Pergamon

Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381

The effects of videoconference, telephone, and face-to-

face media on interviewer and applicant judgments in
employment interviews
Susan G. Strausa,*, Jeffrey A. Milesb, Laurie L. Levesquec
a
6921 Rosewood St., Pittsburgh, PA 15208
b
University of the Pacific, Eberhardt School of Business, 3601 Pacific Avenue, Stockton, CA 95211
c
Carnegie Mellon University, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Received 9 May 2000; received in revised form 29 September 2000; accepted 13 December 2000

Abstract
We examined the effects of communication media on judgments in job interviews. Fifty-nine MBA
students (applicants) had mock interviews in face-to-face meetings and either by videoconference or
telephone. Results show that interviewers evaluated applicants more favorably in telephone versus
face-to-face interviews. This difference was stronger for less physically attractive applicants, which
suggests that the telephone filtered negative, visual cues. Although interviewers reported more
difficulty regulating and understanding discussions by videoconference versus face-to-face, they did
not evaluate applicants less favorably by videoconference. In contrast to interviewers, applicants had
less favorable reactions in videoconference versus face-to-face interviews for most measures. Impli-
cations for media use in employee selection and recruiting are discussed. © 2001 Elsevier Science Inc.
All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Shortages of skilled workers, high turnover, and rapid business growth have placed
recruiting, selecting, and placing employees among the top three priorities of human re-
sources professionals for the year 2000 (Bureau of National Affairs, 2000). These factors
have led firms to search for candidates from outside their local area on a national and
international level. At the same time, numerous companies have cut back on travel due

* Corresponding author. Tel.: ⫹1-412-361-1325; fax: ⫹1-412-363-5188.

E-mail address: sstraus@andrew.cmu.edu (S.G. Straus).

0149-2063/01/$ – see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 9 - 2 0 6 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 9 6 - 4
364 S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381

to rising costs (McDowell, 1999). Consequently, many organizations have turned to

interviewing job applicants at a distance. The popular press is replete with stories of
firms that are conducting interviews by videoconference (e.g., Hanover, 2000; Lublin,
1999; Ross, 1998). In addition to reducing costs, videoconferencing gives companies
access to a more diverse set of applicants and decreases the time required to fill positions
(Hanover, 2000; Ross, 1998). In fact, distance interviewing is not a new concept; the
telephone has been used to screen applicants for many years and continues to be an
important part of the screening process (“Telephone Instrumental,” 1999). Development
Dimensions International estimates that 30% of Fortune 500 firms regularly conduct
telephone interviews (Dick Gage, personal communication, February 18, 1998).
The direct cost savings realized through technology use is referred to as a first-level effect
(Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). First-level effects are the planned savings in cost or increases in
productivity or efficiency brought about by the use of a technology. However, since Trist and
Bamforth’s (1951) pioneering research in the coal mining industry, we know that technology
use has unintended social impacts, which Sproull and Kiesler (1991) refer to as second-level
effects. Moreover, organizations frequently implement technological innovations without
considering possible social consequences. Like a variety of other technological implemen-
tations, there is a wide gap between the use of alternative technologies for conducting job
interviews and research on the effects of these media. Is this reliance on alternative media
well-founded? What might be lost in the quest for efficiency? Do these media offer benefits
beyond efficiency gains? In this article, we begin to narrow the gap between practice and
research by addressing these questions.
We examine alternatives to traditional modes of interviewing by comparing the effects of
videoconference (VC) and telephone (TEL) media with face-to-face (FTF) communication
on judgments in job interviews in an experimental simulation. One focus of our study is on
the selection function of interviews, i.e., how media affect interviewers’ judgments of
applicants’ abilities and traits. We also examine applicants’ reactions to the interviewer and
interview process, which are important components of the recruiting function of interviews.
Applicants’ reactions affect attitudes toward the recruiting firms and the likelihood of
accepting job offers (e.g., Ryan & Ployhart, 2000).

1.1. Media effects on selection and recruitment

Job interviews are one of the most common methods of employee selection (Ferris,
Hochwarter, Buckley, Harrell-Cook, & Frink, 1999). A principal goal of the interview is to
evaluate applicants’ job-relevant knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics. These
evaluations, in turn, affect selection decisions. We propose that characteristics of commu-
nication media and applicants interact to influence interviewers’ evaluations.

1.1.1. Media characteristics

A number of researchers have proposed that there are two key features of media that
influence social processes (Hinds & Kiesler, 1999). One feature is bandwidth, which reflects
the number of different cues or signals that a medium transmits (see also Kraut, Galegher,
Fish, & Chalfonte, 1992). Media that transmit auditory and visual channels, for example,
 S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381 365

have higher bandwidth than media that transmit only auditory cues. Of the media that we
examine in this study, TEL has lower bandwidth, as it filters visual cues. The second feature
is synchrony, which refers to the potential to exchange information rapidly and adjust
messages in response to signals from one’s partner. FTF interaction is synchronous; there is
no delay in communication. In TEL communication over public analog networks (the type
of systems used in most businesses in the United States) there is a delay is 20 to 30 msec,
which is imperceptible. VC, however, has a noticeable delay in communication. Most
organizations use compressed VC, which transmits audio and video signals over high speed
telephone lines. The technology causes average delays in signal transmission of approxi-
mately 200 to 400 msec (Angiolillo, Blanchard, Israelski, & Mané, 1997) but can be higher.
In addition, there is typically a lack of synchronization between audio and video signals. Of
the media that we examine, VC has lower levels of synchrony than FTF and TEL commu-
nication.

1.1.2. Applicant characteristics

Numerous studies show that nonverbal cues are powerful predictors of interpersonal
evaluations. Cues communicated visually, such as eye contact, smiling, nodding, and body
position, are used to express emotions and reactions such as attraction or dominance (e.g.,
Argyle & Dean, 1965; Carnevale, Pruitt & Seilheimer, 1981). These expressions, in turn,
influence the development of social relationships (Byrne, 1971; Short, Williams & Christie,
1976). Nonverbal signals contribute to the formulation of initial evaluations, positive or
negative (Ellsworth & Carlsmith, 1968), and cues such as eye contact intensify these
impressions. In job interviews, studies of applicant nonverbal behaviors generally show that
“positive” behaviors, such as smiling and direct eye contact, are associated with higher
evaluations of applicants by interviewers, and “negative” behaviors, such as frowning and
avoidance gazes, are associated with lower evaluations (e.g., Forbes & Jackson, 1980;
Gifford, Ng & Wilkinson, 1985; Howard & Ferris, 1996).
Other visual cues also affect how we evaluate others. For instance, there is substantial
evidence showing that people are attracted to others who have similar demographic char-
acteristics (McGrath, 1984), and some demographic traits are conveyed visually. In the
context of employee selection, numerous studies show that interviewers’ judgments are
influenced by physical and demographic characteristics, many of which are unrelated to job
performance (e.g., Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979; Raza & Carpenter, 1987; Roehling, 1999).
These biases are especially robust for perceptions of physical attractiveness. Physically
attractive people are consistently perceived as more intelligent, socially skilled, dominant,
and mentally healthy than are physically unattractive people (Feingold, 1992) and are
generally preferred in personnel decisions (Cann, Siegfried & Pearce, 1981; Gilmore, Beehr
& Love, 1986; Marlowe, Schneider & Nelson, 1996).

1.1.3. Interaction effects

Media bandwidth is likely to interact with applicant characteristics by acting as a filter or
transmitter of such cues. That is, the higher the bandwidth, the more information about traits
and behaviors can be exchanged. Because we examine naturally occurring behavior in job
interviews, it is reasonable to expect that applicants will exhibit both positive and negative
366 S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381

nonverbal behaviors. Although one would expect applicants to regulate their nonverbal
behaviors to present a favorable impression (Liden & Parsons, 1989), ample research
evidence shows that attempts to produce particular nonverbal behaviors often cannot be
executed successfully (DePaulo, 1992). Thus, because TEL communication filters nonverbal
cues and information about many physical traits, we expect more of these behaviors and
traits, both positive and negative, to be transmitted in FTF and VC interviews.
In addition, research shows consistently that when evaluating other people, greater weight
is given to negative versus positive information (e.g., Skowronski & Carlston, 1989; Spring-
bett, 1958; Vonk, 1993), which is referred to as the negativity effect. McGovern, Jones,
Warwick & Jackson (1981) demonstrated this phenomenon in a study in which subjects
observed a taped interview of an applicant who exhibited either positive or negative verbal
and nonverbal behaviors. Subjects observed the tape in one of three modes: audio, audio-
video, or video-only (no sound). The positive applicant received higher ratings regardless of
mode. However, the negative applicant was rated substantially lower in the audio-video and
video-only versus audio conditions. The difference between the audio-only and video-only
conditions suggest that negative, visual cues have a particularly strong effect on evaluations.
In summary, because more information (both negative and positive) is transmitted in
higher bandwidth media, and negative information has a stronger effect on evaluations, we
expect to find higher evaluations in low bandwidth modes. We propose:
H1: Interviewers’ evaluations of applicants will be more favorable in TEL versus FTF
interviews.
H2: There will be an interaction between physical attractiveness and communication
medium. Less physically attractive participants will receive higher evaluations in TEL
versus FTF interviews; more physically attractive participants will receiver higher
evaluations in FTF versus TEL interviews.
The previous hypotheses imply that communicators’ behavior is relatively constant across
media conditions, and media influence evaluations by altering the cues available to the
observer (interviewer). Whereas this may be the case for static individual differences such as
physical attractiveness, we propose that medium synchrony will change some behaviors,
thereby influencing evaluators’ judgments. In particular, synchrony affects the exchange of
back-channel communication, which consists of cues that a listener sends to a speaker to
indicate that he or she is paying attention and move the conversation forward. Examples of
these signals include eye contact, head nods and shakes, facial expressions, pauses, and
utterances such as “uh-huh” (e.g., Duncan, 1974). These signals are important because they
help coordinate conversations and facilitate listener understanding (Clark & Brennan, 1991;
Kraut, Lewis & Swezey, 1982). Delays in audio communication as brief as 200 msec (Riez
& Klemmer, 1963) and 1.6 sec (Krauss & Bricker, 1966) have been shown to interfere with
back-channel responses and disrupt conversations.1 Thus, we predict that the delays in VC
will interfere with speaker coordination and understanding. The delays and lack of synchro-
nization between video and audio signals also are disconcerting, which may make the
applicants feel uneasy, particularly because they are being evaluated. Disruptions in com-
munication, in turn, may impact interviewers’ evaluations by affecting perceptions of
 S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381 367

applicants’ verbal fluency (Hollandsworth, Kazelskis, Stevens & Dressel, 1979; Parsons &
Liden, 1984). Applicants also may make inferior impressions to the extent that they feel less
comfortable. These ideas suggest that medium synchrony will affect evaluations:
H3: Interviewers’ evaluations of applicants will be more favorable in FTF versus VC
interviews.
The previous discussion also suggests the following hypotheses:
H4: Perceptions of conversation fluency and communication understanding will be
more favorable in FTF versus VC interviews.
H5: Applicants will feel more comfortable in FTF versus VC interviews.

2. Method

2.1. Subjects

2.1.1. Applicants
Applicants were 60 first-year students in the business masters program at a private
university. Data for one applicant was omitted because he failed to dress in business attire.
Seventy-three percent of the participants were male; the average age was 26.4 years.
Each year, first-year students are required to have a mock, FTF job interview to prepare
for on-campus recruiting. A career counselor reviews a videotape of the interview and
provides performance feedback to each student. Students participated in the study on a
voluntary basis to gain additional interview practice by TEL or VC. They were recruited
through an advertisement that was sent to an electronic distribution list of all first year
students and announced in a required class. Participation was limited to the first 60 students
who signed up.

2.1.2. Interviewers
Interviewers were three female and three male Ph.D. students. The average age of the
interviewers was 35.2 years (SD ⫽ 4.74), and they had from 6 to 18 years of interviewing
experience. We used interviewers of the same race (Caucasian) to control for possible race
effects. Interviewers were paid to participate. Prior to the onset of the study, they attended
a training session to review the experimental procedures and learn how to operate the VC
equipment. Interviewers were naive to the study hypotheses and design.

2.2. Study design

Implementing this study required coordinating a substantial number of schedules includ-

ing those of applicants, interviewers, experimenters, facilities, and equipment. We also were
obligated to provide all participants with a FTF interview. Thus, this study has elements of
a field experiment in that we were faced with considerable organizational constraints and
368 S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381

were dealing with activities that had an impact on participants’ welfare. Consequently, we
had to trade-off some experimental control for feasibility.
All applicants had two interviews; one FTF and the other either by VC or TEL. Thus, we
had two media pairs: (1) FTF and TEL; and (2) FTF and VC. Applicants were randomly
assigned to media pair, and order was counterbalanced within pair. Because we did not have
a VC-TEL pair, there were more FTF interviews (60) than VC or TEL interviews (30).
Applicants had a different interviewer in each trial. All interviewers conducted interviews in
each medium and trial. We control for interviewer, media-pair, trial, order, and applicant in
the analyses.

2.2.1. Communication media

FTF interviews were conducted in career center interview rooms. TEL interviews were
conducted using standard office telephones. Applicant were located in an interviewing room,
and interviewers were located in an office elsewhere in the building. VC interviews were
conducted using PictureTel equipment. Applicants were located in a conference room and
interviewers were located in a separate facility. Participants saw each other (head and torso)
on a 48⬙ screen.2 FTF and VC interviews were video-taped, and TEL interviews were
audio-taped. Participants were informed of the taping procedures in advance.

2.3. Procedure

Applicants signed up for two sequential interviews for a job in a fictitious company, which
was described as a $4 billion multinational producing machinery and chemicals. Applicants
interviewed for one of five analyst positions (e.g., financial analyst, marketing analyst).
Although the area-specific knowledge differed for each position, the descriptions were
identical in terms of general skills requirements (e.g., analytical and interpersonal skills).
Participants were told to dress in business attire.
Prior to their first interview, applicants received a brief explanation of the procedure and
signed a consent form. Interviewers were given a copy of the applicant’s resume and the
relevant job description. Interviews lasted approximately 20 minutes. The format was a
patterned interview, consisting of 16 questions that were asked in the same order for all
applicants. The questions were representative of those commonly asked in on-campus
interviews. Some of the questions tapped the applicant’s general background, e.g., “How
does your prior experience relate to your interest in this position?” and “Where do you see
yourself five years from now?” whereas others were behavioral, e.g., “Can you tell me about
a time that you had a conflict with someone at work?” The first and second interviews were
similar in terms of format and content. For example, in the first interview, the interviewer
asked about the applicant’s biggest accomplishment on the job, whereas in the second
interview, the parallel question was, “What would you describe as your greatest strength?”.
Similarly, in the first session, interviewers asked, “What can you specifically bring to this job
that makes you the best candidate?” and in the second session, they asked “What sets you
apart from your peers?” After each interview, applicants and interviewers were separated and
filled out questionnaires. Applicants repeated the process with a different interviewer and
medium and were debriefed. Interviewers were debriefed at the end of the study.
 S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381 369

2.4. Dependent variables

For H1 and H3, interviewers evaluated applicants’ General Abilities, which consisted of
items evaluated on 5-point scales. These items reflected the general qualifications that were
specified in the job descriptions. Interviewers also assessed applicant Likability, using
7-point semantic differential items. Recruiters’ liking of job applicants is associated with
higher evaluations and hiring recommendations (Graves & Powell, 1988; Raza & Carpenter,
1987). Physical Attractiveness was measured with a 7-item scale based on Dipboye, Arvey
and Terpstra (1977). All other items used 7-point scales. Communication Understanding,
adapted from O’Reilly and Roberts (1976) and Conversation Fluency were used to test H4.
Examples of items on each scale are reported in the Appendix.
For applicants, we measured similar perceptions of the process, including Communication
Understanding and Conversation Fluency. We also measured Applicant Comfort, or the
degree to which applicants felt at ease during the interview, and Self-Consciousness, or the
extent to which they thought about nonverbal behaviors during the interview. Finally, we
assessed interviewer Likability, which is associated with attraction to the job and organiza-
tion (Goltz & Giannantonio, 1995). We would expect the same arguments underlying H1 and
H3 to apply to applicants’ judgments of interviewer likability. Applicant motivation and
perceptions of interview realism were included as manipulation checks.
Although interviewers rated applicant physical attractiveness after the interview, attrac-
tiveness also was assessed by independent raters due to the potential for interviewers to rate
more likable or skilled applicants as more attractive. Two raters watched 10 –15 sec of the
interview from videotapes of the applicants’ FTF interviews with the sound turned off. Each
rater watched the interviews in a different order and used the attractiveness scale described
earlier. Coefficient alpha for the scale was .82, the correlation between the two raters’
judgments was .49, p ⬍ .001, and the correlation between the average of the independent
ratings and original interviewers’ ratings was .43, p ⬍ .01 (n ⫽ 54). We used the average
of the two raters’ scores (M ⫽ 5.41, SD ⫽ .56). (Note: one videotape containing 5 FTF
interviews was lost. Because independent ratings could not be conducted, the interviewers’
ratings of these 5 applicants were used.)
Initial tests showed a number of significant effects of interviewer on both interviewers’
and applicants’ responses. Others have reported large individual differences in interviewer
judgments (Dougherty, Ebert & Callender, 1986; Kinicki, Lockwood, Hom & Griffeth,
1990). Because of the variation in interviewer-pairs across conditions (there were 13 possible
pairs of interviewers), we could not estimate interviewer effects. To control for these effects,
we standardized applicants’ and interviewers’ responses by converting them to z-scores
within interviewer.

3. Results

Table 1 reports the correlations among dependent variables for interviewers and appli-
cants, including the number of items per scale and standardized alpha coefficients. Responses
were scored such that larger numbers represent higher levels of the variable.
370 S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381

Table 1
Correlation matrices for interviewers’ and applicants’ responsesa
Interviewers
# items # options M SD 1 2 3 4
1. General abilities 5 5 3.83 .78 .87
2. Likability 8 7 5.33 .86 .72*** .90
3. Conversation fluency 3 7 5.54 1.12 .37*** .45*** .68
4. Communication 2 7 5.41 1.50 .50*** .48*** .53*** .74
understanding

Applicants
# items # options M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Applicant comfort 6 7 4.80 1.18 .85
2. Self-consciousness 6 7 3.73 1.50 .03 .85
3. Conversation fluency 3 7 5.42 1.00 .59*** .06 .48
4. Communication 2 7 5.38 1.24 .33*** ⫺.04 .42*** .42
understanding
5. Likability 10 7 5.22 1.01 .84*** .13 .54*** .37*** .92
a
To control for applicants, who were represented twice, the standardized variables were regressed on applicant
dummy variables, and correlations were based on the residuals. Means and standard deviations are based on raw
scores, versus residuals or standardized scores, to facilitate interpretation of results. Coefficient alpha reliabilities
are reported on the diagonal.
*** p ⬍ .001.

3.1. Manipulation checks and control variables

Comparisons of applicant-participants and the population of first-year MBA students

showed that participants did not differ from the class as a whole across most demographic
characteristics including sex, race, age, and GPA, showing no systematic selection effects. In
addition, the distribution of jobs across media was not significant, and job type did not affect
interviewers’ ratings. Responses to the post-interview questionnaire showed that the appli-
cants perceived the interviews to be realistic (2 items; ␣ ⫽ .78, M ⫽ 5.39, SD ⫽ 1.21) and
were highly motivated to do a good job in the interviews (2 items, ␣ ⫽ .82, M ⫽ 6.22, SD ⫽ .88).

3.2. Interviewers’ responses

Interviewers’ responses were analyzed using a mixed model with 3 (medium; FTF, TEL,
or VC) X 2 (trial; first or second applicant trial) factors as fixed effects and applicant (n ⫽
59) as a random effect.3 Restricted maximum likelihood estimation was used, which
provides more reliable variance component estimates in unbalanced designs than do least
squares methods. The effect for applicant controls for individual differences because each
student was interviewed twice. Effects for trial, medium X trial, and applicant will not be
addressed further because they occurred infrequently and are not of substantive interest.4
Planned comparisons were used to test for differences between FTF and each of the other
two media. One-tailed tests were used to test for directional predictions. Degrees of freedom
vary due to missing responses. Table 2 reports descriptive and test statistics for media.
 S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381 371

Table 2
Descriptive and test-statistics for interviewers’ responsesa
Variable —FTF— —VC— —TEL— 95% Confidence intervals
—FTF vs. TEL— —FTF vs. VC—
M SD M SD M SD df F f b Lower Upper Lower Upper
General abilities ⫺.24 .92 ⫺.10 .89 .57 .96 2,55 7.91*** .40 .39 1.27 ⫺.41 .47
Likability ⫺.08 .97 ⫺.11 .99 .27 .97 2,54 2.57† .17 ⫺.007 .89 ⫺.56 .35
Conversation .15 .89 ⫺.75 1.02 .44 .68 2,55 16.71*** .58 ⫺.008 .82 ⫺1.35 ⫺.51
fluency
Communication .05 .96 ⫺.60 .92 .49 .76 2,55 12.38*** .48 .09 .89 ⫺1.12 ⫺.32
understanding
a
The analysis used was ANOVA for mixed models with 3 (medium; FTF, TEL, or VC) X 2 (trial; first or
second applicant trial) factors as fixed effects and applicant as a random effect.
b
Effect size (based on fixed effect of medium).
†
p ⬍ .10.
*** p ⬍ .001.

Communication media affected evaluations of applicants’ general abilities. Planned com-

parisons support H1, which predicted higher ratings in TEL versus FTF interviews
(F(1,55) ⫽ 14.35, p ⬍ .001). There was no difference between FTF and VC media
(F(1,55) ⬍ 1 ns). The effect of media on ratings of applicant likability was marginally
significant. The planned comparison showed that interviewers rated applicants as more
likable in TEL versus FTF interviews (F(1,54) ⫽ 3.89, p ⬍ .05), although the 95%
confidence interval for this comparison included zero (90% confidence interval ⫽ 07 to .82).
There was no difference between FTF and VC media for likability ratings (F(1,54) ⬍ 1 ns).
These results support H1, which predicted more favorable ratings in the lower bandwidth
medium. The results do not support H3, which argued that evaluations would be higher in
FTF versus VC interviews.
H2, which predicted that the TEL suppresses negative physical appearance cues, was
tested by examining the interaction of physical attractiveness and media in the FTF and TEL
conditions. Applicants were separated into two categories reflecting whether they were above
or below the median attractiveness rating given in the FTF interviews.5 A 2 (medium) X 2
(attractiveness) mixed-model including applicant effects showed marginally significant in-
teractions of media and attractiveness for both abilities (F(1,21) ⫽ 3.50, p ⬍ .10), and
likability (F(1,20) ⫽ 3.51, p ⬍ .10). As shown in Fig. 1, less attractive applicants received
considerably lower scores in FTF than TEL interviews on ratings of abilities (t(11) ⫽
⫺2.88, p ⬍ .01; 95% confidence interval ⫽ ⫺1.67 to ⫺.22). However, for more attractive
applicants, there were no differences in ratings between FTF and TEL interviews (t(10) ⫽
⫺.56, two-tailed; 95% confidence interval ⫽ ⫺1.13 to .67). Similarly, paired t-tests showed
that less attractive applicants were rated more likable by TEL versus FTF (t(11) ⫽ ⫺2.08,
p ⬍ .05; 95% confidence interval ⫽ ⫺1.73 to .05; 90% confidence interval ⫽ ⫺1.57 to
⫺.12). There were no media effects for more attractive applicants (t(16) ⫽ ⫺1.16,
two-tailed; 95% confidence interval ⫽ ⫺1.11 to .35).
Thus, results show that for applicants who had FTF and TEL interviews, a less favorable
physical appearance tended to hurt them in the former, but a more favorable appearance did
372 S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381

Fig. 1. Ability ratings in FTF and TEL interviews based on applicant physical attractiveness
Note: The effect size was 1.14 for the less attractive applicants and .33 for the more attractive applicants.

not help. These findings provide support for the negativity effect and confirm the importance
of media bandwidth on evaluations of applicants’ abilities and traits.
H4 predicted that more synchronous media would be associated with perceptions of better
conversation fluency and communication understanding. Results show a main effect for
media. Planned comparisons support the prediction of more favorable reactions in FTF
versus VC interviews, (F(1,55) ⫽ 20.0 and F(1,55) ⫽ 12.82, p ⬍ .001). Thus,
interviewers reported that it was much easier to regulate the conversation and achieve mutual
understanding in FTF versus VC interviews. In contrast to predictions, perceptions of
communication understanding were higher in TEL versus FTF interviews, (F(1,55) ⫽ 6.02,
p ⬍ .05, two-tailed). The direction of the difference was the same for conversation fluency,
but it was not significant (F(1,55) ⫽ 3.86).

3.3. Applicants’ responses

Because each applicant had two interviews, their responses were analyzed using repeated
measures ANOVA within each media pair (FTF and TEL; FTF and VC), with order (FTF
first or second) as a between-subjects factor.6 Descriptive and test statistics for media
differences are reported in Table 3.
Media affected applicants’ evaluations of interviewer likability. However, in contrast to
interviewers, applicants found interviewers to be more likable in FTF versus VC interviews.
There were no differences between TEL and FTF modes in interviewer likability. These
results are consistent with H3, but not H1.
Like interviewers, applicants reported more difficulty regulating and understanding con-
versations in VC versus FTF interviews, confirming H4. In contrast to interviewers, appli-
cants tended to report that conversations flowed somewhat more smoothly and tended to be
easier to understand in FTF versus TEL interviews.
H5 predicted that applicants would feel more comfortable in FTF versus VC interviews,
 S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381 373

Table 3
Descriptive and test-statistics for applicants’ responsesa
Variable FTF vs. TEL FTF vs. VC
—FTF— —TEL— —FTF— —VC—
M SD M SD df F dc M SD M SD df F dc
Applicant .10 1.07 ⫺.20 .85 1,28 1.62 .25 .39 .97 ⫺.29 .91 1,27 9.22** .62
comfort
Self- .45 .90 ⫺.79 .81 1,26 34.08*** 1.55 .11 .95 .18 .82 1,27 .24 .10
consciousness
Concern .10 .96 .46 .83 1,28 4.32* .63 ⫺.27 .96 ⫺.30 1.00 1,27 .01 .03
about
sound
Conversation .35 .70 .02 1.05 1,27 4.03† .34 .081.02 ⫺.46 .97 1,27 6.07* .51
fluency
Communication .13 .98 .07 .97 1,27 3.38† .05 .26 .87 ⫺.46 .98 1,27 14.48*** .72
understanding
Likability .12 1.04 ⫺.17 1.01 1,28 1.36 .26 .31 .93 ⫺.24 .87 1,26 9.29** .59
a
This analysis used repeated measures ANOVA within each media pair (FTF and TEL; FTF and VC) with
order (FTF first or second) as a between-subjects factor.
c
Effect size for the fixed effect (medium), based on paired observations within each medium.
†
p ⬍ .10.
* p ⬍ .05.
** p ⬍ .01.
*** p ⬍ .001.

with no differences between FTF and TEL interviews. This hypothesis was supported.
However, applicants reported being much more self-conscious about their nonverbal behav-
iors in FTF versus TEL interviews (although they were more concerned about the way they
sounded by TEL). There were no differences in self-consciousness between FTF and VC
interviews.

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary and alternative explanations

Our results indicate that media bandwidth affected judgments of applicants. Interviewers
evaluated applicants more favorably in TEL versus FTF interviews; there were no differ-
ences between visual media (FTF and VC). In addition, our findings are consistent with
McGovern et al., (1981) by suggesting that less favorable visual characteristics, which were
suppressed in TEL interviews, contributed to lower ratings in the FTF condition. Surpris-
ingly, positive characteristics, i.e., higher levels of attractiveness, did not provide an advan-
tage for FTF applicants in our study. In contrast to predictions, medium synchrony did not
affect judgments of applicants. Despite reports of more difficulty regulating the conversation
and achieving mutual understanding by VC, interviewers did not evaluate applicants less
374 S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381

favorably. This raises the question of whether interviewers adjusted their expectations for
applicants because they were aware of the difficulties imposed by the technology. This
possible “discounting effect” in VC warrants further study.
In contrast to interviewers, applicants evaluated interviewers as less likable in VC versus
FTF interviews, with no differences between TEL and FTF modes. In fact, applicants’
reactions were more negative in VC interviews across most of the outcomes. A possible
explanation for these results, and for the differences between interviewers’ and applicants’
responses, is that there are differences in the tasks for interviewers and applicants. In a
selection interview, the interviewer is more likely to ask questions, whereas the applicant is
more likely to give long, narrative responses. As such, a lack of synchrony is more likely to
impact the applicant as he or she tries to regulate his or her speaking rate and monitor the
interviewer’s reactions.
The focus of the interview on selection or recruiting also may account for different
reactions from interviewers and applicants. Because the interviews had a selection emphasis
(applicants were preparing for the job market and received performance feedback, whereas
interviewers were paid to participate), we expect that the applicants were more concerned
about making a good impression and using a medium with which they felt comfortable—and
none of the applicants in the VC condition had prior experience with the medium. In
interviews with a recruiting focus (e.g., when applicants are scarce or jobs are undesirable),
we would expect the interviewers to be more concerned about making a good impression.
Different reactions from interviewers and applicants highlight the need to consider contex-
tual factors in addition to technology characteristics when assessing media effects (e.g., Fulk,
1993).
There are some alternative explanations for more favorable ratings of applicants by TEL.
One idea is that applicants tried to sound more enthusiastic to compensate for a lack of
nonverbal cues (Fichten, Tagalakis, Judd, Wright & Amsel, 1992); vocal cues affect a variety
of interpersonal evaluations (Zuckerman, Miyake & Elkin, 1995). Applicants’ reports of
being more concerned about how they sounded by TEL are consistent with this idea. A
second alternative, which corresponds with applicants’ reports of self-consciousness, is that
communicating by TEL imposes lower cognitive workload (Hinds, in press). Without visual
access, applicants did not need to think about their own nonverbal behaviors, nor did they
need to process such cues from interviewers. Consequently, applicants may have been better
able to focus on the content of their responses.

4.2. Implications and future directions

Our findings have a number of implications for media choice. First, the decision to use VC
may depend on whether the primary goal of the interview is employee selection or recruit-
ment. Many of the interviewers’ ratings in FTF and VC interviews did not differ; therefore,
VC appears comparable to FTF interaction for applicant screening. However, applicants
reacted less favorably to VC, which indicates that this medium may be unsuitable for
establishing rapport and promoting one’s firm.
Before rejecting the use of VC for recruitment, however, it would be important to examine
outcomes such as actual job acceptance rates. Even the more negative responses in VC
 S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381 375

interviews may fall within a lower bound of acceptable reactions or may be offset by benefits
such as access to a larger applicant pool. From the applicants’ perspective, a VC interview
with a particular company may be preferable to no opportunity to interview. Furthermore,
these reactions may change as users gain experience with the technology (Abel, 1990; Kraut
et al., 1992; Wilson, Straus & McEvily, 2000) or as advances in the technology improve
medium synchrony. Increased adoption of a medium also legitimates its use (Rice, Grant,
Schmitz & Torobin, 1990). Thus, as more companies use VC for interviews, we expect
applicants’ attitudes toward the technology to become more positive.
Reactions to the TEL were largely favorable for interviewers and relatively “neutral” for
applicants in that their responses generally did not differ from FTF. These results indicate
that using the TEL for job interviews offers positive first-level (cost and efficiency) effects
without incurring harmful second-level (social) effects. TEL interviews seem particularly
appropriate for selection in light of the growth of call centers and electronic commerce, in
which employees interact with customers largely by telephone. The TEL also offers prom-
ising opportunities for recruiting. By providing a convenient and low cost method of
interaction, organizational members can build relationships with large numbers of applicants.
The effect of communication media on recruiting is fertile ground for research. One
question to address is the extent to which the medium is the message (McLuhan, 1964).
For instance, applicants who are interviewed by TEL or VC might view the recruiting
company as experiencing financial hardship (or for that matter, as being cost effective).
Applicants’ perceptions also may be moderated by job level. Martin and Nagao (1989)
found that applicants resented paper and pencil or computer “interviews” for high status
jobs but not for low status jobs. A related question is how media affect perceptions of
procedural and distributive justice, which are associated with intentions to accept a job
and recommend an organization to others (see Ryan & Ployhart, 2000, for a review). The
personal nature of the interaction affects perceptions of selection process fairness
(Gilliland, 1993), and both the current study and Webster (1998) found that users
perceived VC interactions as less personal. Finally, although media such as the TEL and
VC are useful for initial interactions, in-person contact may be needed before a job offer
is extended or accepted. Thus, the appropriateness of the medium may depend on job
type or stage in the selection process.
Another important research topic is whether media influence which applicants receive
or accept job offers. By reducing emphasis on behaviors and cues associated with
demographic traits and culture (e.g., Ekman, Friesen & Ellsworth, 1982), the TEL may
decrease effects of interviewer biases and foster the selection of a more diverse work-
force. Even if the TEL is used for only the first interview of a multiple-hurdle procedure,
the medium may change who, ultimately, is hired, by influencing first impression effects.
Interviewers who form favorable impressions of applicants by TEL may engage in
confirmatory behaviors in subsequent FTF interviews (Dougherty, Turban & Callender,
1994). Likewise, negative impressions formed by applicants in VC interviews may
generalize to subsequent FTF interactions with recruiters, thereby affecting which
applicants accept job offers.
Of course, a critical topic for employee selection is the accuracy of interviewers’
judgments. Perceptions of more difficulty achieving mutual understanding by VC raises
376 S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381

the question of whether media influence actual misunderstanding and therefore affect the
accuracy of participants’ judgments. In addition, the ideas that the TEL reduces cognitive
workload or decreases emphasis on cues that are associated with biases in judgment
suggest that interviewers’ evaluations will be more accurate in lower bandwidth media,
enhancing the criterion-related validity of interviews. In fact, correlations between the
interviewers’ judgments of applicant intelligence (one of the items on the abilities scale)
and undergraduate grade point average support this claim. The correlation was signifi-
cant in TEL interviews (r ⫽ .41, p ⬍ .05) but not in FTF or VC interviews (r ⫽ .06 and
.30, respectively). Other studies have shown that high bandwidth media transmit social
and contextual information that detracts from the objective issues of the task (Chaiken
& Eagly, 1983; Morley & Stephenson, 1969).
On the other hand, the TEL may be suppressing important cues about applicants. Burnett
and Motowidlo (1998) argue that eye contact and physical attractiveness are associated with
extraversion and conscientiousness and therefore are relevant for predicting managerial job
performance. Other research indicates that physical attractiveness and the use of some
nonverbal behaviors co-vary with social skills (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; Goldman &
Lewis, 1977). These ideas imply that appropriate media choice is contingent on job require-
ments. In jobs with low needs for social (or face-to-face) interaction, the TEL may be more
effective than other media, whereas in jobs requiring substantial interpersonal (or in-person)
contact, higher bandwidth media may be needed. Studies that manipulate job type and
medium could address this question. Of course, these conclusions have controversial impli-
cations for employee selection, because traits like physical attractiveness are not associated
with academic achievement or other attributes that are related to performance in many jobs
(Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani & Longo, 1991).

4.3. Limitations

One limitation of this study is that the sample of applicants may have constrained the
degree of variability in some measures. For instance, there appeared to be restriction of
range in physical attractiveness, and manipulating this variable could have produced
stronger effects. Our results, which were based on actual levels of attractiveness, suggest
that the medium will influence which applicants are chosen only when there is a high
degree of variability in applicants’ physical characteristics. A second concern is possible
differences in the two sets of interview questions. Although each form was designed to
assess similar job-related knowledge and skills, differences between the two sets of
questions could have elicited different responses. A third limitation is that responses
based on an experimental simulation may not generalize to actual job interview situa-
tions. On the other hand, the use of highly motivated MBA students and experienced
interviewers and the realism of the physical setting overcome criticisms of studies of
personnel decisions using paper-people research. While we could not measure actual job
offer or acceptance decisions, other studies show that our dependent measures are related
to these outcomes. Nonetheless, future research should investigate the effect of media on
actual offers and acceptances and should examine other contexts, including different
populations of job seekers and interviews conducted on organizational premises.
 S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381 377

5. Conclusion

The current research contributes to the literatures on both employment and communica-
tion technology. The topic of media effects on job interviews is important given the rapid
diffusion of new communication media in organizations and the typical lag in research on the
social consequences of technological innovations. A focus on TEL and VC media for
personnel decisions is particularly timely as demands for labor create needs for recruiting and
selecting employees at a distance. Results provide preliminary guidance for managers to
consider when choosing media for conducting job interviews and point toward important
theoretical and practical questions to address in future research.

Notes
1. Although some facial expressions are used as back-channel signals, either vocal or
visual cues can be used for this purpose (Krauss, Garlock, Bricker & McMahon,
1977). Therefore, we expect little difference in conversation fluency or understanding
between FTF and TEL.
2. The “picture-in-picture” capability, which shows each party of picture of him or
herself in a small window on the screen, was disabled to prevent distractions
(Webster, 1997).
3. For General Abilities and Conversation Fluency, the variance component estimates
for applicant were negative. In these cases, the variance estimate was set to zero for
purposes of testing the fixed effects, but the effect of applicant could not be tested.
4. A main effect for trial is not readily interpretable because there were more FTF
interviews than VC or TEL interviews on trial 2. Significant two-way interactions
occurred infrequently and are not of theoretical interest, so we do not discuss them
further.
5. Ratings for six participants were at the median, and including them produced sub-
stantially unbalanced cells. In addition, it was not clear whether to group these
participants with the more or less attractive applicants. Therefore, we eliminated these
cases and examined the extremes.
6. Medium X order effects indicate if the difference between scores in FTF interviews
and the other modes vary as a function of having a FTF interview in the first or second
trial. There were few significant interactions.

Acknowledgments

A portion of this research was conducted while Susan Straus was at Carnegie Mellon
University. We gratefully acknowledge their support. We thank Leslie Bonner and Ken
Keeley for their contributions to this study. We also thank Mark Fichman, Janet Fulk, Sara
Kiesler, Robert Kraut, Stephen Motowidlo, Gregory Northcraft, Denise Rousseau, Jeanne
Wilson, Rhonda Reger, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments.

Appendix
Examples of Scale Items
Scale
General abilities
Likability
Conversation fluency
Communication understanding
Physical attractiveness
Applicant comfort
Self-consciousness
378
Respondents Response Options Examples
Interviewers 5-point scales ranging from poor to Evaluate the applicant on each of the following
superior characteristics: Communication skills;
Intelligence; Clear goals and objectives;
Confidence; Overall impression
Interviewers and applicants 7-point semantic differentials Friendly-hostile; Warm-cold; Rude-polite;
Tense-relaxed
Interviewers and applicants 7-point scales ranging from strongly The conversation flowed smoothly
disagree to strongly agree
Interviewers and applicants 7-point scales ranging from strongly The candidate (recruiter) sometimes had
disagree to strongly agree difficulty understanding my comments or
questions
Interviewers and independent 7-points scales; options varied (e.g., Rate the candidate on each of the following
raters extremely unattractive to extremely aspects of their physical appearance: Face;
attractive; extremely unfit to Weight; Grooming; Physical fitness; Overall
extremely fit, etc.) attractiveness
Applicants 7-point scales ranging from strongly I was nervous during the interview; The
disagree to strongly agree recruiter put me at ease
Applicants 7-point scales ranging from not at all Indicate the extent to which you actively
S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381
to quite a lot thought about each of the following during the
interview: My posture; The way I sounded; My
gestures or mannerisms; Eye contact
 S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381 379

References

Abel, M. (1990). Experiences in an exploratory distributed organization. In J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut, and C. Egido
(Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: social and technological foundations of cooperative Work (pp. 489 –510).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Angiolillo, J. S., Blanchard, H. E., Israelski, E. W., & Mané, A. (1997). Technology constraints of video-mediated
communication. In K. Finn, A. Sellen, and S. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-mediated communication (pp. 51–73).
Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance, and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289 –304.
Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1992). Trait inferences: sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 645– 657.
Bureau of National Affairs (2000, February). Bulletin to management special report: human resource priorities
and outlook. Washington, D. C.
Burnett, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1998). Relations between different sources of information in the structured
selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 51, 963–983.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Cann, E., Siegfried, W. D., & Pearce, L. (1981). Forced attention to specific applicant qualification: impact on
physical attractiveness and sex of applicant biases. Personnel Psychology, 34, 65–76.
Carnevale, P. J. D., Pruitt, D. G., & Seilheimer, S. (1981). Looking and competing: accountability and visual
access in integrative bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 111–120.
Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: the role of
communicator salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 241–256.
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. D. Teasley
(Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: APA.
DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 203–243.
Dipboye, R. L., Arvey, R. D., & Terpstra, D. E. (1977). Sex and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants
as determinants of resumé evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 288 –294.
Dougherty, T. W., Ebert, R. J., & Callender, J. C. (1986). Policy capturing in the employment interview. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 71, 9 –15.
Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Callender, J. C. (1994). Confirming first impressions in the employment
interview: a field study of interviewer behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 659 – 665.
Duncan, S. (1974). On the structure of speaker-auditor interaction during speaking turns. Language in Society,
2, 161–180.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but . . . : a
meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110,
109 –128.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Ellsworth, P. (1982). What are the similarities and differences in facial behavior
across cultures? In P. Eckman (Ed.), Emotion in the human face (pp. 128 –143). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1968). Effects of eye contact and verbal content on affective response to
a dyadic interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 15–20.
Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304 –341.
Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Buckley, M. R., Harrell-Cook, G., & Frink, D. (1999). Human resource
management: some new directions. Journal of Management, 25, 385– 415.
Fichten, C. S., Tagalakis, V., Judd, D., Wright, J., & Amsel, R. (1992). Verbal and nonverbal communication cues
in daily conversations and dating. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 751–769.
Forbes, R. J., & Jackson, P. R. (1980). Nonverbal behavior and the outcome of selection interviews. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 53, 65–72.
Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36,
921–950.
380 S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381

Gifford, R., Ng, C. F., & Wilkinson, M. (1985). Nonverbal cues in the employment interview: links between
applicant qualities and interviewer judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 729 –736.
Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: an organizational justice perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 18, 694 –734.
Gilmore, D. C., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. G. (1986). Effects of applicant sex, applicant physical attractiveness,
type of rater, and type of job of interview decisions. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 103–109.
Goldman, W., & Lewis, P. (1977). Beautiful is good: evidence that the physically attractive are more socially
skillful. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 125–130.
Goltz, S. M., & Giannantonio, C. M. (1995). Recruiter friendliness and attraction to the job: the mediating role
of inferences about the organization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 109 –118.
Graves, L. M., & Powell, G. N. (1988). An investigation of sex discrimination in recruiter’s evaluations of actual
applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 20 –29.
Hanover, D. (2000, March). Hiring gets cheaper and faster. Sales and Marketing Management, 152, 87–90.
Heilman, M. E., & Saruwatari, L. R. (1979). When beauty is beastly: the effects of appearance and sex on
evaluations of job applicants for managerial and nonmanagerial jobs. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 23, 360 –372.
Hinds, P. (in press). The cognitive and interpersonal costs of video. Media Psychology.
Hinds, P., & Kiesler, S. (1999). Communication across boundaries: work, structure, and use of communication
technologies in a large organization. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organizational form:
communication, connection, and community (pp. 211–246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hollandsworth, J. G., Kazelskis, R., Stevens, J., & Dressel, M. E. (1979). Relative contributions of verbal,
articulative, and nonverbal communication to employment decisions in the job interview setting. Personnel
Psychology, 32, 359 –367.
Howard, J. L., & Ferris, G. R. (1996). The employment interview context: social and situational influences on
interviewer decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 112–136.
Kinicki, A. J., Lockwood, C. A., Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1990). Interviewer predictions of applicant
qualifications and interviewer validity: aggregate and individual analyses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
477– 486.
Krauss, R. M., & Bricker, P. D. (1966). Effects of transmission delay and access delay on the efficiency of verbal
communication. Journal of the Acoustical Society, 41, 286 –292.
Krauss, R. M., Garlock, C. M., Bricker, P. D., & McMahon, L. E. (1977). The role of audible and visible
back-channel responses in interpersonal communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35,
523–529.
Kraut, R., Galegher, J., Fish, R., & Chalfonte, B. (1992). Task requirements and media choice in collaborative
writing. Human Computer Interaction, 7, 375– 408.
Kraut, R. E., Lewis, S. H., & Sweezy, L. W. (1982). Listener responsiveness and the coordination of conversation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 718 –731.
Liden, R. C., & Parsons, C. K. (1989). Understanding interpersonal behavior in the employment interview: a
reciprocal interaction analysis. In R. Eder and G. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: theory, research,
and practice (pp. 219 –232). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lublin, J. (1999, April 27). Hunting CEOs on a 32-inch screen: a recruiter uses video to search from afar. Wall
Street Journal, p. 1.
Marlowe, C. M., Schneider, S. L., & Nelson, C. E. (1996). Gender and attractiveness biases in hiring decisions:
are more experienced managers less biased? Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 11–21.
Martin, C. L., & Nagao, D. H. (1989). Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 72– 80.
McDowell, E. (1999, January 18). Travel costs likely to rise 5–7 percent in ’99 after 8 percent jump in ’98. Star
Tribune Newspaper of the Twin Cities, p. 2.
McGovern, T. W., Jones, B. W., Warwick, C. L., & Jackson, R. W. (1981). A comparison of interviewee behavior
on four channels of communication. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 369 –372.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
 S.G. Straus et al. / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 363–381 381

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: the extensions of man. New York: McGraw Hill.
Morley, I. E., & Stephenson, G. M. (1969). Interpersonal and interparty exchange: a laboratory simulation of an
industrial negotiation at the plant level. British Journal of Psychology, 60, 543–545.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Roberts, K. H. (1976). Relationships among components of credibility and communication
behaviors in work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 99 –102.
Parsons, C. K., & Liden, R. C. (1984). Interviewer perceptions of applicant qualifications: a multivariate field
study of demographic characteristics and nonverbal cues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 557–568.
Raza, S. M., & Carpenter, B. N. (1987). A model of hiring decisions in real employment interviews. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 72, 596 – 603.
Rice, R. R., Grant, A. E., Schmitz, J. A., & Torobin, J. (1990). Individual and network influences on the adoption
and perceived outcomes of electronic messaging. Social Networks, 12, 27–56.
Riez, R. R., & Klemmer, E. T. (1963). Subjective evaluation of delay and echo suppressers in telephone
communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 2919 –2942.
Roehling, M. (1999). Weight-based discrimination in employment: psychological and legal aspects. Personnel
Psychology, 52, 969 –1016.
Ross, S. (1998, June 28). Job search by videoconference: face-to-face and cross-country. The Los Angeles Times,
p. 5.
Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2000). Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: a critical
review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 26, 565– 606.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: a review
of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131–142.
Springbett, B. M. (1958). Factors affecting the final decision in the employment interview. Canadian Journal of
Psychology, 12, 13–22.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: new ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Telephone instrumental in screening job candidates, (1999, March). HR Focus, 76, p. 5.
Trist, E., & Bamforth, K. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal
getting. Human Relations, 4, 3–38.
Vonk, R. (1993). The negativity effect in trait ratings and in open-ended descriptions of persons. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 269 –278.
Webster, J. (1997). Selection interviews through videoconferencing: interviewees’ reactions. Paper presented at
the 1997 Academy of Management Meetings, Boston, MA.
Webster, J. (1998). Desktop videoconferencing: experiences of complete, wary, and non-users. MIS Quarterly,
22, 257–286.
Wilson, J. M., Straus, S. G., & McEvily, B. (2000). All in due time: the development of trust in electronic and
face-to-face groups. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Zuckerman, M., Miyake, K., & Elkin, C. S. (1995). Effects of attractiveness and maturity of face and voice on
interpersonal impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 253–272.