selection procedure was perceived as unfair. At the same time, several studies
found that selection fairness is influenced by perceived performance, providing evidence for
a negative feedback loop, or a reciprocal relation between the two variables (e.g., Chan,
Schmitt, Jennings, Clause, & Delbridge, 1998).
Organizational Outcomes
Job performance and criterion-related validity. Earlier reviews were critical of the
lack of studies investigating whether applicant reactions had longer-term effects upon the
critically important factor of job performance (Anderson, Born, & Cunningham-Snell, 2001;
Hausknecht et al., 2004). This was a limitation in that applicant perspectives research had not
unambiguously demonstrated the effect that applicant reactions could ultimately affect the
most important of all outcomes for an organization – job performance. An early study by
Gilliland (1994) reported that job-relatedness perceptions influenced job performance but no
relationship was found between fairness perceptions and job performance. More recently, a
study by McCarthy et al. (2013) found that perceptions of fairness across three samples in
two continents were not related to job performance. Further, no effect was found either
positively or negatively for applicant reactions upon criterion-related validity of test scores.
This research raises the question of whether there are any circumstances by which applicant
reactions may affect later job performance. One possibility is the consideration of internal
applicant reactions and work performance in promotional selection contexts (cf. Ford et al.,
2009; Schaubroeck & Lam, 2004; Truxillo & Bauer, 2011), as the relationship between
reactions and later performance are likely to be stronger among current employees than
among external candidates.
Organizational attractiveness. A number of studies have found that selection
fairness is positively related to organizational attractiveness (e.g., Ababneh, Hackett, &
Schat, 2013; Anderson et al., 2012; Hausknecht et al., 2004; Schreurs, Derous, Proost, &
Witte, 2010; Walsh, Tuller, Barnes-Farrell, & Matthews, 2010), and that this effect lasts over
time (Bauer, Maertz, Dolen, & Campion, 1998). In their meta-analysis, Hausknecht et al.
(2004) found that perceptions of procedural (r=.44) and distributive justice (r=.34) and
organizational attractiveness were correlated. Furthermore, Lazer, Zinger, and Lachterman
(2007) found that social fairness has an influence on job attractiveness. However, selection
fairness may not affect applicants’ organizational attractiveness when they are already highly
attracted to the organization (Truxillo, Bauer, Campion, & Paronto, 2002).
Organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Gilliland (1993) proposed
organizational commitment and job satisfaction as outcomes of selection fairness perceptions.
Bauer et al. (2001) showed that social and structural fairness were positively related to
organizational commitment. Robertson, Iles, Gratton, and Sharpley (1991) demonstrated that
applicants who passed exhibited higher organizational commitment. Ryan, Sacco,
McFarland, and Kriska (2000) found that applicants who self-selected out of the process had
more negative perceptions of the organization and lower job commitment. In terms of job
satisfaction, García-Izquierdo, Moscoso, and Ramos-Villagrasa (2012) found that procedural
justice was positively related to job satisfaction in a promotional selection context. The most
compelling study in this topic is perhaps the longitudinal field study by Ambrose and
Cropanzano (2003). They found that the perceived fairness of promotional procedure was
related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Additional systematic work
examining the effects of fairness reactions on job satisfaction and organizational commitment
is needed (Truxillo & Bauer, 2011). To be specific, these outcomes may be best examined
longitudinally as an outcome of internal applicant reactions to promotion, where these
outcomes are more proximal to the selection situation, rather than an entry-level selection
context.
Recommendation intentions. Research has supported the positive relationship
between applicant fairness reactions and intentions to recommend the organization to others
as a potential employer (e.g., Ababneh et al., 2013; Bell et al., 2006; Geenen, Proost, van
Dijke, de Witte, & von Grumbkow, 2012; Giumetti & Sinar, 2012; Hausknecht et al., 2004;
Schreurs et al., 2010). Perceptions of fairness have also been found to influence
recommendation intentions among internal candidates applying for promotions (McCarthy,
Hrabluik, & Jelly, 2009). However, some research has found that the relationship may
weaken over time (Bauer et al., 1998; Gilliland, 1994), suggesting that such recommendation
intention effects may be rather short-lived.
Litigation intentions and actual legal challenges. Gilliland (1993) proposed legal
battles as an outcome of perceived fairness. Anderson (2011a) proposed a model and process
of ‘perceived job discrimination’ to suggest that applicants who perceive extremely unfair
treatment or outcomes may, in certain circumstances, be minded to lodge complaints and
even initiate expensive legal action against a recruiter organization. The legal ramification of
applicant reactions might be the most important reasons that many organizations are
interested in applicant reactions to selection procedures. Empirical research in laboratory
settings has supported the negative relationship between selection fairness and litigation
intentions (Ababneh et al., 2013; Bauer et al., 2001; Bauer et al., 2004), and likelihood of
complaints (Thibodeaux & Kudisch, 2003). In a field sample of actual job applicants, Geenen
et al. (2012) found that distributive justice expectations were negatively related to litigation
intentions, particularly in the presence of negative effects. However, no empirical studies
have explored the relationship between applicant fairness reactions and actual legal
outcomes, which remain the weakest link in applicant reactions research (Anderson, 2011b;
Truxillo & Bauer, 2011). Moreover, litigation intentions and taking actual legal actions are
very different, at least partially because proceeding with a lawsuit requires a great effort from
the applicant. This is a shortcoming in our understanding of negative applicant reactions at
the extremes of the spectrum and given the costs to an organization, both financial and
reputational, of having to defend such legal actions, this is an area where we feel much more
research is needed.
Process satisfaction. Research on the relationship between selection fairness and
process satisfaction has suggested that applicant fairness reactions are positively related to
satisfaction with the selection process and perceptions of selection system, and that this
relationship lasts over time (Macan, Avedon, Paese, & Smith, 1994; Truxillo, Bauer, &
Sanchez, 2001). Giumetti and Sinar (2012) reported that procedural fairness had a strong
relationship with process satisfaction. Also, Hausknecht et al.’s (2004) meta-analysis found
that fairness dimensions were positively correlated (r=.36 for perceived predictive validity
and r=.39 for face validity) with attitudes about selection processes.
Turnover intentions. Surprisingly, rather limited research has been done into the
effects of applicant reactions upon intention to quit. Truxillo et al. (2002) found no
relationship between providing fairness information and later turnover intentions among
those hired. These findings may be due the nature of the sample (police applicants), as they
were already highly attracted to the organization. Another study by Ambrose and Cropanzano
(2003) showed that fairness perceptions regarding a promotional procedure are significantly
related to turnover intentions over time. Hausknecht et al. (2004) were not able to include
work behavioral outcomes, such as applicant turnover, withdrawal, and organizational
commitment, in their meta-analysis due to the lack of studies into these outcomes. The reason
is that these behaviors are not applicable in entry-level contexts, where most applicant
reactions research has been conducted, since external applicants often have little at stake and
minimal knowledge about the organization (Truxillo, Steiner, & Gilliland, 2004). Again, we
propose that turnover intentions resulting from early applicant reactions is a potentially
fruitful area for additional future research.

Withdrawal. A review of the few existing studies on this topic provides equivocal
results. Ployhart and Ryan (1998) found that process fairness was related to withdrawal from
the selection process. Another study by Schmit and Ryan (1997), based on interviews with
applicants who withdrew from the police selection process, reported that about 12% of
applicants mentioned the procedural injustice as a reason for withdrawing. On the other hand,
Ryan et al. (2000) found that applicant perceptions were generally unrelated to withdrawal
behavior. Also, Truxillo et al. (2002) found no relationship between selection information
and continuation in the selection process; Truxillo et al. noted that this may be due to the
nature of the sample (i.e., police applicants) as they were highly attracted to the organization;
thus, these results may not be applicable to all applicant pools.
Reapplication intentions. In one of the few studies on reapplication intentions,
Ployhart and Ryan (1997) found interactions between process and outcome fairness
influencing reapplication intentions, such that when individuals perceive a fair process, there
is essentially no relationship between outcome fairness and reapplication intentions.
However, when individuals perceive an unfair process, there is a strong negative relationship
between reapplication intentions and outcome fairness. LaHuis, MacLane, and Schlessman
(2007) also found a relationship between justice and reapplication intentions, such that the
relationship was stronger when perceived performance was high. Furthermore, Ryan, Boyce,
Ghumman, Jundt, and Schmidt (2009) found that intention to apply for a job was influenced
by perceptions of fairness. Finally, a study by Gilliland et al. (2001) reported that applicants
receiving an explanation based on fairness in a rejection letter were at least twice as likely to
reapply to the organization than those who received a standard rejection letter. In other
words, the fairness explanation appeared to improve actual reapplication behavior.
Customer purchase intentions. Some research has suggested that there is a
relationship between applicant reactions and both purchase intentions (Macan et al., 1994;
Wiechmann & Ryan, 2003) and service intention (Maertz, Mosley, Bauer, Posthuma, &
Campion, 2004). This positive relationship between selection fairness (job relatedness) and
purchase intentions (r=.14) was generally supported by Hausknecht et al.’s (2004) meta-
analysis. Also, Rolland and Steiner (2007) reported that improving selection fairness by
providing an explanation improved intention of rejected applicants to use the organization’s
services. We encourage future research to examine the impact of reactions on applicant’s
actual purchasing behaviors and brand image perceptions, particularly given the vast
applicant pools that technology-based selection systems have enabled organizations to
examine.
Job acceptance. The relationship between applicant reactions and job acceptance
intentions has received considerable support. For example, the meta-analytic results of
Hausknecht et al. (2004) and several studies have found a positive relationship between
selection fairness, selection expectations, and job acceptance intentions (e.g., Bell et al.,
2006; LaHuis, 2005; Ryan et al., 2009; Schreurs et al., 2010; Truxillo et al., 2002). With
regard to the actual job acceptance decision as an outcome, however, studies have produced
more mixed findings. For example, Carless (2006) reported that applicants’ job acceptance
decision was unrelated to applicant reactions to selection characteristics; on the other hand, a
study by Walsh et al. (2010) showed that fairness perceptions were positively related to
actual job acceptance.
Summary. Our review of the applicant reactions literature has suggested that their
reactions to selection process and fairness relate to various individual and organizational
outcomes – several of which are of considerable importance. Although the effects of
applicant reactions on many of these outcomes seem clear, these effects appear to vary over
time and context, particularly whether the study concerns external applicants versus
promotions where emotions can run high. Applicant perspective research has come of age in
the sense that over recent years major advances have included several meta-analyses
summarizing individual primary studies and research issues (e.g., Anderson et al., 2010;
Hausknecht et al., 2004; Truxillo et al., 2009), and a number of narrative reviews have been
published summarizing the literature to date.
ANTECEDENTS AND MODERATORS OF APPLICANT REACTIONS
Other factors besides the hiring process have been shown to be antecedents of
applicant reactions, and a number of factors have been shown or hypothesized to moderate
these reactions. We describe these below.
Antecedents. One important consideration is that despite what organizations may try
to do to affect applicant reactions, such reactions are a function of variables outside of the
organization’s control. An example of such individual differences is applicant personality.
Truxillo, Bauer, Campion, and Paronto (2006) examined whether applicant Big Five
personality measured at baseline affected later applicant reactions in terms of fairness, self-
perceptions, and organizational attractiveness. They found that personality variables related
to applicant perceptions after controlling for the applicant’s test score: Neuroticism had a
negative relationship with reactions, and agreeableness had a positive relationship.
Honkaniemi, Feldt, Metsapelto, and Tolvanen (2013) found that certain personality profiles
(e.g., “resilient”) had more positive reactions than others (e.g., “overcontrolled”). Similarly,
Viswesvaran and Ones (2004) found that individual differences predicted the importance of
various selection system characteristics, for example, that those higher in cognitive ability
emphasized the content of the selection procedure, and extraverts valued the process of
developing the selection procedure. Taken together, these studies suggest that applicant
individual differences may dispose them to react in certain ways to the hiring process,
regardless of what the process itself involves. However, a range of other individual
differences, such as core self-evaluations, emotional intelligence, and integrity (all of great
interest in the W/I/O psychology literature) remain relatively unexplored in the realm of
applicant reactions.
Moderators. There are a number of moderators that can be considered in the study of
applicant reactions and test-taking predispositions. For example, external job applicants
versus internal candidates up for promotion may have different reactions and predispositions.
Although external candidates have received the overwhelming degree of research attention
in the applicant reactions literature, internal candidates for promotion appear to have
relatively strong reactions (e.g., Ambrose & Cropanzano, 2003; Truxillo & Bauer, 1999),
suggesting that this is an important moderator to consider. Moreover, internal candidates
obviously have much more information about the organization, making their reactions more
stable; on the other hand, such an established relationship with the organization may also
make disappointing results a form of contract breach – a serious concern to the organization.
Despite calls in the literature for increased empirical examination of internal
candidates’ reactions, there have been relatively few studies of this issue in recent years (for
exceptions see Giumetti & Sinar, 2012; McCarthy et al., 2009). However, Ford et al. (2009)
make a compelling argument that the effects of either rejection (low outcome favorability) or
negative reactions among internal candidates can have serious negative performance
consequences for the organization, and can also affect a number of outcomes including
applicant stress outcomes. In other words, the differential effects of applicant reactions
among internal candidates is a potentially critical concern for organizations, and its potential
effects on stress and well-being outcomes may have societal consequences as well.
Another moderator that may be important to understanding reactions is differences in
the national and cultural context, with differences in applicant expectations for the hiring
process and for employer behavior, and differences in terms of legal protections during the
hiring process. Although such international differences are discussed elsewhere in this
chapter (and generally show few differences in which selection procedures applicants prefer),
we note that research has found international differences in the effects of justice across
cultures (Shao, Rupp, Skarlicki, & Jones, 2013). Such findings suggest that future cross-
cultural research may want to focus less on differences in reactions to specific selection
procedures and more on how applicant perceptions of selection affect their later attitudes
towards themselves and the employer, as well as actual behavioral differences.
CROSS-NATIONAL SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN APPLICANT
REACTIONS
There has been considerable on-going debate over whether applicant reactions are
primarily caused by within-country cultural effects (so-called ‘situational specificity’) or
whether, conversely, reactions are more a function of a general pattern of responses that is
common across countries and cultures (so-called ‘reaction generalizility’ by Anderson et al.,
2010). Certainly, the role of cultural values in applicant perceptions is a concern for
multinational organizations seeking to standardize selection practices, especially with the
growing number of multinational organizations. This has arguably attracted the attention of
many researchers to the issue applicant reactions across various countries (e.g., Anderson et
al., 2012; Anderson & Witvliet, 2008; Hoang et al., 2012).
A recent meta-analysis by Anderson et al. (2010) using 38 independent samples and
covering 10 popular selection procedures found considerable similarity in reaction
favorability. They found that applicants generally prefer certain selection methods (e.g.,
interview and work sample test), whereas other methods are least preferred (graphology,
honesty tests, and personal contacts) across cultures. Moreover, Ryan and colleagues (2009)
examined applicant reactions to 8 selection methods across 21 countries. They found that
perceptions of selection methods were mostly similar across individuals holding different
cultural values, showing greater convergence than divergence regarding applicant perceptions
globally. Interestingly, they also found that a country’s gross domestic product was
negatively related to both applicants’ predictive validity and fairness perceptions.
Steiner and Gilliland (2001) suggest that some cultural dimensions are most likely to
influence the salience of various distributive and procedural justice rules. One example is
Hofstede’s (1980; 2001) notion of uncertainty avoidance and its relation to the legal and
political systems’ characteristics. As the laws against discrimination in the US are explicit,
American applicants might be more aware of their rights and opportunities to act in response
to the perceived unfairness of discrimination (Truxillo et al., 2004). Another study by Walsh
et al. (2010) examined the moderating role of societal culture (performance orientation and
uncertainty avoidance) on the effects of selection fairness perceptions. These authors found
that performance orientation moderates the effect of structural fairness perceptions on
organizational attractiveness with a stronger relationship seen among applicants from more
performance-oriented countries. Also, Harris, Van Hoye, and Lievens (2003) examined
cross-cultural differences in privacy perceptions of an Internet-based selection system and
found a few significant differences between the US and Belgian respondents. However, the
role of culture on applicant reactions to selection procedures warrants further investigation. In
Table 2, we provide a summary of research linking Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to
procedural justice of personnel selection based on the applicant reactions literature (i.e.,
Bertolino & Steiner, 2007; Phillips & Gully, 2001; Steiner & Gilliland, 2001; Walsh et al.,
2010).
____________________________
Insert Table 2 About Here

____________________________
We suspect that applicant reactions will have ‘core’ elements of a basic response that
are internationally generalizable, but also that there will be more local, culturally-specific
‘surface reactions’ that need to be considered by employers. One meta-analytic finding in
particular is important here – that applicant reactions have been found to correlate positively
with the criterion-related validity of popular selection predictor methods (Anderson et al.,
2010) – suggesting that organizations using more valid methods are likely to also elicit more
positive reactions from candidates.
TEST-TAKING DISPOSITIONS AND REACTIONS
Test-taking dispositions are related to stable individual differences, such as
personality traits, and include test-taking anxiety, test-taking motivation, and test-taking self-
efficacy (Arvey, Strickland, Drauden, & Martin, 1990; Chan & Schmitt, 2004; Ryan &
Ployhart, 2000). For example, test-taking anxiety and test-taking efficacy have been linked to
neuroticism (e.g., Chamorro-Premuzic, Ahmetoglu, & Furnham, 2008), while test-taking
motivation has been linked to conscientiousness (e.g., Salgado, Remeseiro, & Iglesias, 1996).
Research on test-taking dispositions originated in the educational realm, with studies
examining test-taking anxiety among high school and university students (see meta-analyses
by Hembree, 1998; Seipp, 1990; Speilberger & Vagg, 1995). The majority of these studies
assessed general measures of anxiety by administering the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
(Speilberger, 1983). Findings were unequivocal, with meta-analytic reviews demonstrating
that test-taking anxiety has significant negative effects on test performance (see Hembree,
1998; Seipp, 1991). Later research in this area introduced the concepts of test-taking
motivation (e.g., Sundree & Kitsantas, 2004; Wolf & Smith, 1995) and test-taking self-
efficacy (e.g., Díaz, Glass, Arnkoff, & Tanofsky-Kraff,, 2001; Smith, Arnkoff, & Wright,
1990), each of which demonstrated positive effects with test performance.
The concept of test-taking dispositions was introduced to the domain of personnel
selection by Arvey and collegues (1990), whose seminal work included the development of
an instrument for assessing applicant reactions to employment tests. Their instrument, the
Test Attitude Survey (TAS), contains nine dimensions: motivation, lack of concentration,
belief in tests, comparative anxiety, test ease, external attribution, need for achievement,
future effects and test preparation. The TAS provided the foundation for a number of studies
on the test-taking dispositions of job applicants, the majority focusing on test anxiety and
motivation – the scales with the strongest psychometric properties (McCarthy & Goffin,
2003). The work by Arvey and colleagues also triggered a number of studies that
operationalized test-taking dispositions in unique ways. In the sections below, we review this
research, beginning with the theories and findings for test-taking anxiety, followed by test-
taking motivation, and concluding with test-taking self-efficacy.
Test-taking anxiety. Many applicants experience feelings of nervousness when
confronted with selection tests because a selection decision can be a life-changing event that
may require a major career and life shift. Unfortunately, high levels of anxiety among
applicants can result in applicant withdrawal from the selection process, lower levels of
organizational attractiveness, and reduced intentions to recommend the organization to others
(Arvey et al., 1990; Hausknecht et al., 2009; McCarthy et al., 2009; McCarthy & Goffin,
2004; Ryan, 2001; Schmit & Ryan, 1997).
Test-taking anxiety is also directly related to lower scores on selection tests
(Hausknecht et al., 2004; McCarthy et al., 2009). Cognitive interference theories provide the
foundation for understanding this relation (e.g., Processing Efficiency Theory; Eysenck &
Calvo, 1992; Attentional Control Theory; Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007;
Integrative Resource Theory; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). These theories assert that anxiety
interferes with an individual’s ability to attend to and process performance-relevant
information, resulting in lower levels of performance. Applied to selection contexts, this
means that high levels of anxiety may inhibit an applicant’s ability to process and understand
selection procedure content, resulting in lower levels of performance and a reduced

probability that they will be accepted for the job. Consistent with this proposition, high levels
of test-taking anxiety have been found to be positively related to cognitive interference in
selection (Ryan & Chan, 1999) and promotional (McCarthy et al., 2009) contexts. Test-
taking anxiety has also been found to exhibit negative relations with test performance (e.g.,
Arvey et al., 1990; Hausknecht et al., 2004; McCarthy et al., 2013), job interview
performance (Cook, Vance, & Spector, 2000; McCarthy & Goffin, 2004) and performance on
the job (McCarthy et al., 2013).
These findings have led several researchers to suggest that anxiety may reduce the
criterion-related validity of selection tests, such that high levels of anxiety may introduce
extraneous variance into test scores and reduce the extent to which the scores reflect
applicant’s true ability levels (e.g., Arvey et al., 1990; Ryan & Ployhart, 2000). In line with
this proposition, there is evidence that a composite measure of test attitudes, which included
test-taking anxiety, differentially moderated the validity of a cognitive ability test (more
valid) and a personality test (less valid) in a lab setting (Schmit & Ryan, 1992). In contrast, a
recent field study with job applicants found that taking anxiety did not have any effect on the
validity of selection tests (McCarthy et al., 2013). This latter finding is consistent with
research by Reeve and Bonaccio (2008) who found that test anxiety has no significant
influence on observed test scores.
Combined, these findings demonstrate that test anxiety impacts both test performance
and job performance and is therefore an important consideration for both applicants and
organizations. This highlights the value of training programs to help applicants minimize test
anxiety. At the same time, findings generally indicate that test validity is not affected by
anxiety, that is, test scores predict who will do well on the job regardless of applicant levels
of anxiety, providing additional support for the use of standardized tests in selection contexts.
Research also finds evidence of gender differences in test and interview anxiety, with
females typically scoring higher than males (Cassaidy & Johnson, 2002; Sieverding, 2009).
At the same time, findings indicate that anxiety is actually more detrimental to the
performance of male candidates (Feiler & Powell, 2013; McCarthy & Goffin, 2005). As
detailed by McCarthy and Goffin (2005), this is likely due to the fact that females are more
efficacious in coping with the stress experienced during testing situations. Thus, while
females experience higher levels of test-taking anxiety, results suggest that this does not put
them at a disadvantage in test-taking situations. Future research that focuses on coping
strategies for male applicants may prove particularly helpful. Job applicants from minority
groups are also more likely to experience high levels of test anxiety due to stereotype threat
(Ployhart, Ziegert, & McFarland, 2003). This may be because minority candidates are
expected to perform worse on tests given decades of research findings which indicate that
Blacks and Hispanics consistently score lower than Whites (see Nguyen & Ryan, 2008).
Minority candidates experience stereotype threat (see Steele & Aronson, 1995) when they
worry that their test performance will validate the negative stereotype (Ployhart et al., 2003).
Stereotype threat has been found to be related to higher levels of test-taking anxiety, and
lower levels of test-taking motivation, test fairness, belief in tests, and test-taking efficacy
(Arvey et al., 1990; Chan, Schmitt, DeShon, Clause, & Delbridge, 1997; Ployhart et al.,
2003; Schmit & Ryan, 1997). There is minimal evidence, however, that stereotype threat
actually accounts for sub-group differences in actual selection test performance (see Ployhart
& Harold, 2004; Sackett & Ryan, 2012). Thus, future research is needed on the mechanism
by which stereotype threat may influence on test-taking reactions and test performance in
personnel selection samples.
Finally, there has been considerable theoretical and empirical work on the
conceptualization and measurement of anxiety in selection contexts. With respect to job
interviews, McCarthy and Goffin (2004) developed a model of anxiety which contains five
dimensions: Appearance Anxiety, Communication Anxiety, Social Anxiety, Behavioral
Anxiety and Performance Anxiety. Findings indicated that candidates experience varying
levels of the five interview anxiety types, and that overall interview anxiety is negatively
related to interview performance. With respect to selection tests, Proost, Derous, Schreurs,
Hagtvet, and De Witte (2008) developed a multi-dimensional instrument called the Self-
versus Other-Referenced Anxiety Questionnaire (SOAQ). Self-Referenced Anxiety reflects
concerns that originate from internally-driven pressures (e.g., the candidate is worried about
obtaining a low score because s/he will blame themself for poor performance), while Other-
Referenced Anxiety, reflects concerns that originate from externally-driven pressures (i.e.,
the candidate is worried about obtaining a low score because others will blame them for poor
performance). Findings indicated that self-referenced test anxiety demonstrated a positive
relation with test performance, while other-referenced test anxiety demonstrated a negative
relation with test performance.
Combined, these studies provide a more nuanced perspective into the nature and
effects of anxiety in selection contexts and answer calls for increased focus on the
dimensions of applicant reactions (Chan & Schmitt, 2004). They also have important
implications for future research on applicant anxiety, as different types of anxiety may
exhibit unique relations with core outcomes, such as test performance, job performance, and
test-taking attitudes. Understanding how the various dimensions of anxiety operate is also
particularly useful for the development of training interventions that can focus on more
specific strategies and techniques.
Test-taking motivation. Applicants also vary in the extent to which they are
motivated to do well on selection tests. Consistent with Gilliland’s (1993) model, results
generally indicate that test-taking motivation is an outcome of process fairness (e.g., Bauer et
al., 2006; Hausknecht et al., 2004). Findings also reveal that job applicants with high levels
of test-taking motivation are less likely to withdraw from the selection process (Schmit &
Ryan, 1992; 1997), more likely to achieve high test scores in selection contexts (Hausknecht
et al., 2004), and more likely to achieve high scores in promotion contexts (McCarthy et al.,
2009).
As with test-taking anxiety, these findings have led to concerns that differences in
applicant motivation to perform on selection tests may result in biased estimates of their true
qualifications (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000; Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, & Stoffey, 1993).
Evidence examining this issue is mixed. Specifically, a study by Schmit and Ryan (1992)
found that a composite measure of test-taking attitudes (which included test motivation)
moderated the validity of a cognitive ability and personality test in a lab setting. Similarly,
O’Neill, Goffin, and Gellatly (2010) found that test-taking motivation moderated the validity
of a test assessing the trait of steadfastness in an applied context. More recently, McCarthy
and colleagues (2013) found no evidence that test-taking motivation influenced the criterion-
related validity of selection tests. Future research that aligns test-taking motivation with the
constructs assessed in the selection test (e.g., tests assessing achievement and/or drive;
cognitive skills) and the constructs assessed in job performance (e.g., core task performance,
extra-role behaviors) may provide additional insight into motivation’s role as a moderator.
From a psychometric perspective, one of the most popular instruments for assessing
test-taking motivation is the motivation subscale of the TAS, which was developed by Arvey
and colleagues in 1990. More recently, Sanchez, Truxillo, and Bauer (2000) developed a
measure of test-taking motivation based on expectancy theory. This was the first study to link
test-taking motivation to an established motivation theory, as well as the first to
conceptualize test-taking motivation as a multidimensional construct. Their measure, the
Valence, Instrumentality, Expectancy Scale (VIEMS), boasts strong psychometric properties
and contains three subscales: Valence, or the attractiveness of obtaining a position;

Instrumentality, or the extent to which applicants feel that high test performance will result in
a job offer; and Expectancy, or the probability that effort will lead to a high test score. The
three dimensions of the VIEMS have been found to explain variance in actual test
performance, perceived test performance and test-taking experience (Sanchez et al., 2000).
Moreover, the valence and instrumentality scales have been found to exhibit positive
relations with applicant emotional stability, extraversion and positive affect (Bott, Snell,
Darhling, & Smith, 2010). Ultimately, the VIEMS enables more nuanced theory-based
assessments of the antecedents, consequences and processes associated with the components
of test-taking motivation. Future research should examine the role that the three components
of test-taking motivation have with respect to different types of applicants, different types of
selection tests, and/or different types of jobs. Moreover, Ryan (2001) notes the dynamic
nature of dispositions such as motivation (an issue that is likely true for most applicant
reactions; Chan & Schmitt, 2004), but this area has received little attention.
Test-taking self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to the belief that one can succeed on a
certain task (Bandura, 1982) and has been found to have a strong relation with job
performance (Sadri & Robertson, 1993). This holds true in selection contexts, as applicants
who perceive that they may not do well on a selection test, or who demonstrate low levels of
test-taking efficacy, typically obtain lower test scores (Bauer et al., 1998; McCarthy et al.,
2013; Ryan, Ployhart, Greguras, & Schmit, 1998). Individuals with low levels of test-taking
efficacy are also more likely to have high test-taking anxiety, low levels of test-taking
motivation, and reduced belief in tests (McCarthy et al., 2013; Ryan et al., 1998).
Gilliland (1993) suggested that perceptions of justice are likely to influence self-
efficacy perceptions. In support of this proposition, Bauer et al. (1998) found that perceptions
of procedural fairness explained variance in test-taking self-efficacy beyond outcome
favorability (i.e., whether candidates passed or failed). At least three additional studies have
found that selection fairness is related to self-efficacy (Maertz, Bauer, Mosley, Posthuma, &
Campion, 2005; Truxillo et al., 2002; Truxillo, Bauer, & Sanchez, 2001). These findings
highlight the value of ensuring that selection tests are viewed in as fair, as fair selection
systems can serve to boost candidate efficacy. Other potential antecedents of efficacy that
have been empirically supported are: being male, being hired with a similar test in the past,
and general levels of self-efficacy (Maertz et al., 2005). Thus, future work that focuses on
gender differences with respect to test-taking efficacy, as well as specific techniques for
improving test efficacy is likely to prove valuable.
Dispositional versus situational reactions. In contrast to dispositional reactions,
situational reactions reflect more transient, time-bound experiences. Given that fairness
perceptions are more specific to the characteristics of the selection process than are test-
taking anxiety, motivation and self-efficacy, they are more situational in nature (Chan &
Schmitt, 2004; McCarthy et al., 2013. Theoretically, dispositional and situational reactions
are expected to have differential relations with key variables. Specifically, reactions that are
more situationally-based (e.g., perceptions of fairness) are likely to exhibit significant
relations with proximal outcomes (e.g., test-taking performance, applicant withdrawal
behaviors), but non-significant relations with distal outcomes (e.g., job performance,
turnover) because the situation-specific nature of these reactions makes it unlikely that they
will influence how applicants behave on the job. In contrast, dispositional test-taking
reactions (e.g., test-taking anxiety) are likely to exhibit significant relations with both
proximal (e.g., test-taking performance, withdrawal behaviors), and distal (e.g., job
performance, turnover) outcomes. These propositions are consistent with affective events
theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), the theory of attitude–behaviour relations (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1977), and models of job performance (e.g., Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager,
1993), each of which holds that attitude-behavior relations are strongest when they are
proximal in duration and focus.
Empirical research findings support these propositions, as perceptions of fairness have
been found to be related to test-taking performance and recommendation intentions, while
test-taking anxiety and motivation have been found to be related to test-taking performance,
applicant withdrawal, and performance on the job (see Hauscknecht et al., 2004; McCarthy et
al., 2013). Future research is needed to examine whether situational reactions also exhibit
stronger relations with proximal antecedents (e.g., procedural characteristics), and whether
dispositional reactions also exhibit stronger relations with distal antecedents (e.g.,
organizational image).
DESIGN ISSUES: RECOMMENDED DESIGNS FOR APPLICANT PERSPECTIVE
RESEARCH
From early in is development, the applicant reactions literature had begun to
emphasize longitudinal and time-lagged designs. The primary reason for this approach is that
it is not enough to assess applicant perceptions after a selection procedure. Rather, it is
important whether or not to attribute any post-selection reactions to the selection procedure,
or to pre-existing perceptions on the part of the applicant. Put differently, the question is
whether applicant perceptions changed as a result of the selection procedure, or were they
already developed when the applicant came into the selection system. That said, many
applicant reactions studies have been conducted in laboratory settings, or have not measured
applicant reactions at the appropriate time (e.g., after feedback). Accordingly, studies have
generally not examined the dynamic nature of applicant reactions (see Chan & Schmitt,
2004) and how applicant reactions and affect may change over time. Below we describe the
contexts within which applicant reactions studies are typically or can be conducted and some
typical design issues associated with each.

Laboratory studies. Much of the applicant reactions research has used laboratory
studies of undergraduate applicants, either reacting to selection scenarios (e.g., Steiner &
Gilliland, 1996) or subjected to different selection procedures (e.g., Gilliland, 1994). Such
samples are attractive for a number of reasons: Participants can legally and ethically be
assigned to different selection conditions and any differences in their treatment can be
attributed to the selection procedure. On the other hand, students in simulated conditions are
not actual applicants and have little at stake in the hiring process, and real applicants often
have numerous factors that could affect their reactions to an organization (e.g., perceptions of
an employer’s “brand”, their own need for employment) besides the selection procedure. In
fact, it is unclear from meta-analytic studies whether the results of laboratory studies over-
estimate the effects of applicant reactions or under-estimate them (Hausknecht et al., 2004;
Truxillo et al., 2009).
Applicant samples in field contexts. One of the primary reasons for the development
of longitudinal designs in applicant reactions research is particular to the challenge of
conducting field studies with actual applicants: Participants cannot be randomly assigned to
experimental conditions. That is, it would be unethical and impractical, and in many
countries illegal, to expose different applicants within the same cohort to different selection
procedures or to differential treatment that may in some way affect their performance in the
hiring process. For that reason, longitudinal designs allow for the measurement of baseline
perceptions prior to the hiring process so that applicants can act as their own control in the
hiring process. This is particularly true when assessing outcomes that focus on the individual
(e.g., self-efficacy) or perceptions of the organization (e.g., organizational attractiveness):
Applicant self-efficacy or organizational attractiveness would be measured prior to testing as
used as control variables in assessing post-test reactions. However, when the outcome of
interest is focused on the selection procedure itself – most typically, fairness perceptions of
the hiring process – the approach is slightly different, because applicants cannot have
developed perceptions of the hiring process prior to the process when know little about it.
Instead, surrogate measures are often used, such as general perceptions of how fair it is to
test applicants.
It is possible under certain conditions to assign applicants to conditions in field
settings, with the conditions based on pre-existing groups. For example, Truxillo et al. (2002)
used a quasi-experimental design to assign police applicants to “no explanation” and
“explanation” conditions, with applicants in each condition coming from separate cohorts of
applicants six months apart. Or, naturally occurring groups of applicants who failed or who
passed a selection procedure could also be compared. With these sorts of quasi-experimental
designs (see Cook, Campbell, & Peracchio, 1990), baseline (pre-selection) measures become
particularly important to account for any pre-existing differences in applicants and account
for any differences statistically (e.g., as control variables in a regression analysis). Although
these quasi-experimental designs have not been used much in the applicant reactions
literature, we encourage their use in future because of their ability to compare how the
differential treatment of applicants affects applicant outcomes. Alternatively, when the
research questions is appropriate, the assignment of actual applicants to experimental
conditions pre-selection (e.g., using a quasi-experiment; Truxillo et al., 2002) or post-
selection (e.g., providing different treatment to applicants after a selection decision; e.g.,
Gilliland et al., 2001) is sometimes possible and can also allow for comparisons between
applicants exposed to different experimental treatments. Such studies would eliminate any
question as to whether any results are attributable to applicant reactions or from some artifact
of the unrealistic settings presented to student samples. Further, it is through such field
studies that we can come to identify the factors in the hiring process that can affect individual
applicants, organizations, and society as a whole.

Summary. A large number of applicant reactions studies have been conducted in
laboratory settings using undergraduates, primarily because of the greater control provided as
well as the ability to manipulate factors (e.g., unfair procedures; Ployhart & Ryan, 1998) that
might not be possible in the field. Field studies provide greater realism and thus greater
generalizability to the real world, primarily because they reflect that actual factors (e.g.,
applicant motivation) that may affect applicant perceptions. At the same time, field studies
raise challenges in terms of requirements that baseline (pre-selection) perceptions be
measured and statistically controlled.
GUIDELINES FOR HRM/SELECTION PRACTITIONERS
Throughout this chapter we have highlighted the abundant academic research which
has been conducted to date on applicant reactions. This is a critical part to our understanding
of the complex and important aspects of IWO. However, as Rynes (2007) wrote in her
Academy of Management Journal Editorial “What academics and practitioners can do, alone
and together,” we agree that there is a great need for research translation and knowledge
transfer. To this end, this section of our chapter is focused on sharing such a research
translation. We do this by building upon a recently and jointly-published set of professional
society guidelines for selection practitioners which provide pragmatic and easy-to-understand
evidence-based advice drawing upon applicant reactions research and how these findings can
best be integrated into employee selection procedures by organizations (Bauer, McCarthy,
Anderson, Truxillo, & Salgado, 2012). The guidelines were published jointly by SIOP and
SHRM and give an application-orientated summary research on the applicant’s perspective
and especially the implications arising from research by IWO psychologists and crucial
implications for the design of recruitment and selection procedures.
Overall, organizations have goals around applicant reactions which relate to avoiding
negative reactions so that legal actions (e.g., lawsuits, formal complaints) and bad PR (e.g.,
negative word of mouth, low online ratings) are avoided or at least ameliorated. This is
important because in today’s competitive selection climate, only a small fraction of those
who apply for most jobs will ultimately be hired. On the flipside, organizations are also
motivated to maximize the potentially positive reactions of applicants so that the best
candidates will stay in the selection process, will accept potential job offers, and will be more
effective once they are on the job. Taken together, organizations can benefit from a
translation of applicant reactions research to actual employment settings.
Organizational Best Practices and Recommendations
To summarize some of the key points made in a recent white paper (Bauer et al.,
2012), eight recommendations for practitioners are offered. Give explanations and/or
justifications about selection procedures. Be sure to keep this relatively non-technical, but do
share what the organization does, why it’s valid, and how it is used by the organization.
While the outcome may not be the one that applicants desired, understanding “why” is
helpful. Relatedly, use job-related selection procedures. As has been shown throughout the
current chapter, applicants care whether or not the selection methods they experience appear
and are job-related. This means that it’s important to examine the organization’s selection
procedures to make sure they are scientifically sound (valid) and practically sound. This is a
basic point but one that is a starting point for good applicant reactions. Provide job
applicants with an opportunity to perform. Doing so helps them see the fairness of the
process regardless of how their actual performance on the selection procedure or their actual
outcome. Provide timely feedback to job candidates about their application status. No news
is bad news in the mind of most job applicants. Avoid generating undue anxiety by giving
applicants at least some degree of information about your timeline. Deal honestly with
applicants. This avoids a lot of potential problems down the line. Treat candidates with
respect. This recommendation holds for all potential interactions in the workplace. Respect
goes a long way toward mutual understanding and avoiding potential conflict. And finally,
encourage two-way communication. To the degree that you are able to allow candidates some
voice during the process, their reactions will be more strongly positive. In addition, Table 3
contains a “Best Practice Checklist” which may be used by researchers and organizational
practitioners to self-evaluate how they are doing to positively influence positive reactions for
the applicants they encounter (Bauer et al., 2012).
____________________________
Insert Table 3 about here

____________________________
Applicant Best Practices and Recommendations
For applicants, there are important points which emerge from the research done on
applicant reactions. The following is a list of “do’s” and “don’ts” for applicants. Do prepare
(both mentally and physically) for selection procedures so you can perform your best and
lessen test anxiety. Find out all you can online and from the organization if there are ways
you can prepare such as past tests, sample interview questions, etc. In addition, find out all
you can about the organization’s culture and procedures by doing your homework about the
organization. Finally, get yourself into the best shape: eat well, get a good night’s sleep, and
take deep breaths to help you stay focused during long days of selection procedures. Do ask
for feedback if you advance to late rounds in the selection process before being rejected.
Learning why you were not selected this time can pay valuable dividends in future selection
situations. It also signals a learning orientation and interest in the organization. Do be open
to feedback. If you do receive feedback, it may or may not be positive, but be open to it and
try to learn as much as possible. Don’t allow your self-image (self-esteem, self-efficacy) to be
damaged by an unpleasant selection process. Not every selection process is a healthy one,
nor does everyone get an interview or a job. Do not let disappointment or frustration
influence how you feel about yourself. There’s simply not enough information to “take it
personally.” Don’t over-react or take personally time delays. It is hard to wait for news
about how you did during a job application but that’s part of the process. Reacting
emotionally doesn’t do any good. And finally, don’t let a negative outcome such as not
getting a job outweigh a positive experience. If you managed to get an interview or if you
learned more about an industry you’d be interested in working in at some future date, those
are good things in themselves. While you may not have secured a job you were interested in,
learning what you can from the experience and then “moving on” is a healthy attitude which
can serve you well.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
As we have reviewed this literature, we’ve identified a number of areas for future
research: The application of fairness heuristic theory and fairness theory to applicant
reactions research; the systematic expansion of the applicant reactions field into the domain
of promotions; and the exploration of the dynamic nature of applicant reactions and
dispositions. In this section, we summarize what we consider to be the biggest gaps in this
literature, as well as some ideas for where the literature should go to stay relevant to the
current selection context.
Address issues relevant to current hiring practices. The primary applicant
reactions models are now over 20 years old. That in itself is not a problem: Gilliland’s (1993)
model, for instance, is rooted in a strong theoretical base and does a good job of fixing
selection concepts within organizational justice theory. However, the last 20 years have seen
significant changes in the way selection practice is done, including the use of Internet testing
and mobile technology. Moreover, organizations have far greater data available on applicants
and can link it to additional data sources (e.g., social media), factors that were not considered
when these applicant reactions models were developed. For example, some employers now
use (or are considering the use of) applicants’ social media pages for selection decisions.
Although there are legal reasons why employers should be wary of such practices, there are
also issues around how applicants perceive such practices. For example, Baysinger, Krauss,
Truxillo, Bauer, and Rineer (2014) found that on-line applicants’ privacy concerns (concern
about how their data might be used or shared) at baseline had a significant effect on later
applicant reactions – a far greater effect than other applicant concerns. In short, the applicant
reactions literature is well prepared to shed light on the viability of many new selection
practices and should move in this direction, as the concerns of societies and their citizens
continue to evolve.
Employer practices for improving reactions and dispositions. The applicant
reactions literature has determined that applicants prefer certain selection procedures to
others. However, the procedures preferred by applicants are not always the most practical for
organizations to use. For this reason, there has been research into explanations as an
inexpensive way to improve applicant reactions (e.g., Truxillo et al., 2009). In addition to a
need to examine a range of explanation types to understand which explanations are most
effective and when, we see several other areas for future research on improving reactions.
First, research has shown that respectful treatment during selection can affect later applicant
reactions (e.g., Feys & Anseel, 2012). Future research should examine ways to improve such
treatment by training HR professionals about how to treat applicants well. This includes ways
to treat applicants as individuals despite large applicant pools. Some large organizations such
as Google and Marriott continue to apply applicant reactions research findings in practical
ways to help them treat applicants better despite the large numbers of applicants they see
each year (McCarthy, 2013).
Second, researchers may want to consider how providing information to applicants
(or to test-takers in general) can affect test performance and perhaps even test validity.
Truxillo et al. (2009) found that explanations affected test-taking motivation, which in turn
affected test performance. These findings suggest that explanations and other interventions
(providing different instructions) may affect test-taker performance, which may have
important implications for how to treat test-takers during test validation processes.
Stop chasing implausible outcomes and examine the ones that matter. One hope
of early applicant reactions research was that such reactions might affect a number of post-
hire outcomes such as performance. The effects on distal outcomes such as job performance
appear to be somewhat limited (McCarthy et al., 2013). More important, though, the
likelihood of reactions to a hiring procedure affecting outcomes like behavior later on the job
seems a bit of a stretch, and the inability for applicant reactions research to “deliver” on these
promised outcomes has likely caused many researchers to dismiss the field entirely.
However, we argue that such an approach is “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.”
Rather, there are many viable outcomes of applicant reactions that need to be examined and
that are at least as relevant. First, as we’ve mentioned, applicant reactions to the promotion
procedures have received relatively little examination, but the research thus far is promising
(Ambrose & Cropanzano, 2003; Truxillo & Bauer, 1999). Internal candidates for promotion
have far more investment than external candidates and do not simply go away once rejected;
their reactions could be critical for organizational performance. Second, the effects of testing
procedures on self-perceptions and even employee health and well-being has important
implications for the person, the organization, and for society. In short, we should stop
considering just the outcomes described in the original applicant reactions models and instead
examine outcomes that are more likely to be affected by the selection context – and which are
relevant to applicants, employers, and to society.
CONCLUSION
The field of applicant reactions began in earnest with a consideration of the fair
treatment of applicants (Gilliland, 1993) but has since become quite broad, with a number of
implications for selection practice. As we have identified in this chapter, a large literature
has developed, examining many important, yet distinct, questions about applicants’
dispositions, experiences, and reactions to the hiring process. Despite these advances over the
last 20 years, more work is needed to understand when applicant reactions matter, in terms of
both organizational and individual outcomes. As a research field, applicant reactions has
developed a strong theoretical footing and has important implications for the design of
selection practices internationally. As the practice of selection has profoundly changed in
recent years via the use of social media and so forth, and this change is set to continue in the
coming years, our expectation is that applicant perspectives research will continue to have
important practical consequences, . For these reasons, the field of applicant reactions is
poised for new advances. We look forward to this next wave of applicant reactions research
and what it will bring.

References
Ababneh, K. I., Hackett, R. D., & Schat, A. C. (2014). The role of attributions and fairness in
understanding job applicant reactions to selection procedures and decisions. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 29, 111-129.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review
of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness:
An examination of reactions to tenure and promotion decisions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 266–275.
Anderson, N. (2004). Editorial – The dark side of the moon: Applicant perspectives, negative
psychological effects (NPEs), and candidate decision making in selection. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 1–8.
Anderson, N. (2011a). Perceived job discrimination: Towards a model of applicant propensity to
case initiation in selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 229-244.
Anderson, N. (2011b). Perceived Job Discrimination Matters: Going Beyond a Science of Mean
Effects. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 258-261.
Anderson, N., Ahmed, S., & Costa, A. C. (2012). Applicant reactions in Saudi Arabia:
Organizational attractiveness and core-self evaluation. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 20, 197-208.
Anderson, N., & Goltsi, V. (2006). Negative psychological effects of selection methods:
Construct formulation and an empirical investigation into an assessment center.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 236-247.
Anderson, N., Born, M., & Cunningham-Snell, N. (2001) Recruitment and Selection: Applicant
Perspectives and Outcomes. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran,
(2001), (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, Volumes I
and II, First Edition, London/New York: Sage.
Anderson, N., Salgado, J. F., & Hülsheger, U. R., (2010). Applicant reactions in selection:
Comprehensive meta-analysis into reaction generalization versus situational specificity.
Anderson, N., & Witvliet, C. (2008). Fairness reactions to personnel selection methods: An
international comparison between the Netherlands, the United States, France, Spain.
Portugal, and Singapore. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 1-13.
Arvey, R., & Sackett, P. (1993). Fairness in selection: Current developments and perspectives.
In: N. Schmitt, and W.C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection on Organization (pp.171-
202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Arvey, R. D., Strickland, W., Drauden, G., & Martin, C. (1990). Motivational components of test
taking. Personnel Psychology, 43, 695-716.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-
147.
Bauer, T. N., Maertz, C. P., Dolen, M. R., & Campion, M. A. (1998). Longitudinal assessment of
applicant reactions to employment testing and test outcome feedback. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 892-903.
Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Paronto, M., Weekley, J., & Campion, M. A. (2004). Applicant
reactions to different selection technology: Face-to-Face, interactive voice response, and
computer-assisted telephone screening interviews. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 12, 135-148.
Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Sanchez, R. J., Craig, J., Ferrara, P., & Campion, M. A. (2001).
Applicant reactions to selection: Development of the selection procedural justice scale
(SPJS). Personnel Psychology, 54, 387-419.

Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Tucker, J., Weathers, V., Bertolino, M., Erdogan, B., & Campion,
M. A. (2006). Selection in the information age: The impact of privacy concerns and
computer experience on applicant reactions. Journal of Management, 32, 601-621.
Bauer, T. N., McCarthy, J. M., Anderson N., Truxillo, D. M., & Salgado, J. F. (2012). Candidate
Reactions to Selection. SIOP International Affairs Committee White Paper. Society for
Industrial – Organizational Psychology.
Baysinger, M., Krauss, A., Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., & Rineer, J. (2014). The impact of
explanations and fairness perceptions on applicant outcomes. In M. Baysinger
(Symposium Chair), Understanding applicant fairness perceptions: Moderators, mediators,
and contextual influences. SIOP Conference, Honolulu, HI.
Bell, B. S., Ryan, A. M., & Wiechmenn, D. (2004). Justice expectations and applicant
perceptions. Justice Expectations and Applicant Perceptions, 12, 24-38.
Bell, B. S., Wiechmann, D., & Ryan, A. M. (2006). Consequences of organizational justice
expectations in a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 455–466.
Bertolino, M., & Steiner, D. (2007). Fairness reactions to selection methods: An Italian study.
Bott, J., Snell, A., Dahling, J., & Smith, B. N. (2010). Predicting individual score elevation in an
applicant setting: The influence of individual differences and situational perceptions.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 2774-2790.
Bruk-Lee, V., Drew, E., & Hawkes, B. (2013). Candidate reactions to simulations and media-
rich assessments in personnel selection. In M. S. Fetzer & K. A.Tuzinski (Eds.),
Simulations for personnel selection (pp.43-60). New York, NY: Springer
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance.
In. N. Schmitt and W.C. Borman, (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35-70).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carless, S. (2006). Applicant reactions to multiple selection procedures for the police force.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 145-167.
Cassady, J. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 270-295.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Ahmetoglu, G., & Furnham, A. (2008). Little more than personality:
Dispositional determinants of test anxiety (the big five, core self-evaluations, and self-
assessed intelligence). Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 258-263.
Chan, D. (1997). Racial subgroup differences in predictive validity perceptions on personality
and cognitive ability tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 311-320.
Chan, D., Schmitt, N., DeShon, R. P., Clause, C. S., & Delbridge, K. (1997). Reactions to
cognitive ability tests: The relationships between race, test performance, face validity
perceptions, and test-taking motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 300.
Chan, D., Schmitt, N., Jennings, D., Clause, C., & Delbridge, K. (1998). Applicant perceptions
of test fairness: Integrating justice and self-serving bias perspectives. International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 6, 232-239.
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (1997). Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in
situational judgment tests: Subgroup differences in test performance and face validity
perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 143-195.
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2004). An agenda for future research on applicant reactions to selection
procedures: A construct-oriented approach. International Journal of Selection and
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., & Webster, J. (2003). Candidate reactions to face-to-face and
technology-mediated interviews: A field investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
944-953.
Chapman, D. S., & Zweig, D. I. (2005). Developing a nomological network for interview
structure: Antecedents and consequences of the structured selection interview. Personnel
Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T., & Peracchio, L. (1990). Quasi-experimentation. In M. D. Dunnette
& L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 491-
576). Paolo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Cook, K. W., Vance, C. A., & Spector, P. E. (2000). The relation of candidate personality with
selection-interview outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 867-885.
Díaz, R. J., Glass, C. R., Arnkoff, D. B., & Tanofsky-Kraff, M. (2001). Cognition, anxiety, and
prediction of performance in 1st-year law students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
420-429.
Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency
theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409-434.
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive
performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7, 336-353.
Feiler, A. R., & Powell, D. M. (2013). Interview anxiety across the sexes: Support for the sex-
linked anxiety coping theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 12-17.
Feys, M. L., Anseel, F., & Wille, B. (2012). A longitudinal study of candidates’ reactions in
“American Idol.” In G. W. Giumetti & P. B. Barger (Chairs), Moving beyond “Soft”
outcomes and single time points in reactions research. Paper presented at the 27th annual
Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, San Diego, CA.
Fletcher, C. (1991). Candidates' reactions to assessment centres and their outcomes: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 117-127.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg
& R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in Organizational Justice, pp. 1-55. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.

Ford, D. K., Truxillo, D. M., & Bauer, T. N. (2009). Rejected But still there: Shifting the focus in
applicant reactions to the promotional context. International Journal of Selection and
García-Izquierdo, A. L., Moscoso, S., & Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J. (2012). Reactions to the fairness
of promotion methods: Procedural justice and job satisfaction. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 20, 394-403.
Geenen, B., Proost, K., van Dijke, M., de Witte, K., & von Grumbkow, J. (2012). The role of
affect in the relationship between distributive justice expectations and applicants'
recommendation and litigation intentions. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 20, 404–413.
Gillespie, J. Z., & Ryan, A. M. (2012). Gender-based preferential selection: influences of
perceptions of procedurally unfair advantage on performance and self-evaluations. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 150–179.
Gilliland, S. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection
system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691-701.
Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694-734.
Gilliland, S. W., Groth, M., Backer IV, R. C., Dew, A. F., Polly, L. M., & Langdon, J. C.
(2001). Improving applicants' reactions to rejection letters: An application of fairness
theory. Personnel Psychology, 54, 669-703.
Giumetti, G. W., & Sinar, E. F. (2012). Don't you know me well enough yet: Comparing
reactions of internal and external candidates to employment testing. International Journal

Harris, M. M., Van Hoye, G., & Lievens, F. (2003). Privacy and attitudes towards internet-based
selection system: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 11, 230-236
Hausknecht, J., Day, D., & Thomas, S. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An
updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57, 639-684.
Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of
Educational Research, 58, 47-77.
Herriot, P. (2004). Social identities and applicant reactions. International Journal of Selection
Hiemstra, A. M., Derous, E., Serlie, A. W., & Born, M. P. (2012). Fairness perceptions of video
resumes among ethnically diverse applicants. International Journal of Selection and
Hoang, T. G., Truxillo, D. M., Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N., (2012). Cross-cultural examination
of applicant reactions to selection methods: United States and Vietnam. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 209-219.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and
organizations across nations. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership and organization: Do American theories apply
abroad. Organizational Dynamics, 9, 42-63.
Honkaniemi, L., Feldt, T., Metsäpelto, R., & Tolvanen, A. (2013). Personality types and
applicant reactions in real-life selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
21, 32-45.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An
integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution in social action. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley,
R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds), Attribution: Perceiving the cause of behavior
(pp. 1-26). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Konradt, U., Warszta, T., & Ellwart, T. (2013). Fairness perceptions in web-based selection:
Impact on applicants' pursuit intentions, recommendation intentions, and intentions to
reapply. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21, 155-169.
LaHuis, D. M. (2005). Individual differences in applicant reactions: A job-search perspective.
LaHuis, D. M., MacLane, C. N., & Schlessman, B. R. (2007). Do applicants’ perceptions matter?
Investigating reapplication behavior using fairness theory. International Journal of
Latham, G. P., & Finnegan, B. J. (1993). Perceived practicality of unstructured, patterned, and
situational interviews. In J. Schuler, J. L. Farr, & M. Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and
asssessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 41-55). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lazer, A., Zinger, A., & Lachterman, B. (2007). The influence of prefeedback selection justice
on perceptions of overall procedural justice and organizational attractiveness in a real-life
selection procedure. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 94-
109.
Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2006). Video-based versus written situational judgment tests: A
comparison in terms of predictive validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1181-1188.
Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in
organizational relations. Advances in organizational justice, 56, 88.
Madigan, J., & Macan, T. H. (2005). Improving candidate reactions by altering test
administration. Applied H.R.M. Research, 10, 73-88.

Macan, T., Avedon, M., Paese, M., & Smith, E. (1994). The effects of applicants' reactions to
cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47, 715-738.
Maertz, C. P., Jr., Bauer, T. N., Mosley, D. C., Jr., Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. (2005).
Predictors of self-efficacy for cognitive ability employment testing. Journal of Business
Research, 58, 160-167.
Maertz, C. P., Mosley, D. C., Bauer, T. N., Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. (2004). Do
procedural justice perceptions in a selection testing context predict applicant attraction and
intention toward the organization? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 125-145.
McCarthy, J. M. (2013). When it comes to practice, do applicant reactions theories matter?
Exploring theory-practice connects and disconnects from the front lines. J. McCarthy
(Chair) with panelists Talya Bauer (Portland State University), Todd Carlisle (Google),
Victoria Davis (Marriott International), & Donald Truxillo (Portland State University) and
Wayne Cascio (Discussant). Panel discussion at SIOP’s Annual Meeting, Houston, TX.
McCarthy, J. M., & Goffin, R. D. (2003). Is the test attitude survey psychometrically sound?
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 446-464.
McCarthy, J. M., & Goffin, R. D. (2004). Measuring job interview anxiety: Beyond weak knees
and sweaty palms. Personnel Psychology, 57, 607-637.
McCarthy, J. M., & Goffin, R. D. (2005). Selection test anxiety: Exploring tension and fear of
failure across the sexes in simulated selection scenarios. International Journal of Selection
McCarthy, J. M., Hrabluik, C., & Jelley, R. B. (2009). Progression through the ranks: Assessing
employee reactions to high-stakes employment testing. Personnel Psychology, 62, 793-832.
McCarthy, J. M., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Lievens, F., Kung, M.-C., Sinar, E. F., & Campion, M.
A. (2013). Do candidate reactions relate to job performance or affect criterion: related

validity? A multistudy investigation of relations among reactions, selection test scores, and
job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 701-719.
McFarland, L. (2003). Warning against faking on a personality test: Effects on applicant
reactions and personality test scores. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
11, 265-276.
Nikolaou, I., & Judge, T. (2007). Fairness reaction to personnel techniques in Greece: The core
of self-evaluations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 206-219.
Nguyen, H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of
minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 1314-1334.
O'Neill, T. A., Goffin, R. D., & Gellatly, I. R. (2010). Test-taking motivation and personality test
validity. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 117-125.
Oostrom, J. K., Born, M. P., Serlir, A. W., & Van Der Molen, H. T. (2010). Effects of individual
differences on the perceived job relatedness of a cognitive ability test and a multimedia
situational judgment test. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 394-406.
Phillips, J., & Gully, S. (2002). Fairness reaction to personnel selection techniques in Singapore
and United States. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13, 1186-1205.
Ployhart, R. E., & Harold, C. M. (2004). The applicant attribution-reaction theory (AART): An
integrative theory of applicant attributional processing. International Journal of Selection
Ployhart, R. E., & Ryan, A. M., (1997). Toward an explanation of applicant reactions: An
examination of organizational justice and attribution frameworks. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 72, 308-335.

Ployhart, R. E., & Ryan, A. M. (1998). Applicants' reactions to the fairness of selection
procedures: The effects of positive rule violations and time of measurement. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 3-16.
Ployhart, R. E., Ziegert, J. C., & McFarland, L. A. (2003). Understanding racial differences on
cognitive ability tests in selection contexts: An integration of stereotype threat and
candidate reactions research. Human Performance, 16, 231-231-259.
Posthuma, R. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2002). Beyond employment interview
validity: A comprehensive narrative review of recent research and trends over time.
Personnel Psychology, 55, 1-81.
Potosky, D., & Bobko, P. (2004). Selection testing via the internet: Practical considerations and
exploratory empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 57, 1003-1034.
Proost, K., Derous, E., Schreurs, B., Hagtvet, K. A., & DeWitte, K. (2008). Selection test
anxiety: Investigating applicants' self- vs. other-referenced anxiety in a real selection
setting. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 14-26.
Reeve, C. L., & Bonaccio, S. (2008). Does test anxiety induce measurement bias in cognitive
ability tests? Intelligence, 36, 526-538.
Robertson, I. T., Iles, P. A., Gratton, L., & Sharpley, D. (1991). The impact of personnel
selection and assessment methods on candidates. Human Relations, 44, 565-606.
Rolland, F., & Steiner, D. D. (2007). Test-taker reactions to selection process: Effects of
outcome favorability, explanations, and voice on fairness perceptions. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 37, 2800-2826.
Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Thatcher, J. B. (2013). Social media in
employee-selection-related decisions A research agenda for uncharted territory. Journal of
Management, 0149206313503018.
Ryan, A. M. (2001). Explaining the black-white test score gap: The role of test perceptions.
Human Performance, 14, 45-75.
Ryan, A. M., Boyce, A. S., Ghumman, S., Jundt, D., & Schmidt, G. (2009). Going global:
Cultural values and perceptions of selection procedures. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 58, 520-556.
Ryan, A. M., & Chan, D. (1999). Perceptions of the EPPP: How do licensure candidates view the
process? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 519-530.
Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2000). Candidates' perceptions of selection procedures and
decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 26, 565-
606.
Ryan, A. M., Ployhart, R. E., Greguras, G. J., & Schmit, M. J. (1998). Test preparation programs
in selection contexts: Self-selection and program effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 51,
599-621.
Ryan, A. M., Sacco, J. M., McFarland, L. A., & Kriska, D. (2000). Applicant self-selection:
Correlates of withdrawal from a multiple hurdle process. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 163-179.
Rynes, S. L. (2007). Let’s create a tipping point: What academics and practitioners can do, alone
and together. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1046-1054.
Sackett, P. R., & Ryan, A. M. (2012). Concerns about generalizing stereotype threat research
findings to operational high-stakes testing (pp. 249-263). NY, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Sadri, G., & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Self-efficacy and work-related behaviour: A review and
meta-analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42, 139-152.
Salgado, J. F., Moscoso, S., & Lado, M. (2003). Test-retest reliability of ratings of job
performance dimensions in managers. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
11, 98-101.
Salgado, J. F., Remeseiro, C., & Iglesias, M. (1996). Personality and test-taking motivation.
Psicothema, 8, 553-562.
Sanchez, R. J., Truxillo, D. M., & Bauer, T. N. (2000). Development and examination of an
expectancy-based measure of test-taking motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
739-750.
Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. (2004). Comparing lots before and after: Promotion rejectees'
invidious reactions to promotees. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
94, 33–47.
Schinkel, S., Dierendonck, D. V., & Anderson, N. (2004). The impact of selection encounters on
applicants: An experimental study into feedback effects after a negative selection decision.
Schmitt, N., Oswald, F. L., Kim, B. H., Gillespie, M. A., & Ramsay, L. J. (2004). The impact of
justice and self-serving bias explanations of the perceived fairness of different types of
selection tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 160-171.
Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1992). Test-taking dispositions: A missing link? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77, 629-637.
Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1997). Applicant withdrawal: The role of test-taking attitudes and
racial Differences. Personnel Psychology, 50, 855–876.
Schmitt, N., & Gilliland, S.W. (1992). Beyond differential prediction: Fairness in selection. In
D. M. Saunders (Ed.), New approaches to employee management: Fairness in employee
selection. Vol. 1( pp. 21-46). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Schreurs, B., Derous, E., Proost, K., & Witte, K. D. (2010). The relation between selection
expectations, perceptions and organizational attraction: A test of competing model.
Schuler, H. (1993). Social validity of selection situations: A concept and some empirical results.
In J. Schuler, J. L. Farr, & M. Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and asssessment:
Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 41-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Seipp, B. (1991). Anxiety and academic performance: A meta-analysis of findings. Anxiety
Research, 4, 27-41.
Shao, R., Rupp, D. E., Skarlicki, D. P., & Jones, K. S. (2013). Employee justice across cultures:
A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 39, 263-301.
Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse? A meta-analytic review of
the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 444-458. doi: http://
10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.444
Sieverding, M. (2009). 'Be cool!': Emotional costs of hiding feelings in a job interview.
Silvester, J., Anderson, N., Haddleton, E., Cunningham-Snell, N., & Gibb, A. (2000). A cross-
modal comparison of telephone and face-to-face selection interviews in graduate
recruitment. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 16-21.
Smith, R. J., Arnkoff, D. B., & Wright, T. L. (1990). Test anxiety and academic competence: A
comparison of alternative models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 313-321.
Smither, J., Reilly, R., Millsap, R., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey, R. (1993). Applicant reactions to
selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 49-76.
Spielberger, G. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Spielberger, C. D., & Vagg, P. R. (1995). Test anxiety: A transactional process model (pp. 3-14)
Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.

Steiner, D., & Gilliland, S. (2001). Procedural justice in personnel selection: International and
cross-culture perspectives. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 81, 124-137.
Sumanth, J. J., & Cable, D. M. (2011). Status and organizational entry: How organizational and
individual career status affect justice perceptions of hiring systems. Personnel Psychology,
64, 963-1000.
Sundre, D. L., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). An exploration of the psychology of the examinee: Can
examinee self-regulation and test-taking motivation predict consequential and non-
consequential test performance? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 6-26.
Sylva, H., & Mol, S. T. (2009). E-recruitment: A study into applicant perceptions of an online
application system. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 311-323.
Thibodeaux, H. F., & Kudisch, J. D. (2003). The relationship between applicant reactions, the
likelihood of complaints, and organization attractiveness. Journal of Business and
Tippins, N. T. (2009). Internet alternatives to traditional proctored testing: Where are we now?
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 2-10.
Truxillo, D. M., & Bauer, T. N. (1999). Applicant reactions to test scores banding in entry-level
and promotional contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 322-339.
Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., Campion, M. A., & Paronto, M. E. (2002). Selection fairness
information and applicant reactions: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 1020-1031.
Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., Campion, M. A., & Paronto, M. E. (2006). A field study of the
role of big five personality in applicant perceptions of selection fairness, self, and the hiring
organization. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 269-277.
Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., & Sanchez, R. J. (2001). Multiple dimensions of procedural
justice: Longitudinal effects on selection system fairness and test-taking self-efficacy.

Truxillo, D. M., Bodner, T. B., Bertolino, M., Bauer, T. N., & Yonce, C. (2009). Effects of
explanations on applicant reactions: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of
Truxillo, D. M., & Bauer, T. N., (2011). Applicant reactions to organizations and selection
systems. In: S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbook of I/O Psychology, Volume II (pp. 379–397).
Washington, DC: APA Press.
Truxillo, D. M., Steiner, D., & Gilliland, S. (2004). The importance of organizational justice in
personnel selection: Defining when selection fairness really matter. International Journal
Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). Procedural and distributive justice:
What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 95-104.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Importance of perceived personnel selection system
fairness determinants: Relations with demographic, personality, and job characteristics.
Walsh, B. M., Tuller, M. D., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Matthews, R. A. (2010). Investigating the
moderating role of cultural practices on the effect of selection fairness perceptions.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work (pp. 1-74). Elsevier
Science/JAI Press.
Wiechmann, D., & Ryan, M. A. (2003). Reactions to computerized testing in selection contexts.
Wolf, L. F., & Smith, J. K. (1995). The consequence of consequence: Motivation, anxiety, and
test performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 227-242.

Table 1. Meta-analytic estimates of favorability ratings for ten selection procedures.
Hauschnecht et al. (2004) Anderson et al. (2010)

Selection tool studied Mean K Mean K
Interviews 3.70 10 3.96 25

Work Samples 3.61 10 3.84 23
Resume’s 3.57 5 3.55 19

References 3.29 7 3.11 21
Cognitive Ability 3.11 10 3.28 26
Biodata 2.81 8 3.06 19
Personality Tests 2.83 10 2.91 25
Honesty Tests 2.47 6 2.64 19

Personal Contacts 2.51 6 1.85 22
Graphology 1.69 6 1.66 21
Note. Haushnecht et al. (2004) meta-analytic estimates are based on a 5-point scale; Anderson et
al. (2010) meta-analytic estimates are calibrated to a 5-point scale.
View publication stats

IWOHandbookapplicantreactionschapter November 15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

IWOHandbookapplicantreactionschapter November 15

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IWOHandbookapplicantreactionschapter November 15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

Applicant Perspectives on Employee Selection

Chapter · January 2016

Julie Mccarthy Neil Robert Anderson

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sara Mana Ahmed

Team Trust in NASA teams View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

APPLICANT PERSPECTIVES ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION SYSTEMS

in applicant reactions cross-nationally and summarize the findings on test-taking dispositions.

We conclude with a discussion of future research directions in light of changes in selection

practice and provide recommendations for organizations.

Keywords: Applicant reactions, applicant attitudes, test-taking attitudes, test-taker

APPLICANT PERSPECTIVES ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION SYSTEMS

later behavior on the job, and applicant litigation.

topic of test-taking predispositions such as applicant motivation) has developed. This

process have a significant effect on organizational attractiveness; certain types of selection

promotional processes may affect job attitudes and performance.

In this chapter, we provide an overview of the applicant reactions literature, starting

cross-cultural studies of applicant reactions. We next move to the antecedents of applicant

addressed by future research.

RESEARCH HISTORY OF THE APPLICANT REACTIONS FIELD

illustrated that applicant reactions did matter to a number or outcomes. However, as

relatedness of procedures; consistency of administration), highlighted the importance of

might compensate for lower distributive outcomes.

Formal characteristics included job relatedness, opportunity to perform, reconsideration

opportunity, and consistency of administration. Explanations include feedback, selection

information, and honesty. Interpersonal Treatment includes interpersonal effectiveness of

ability. Reconsideration is defined as the chance to challenge or modify a decision made

going through with an organization. Honesty is defined as truthfully communicating with

avoidance of questions which invade the privacy of an applicant. In addition, distributive

foundations of applicant reactions.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE APPLICANT REACTIONS FIELD

foundation of organizational justice theory, as can be evidenced by its historical roots in

beyond justice that have been used to explain applicant reactions.

Attributions. Ployhart and Ryan (1997) describe attributions as a fundamental part of

consensus, and distinctiveness as originally described in work by Kelley (1967). This

understanding of this framework.

about themselves if they are unsuccessful in obtaining the job.

well as when to provide it.

expectations approach seems promising, far more work is needed.

Justice refinements: Fairness heuristic theory (FHT) and fairness theory.

information is known. In this way, an applicant’s fairness perceptions develop as a type of

seems a natural fit for the study of applicant reactions.

Another organizational justice approach is fairness theory, which describes how

particularly useful in understanding how applicants process different types of explanations

promising area for future research.

WHICH SELECTION PROCEDURES DO APPLICANTS PREFER?

applicants prefer. Meta-analytic summaries of these studies reveal remarkable consistency

containing job-related questions.

Insert Table 1 About Here

research indicating that candidates prefer unstructured, as opposed to structured, interviews

face-to-face interviews over videoconferencing or telephone-based interviews (Bauer,

face-to-face interviews were associated with higher levels interpersonal justice,

platform for interpersonal interaction.

individuals from Vietnam.

As technological advances enable an impressive amount of flexibility, creativity, and