Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Dispositional Approach to Applicant Reactions: Examining Core Self-Evaluations, Behavioral Intentions, and Fairness Perceptions

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Drawing from core self-evaluations (CSE) theory, we argue and demonstrate that disposition plays an important role in explaining the way job applicants respond to testing procedures in the selection process. We demonstrate that CSE predicts job candidate reapplication intentions, acceptance intentions, and recommendation intentions—even after controlling for test performance. Moreover, we show that CSE moderates the relationship between perceived fairness and applicant behavioral intentions.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Drawing from a sample of 194 applicants for the position of police officer, this research uses data at four different time periods to explain the impact that applicant CSE has on outcomes in a high-stakes (i.e., civil service) testing environment.

Findings

Our results indicate that behavioral intentions resulting from selection processes are attributable at least in part to applicant CSE and that self-serving attributions are not the only relevant driving factor. We also show that CSE influences the relationship between perceptions of fairness and behavioral intentions.

Implications

Theoretically, this manuscript explains why and shows how CSE is a driving force behind intention formation. This research provides practitioners with insight to the formation of applicant reactions and intentions showing that important perceptions about the organization can be impacted by CSE. We also demonstrate that CSE impacts selection test performance.

Originality/Value

This is the first study to examine the impact of CSE on applicant responses related to the formation of organizationally relevant outcomes

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ababneh, K. I., Hackett, R. D., & Schat, A. C. H. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior (2nd ed.). Milton-Keynes: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behavior: Reactions and reflections. Psychology and Health, 26, 1113–1127.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N., Salgado, J. F., & Hülsheger, U. R. (2010). Applicant reactions in selection: Comprehensive meta-analysis into reaction generalization version situational specificity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 291–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, G. V., Polomsky, M. D., & McDaniel, M. A. (1999). Selection tests for firefighters: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 507–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, T. N., Maertz, C. P., Dolen, M. R., & Campion, M. A. (1998). A longitudinal assessment of applicant reactions to an employment test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 892–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, W. J., Connolly, T., & Slaughter, J. E. (2010). The effect of job offer timing on offer acceptance, performance, and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 63, 223–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bretz, R. D, Jr, & Judge, T. A. (1994). The role of human resource systems in job applicant decision processes. Journal of Management, 20, 531–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Assessment, 12, 9–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, D., Schmitt, N., Jennings, D., Clause, C., & Delbridge, K. (1998a). Applicant perceptions of test fairness: Integrating justice and self-serving bias perspectives. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6, 232–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, D., Schmitt, N., Sacco, J. M., & DeShon, R. P. (1998b). Understanding pretest and posttest reactions to cognitive ability and personality tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 471–485.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. D., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012). Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of Management, 38, 81–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., & Webster, J. (2003). Applicant reactions to face-to-face and technology-mediated interviews: A field investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 944–953.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiLorenzo, L. P. (2010). Tamp down lawsuits with good promotion records. HR Specialist, 5, 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1270–1279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Djurdjevic, E., & Chang, C. D. (2013). When is success not satisfying? Integrating regulatory focus and approach/avoidance motivation theories to explain the relation between core self-evaluation and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 342–353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. L., Rosen, C. C., Johnson, R. E., Brown, D. J., Risavy, S. D., & Heller, D. (2011). Approach or avoidance (or both?): Integrating core self-evaluations within an approach/avoidance framework. Personnel Psychology, 64, 137–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., and Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57, 639–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, A. D., & Yu, C. C. (2014). Descriptive statistics for modern test score distributions: Skewness, kurtosis, discreteness, and ceiling effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement. doi:10.1177/0013164414548576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoang, T. G., Truxillo, D. M., Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. (2012). Cross-cultural examination of applicant reactions to selection methods: United States and Vietnam. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 209–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulin, C. L., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes. In W. C. Borman, R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology. Industrial and organizational psychology (12th ed., pp. 255–276). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hülsheger, U. R., & Anderson, N. (2009). Applicant perspectives in selection: Going beyond preference reactions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(4), 335–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2008). Getting to the core of core self-evaluations: A review and recommendations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 391–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and work success. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 58–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 257–268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11, 167–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693–710.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale (CSES): Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Klinger, R. (2008). The dispositional sources of job satisfaction: A comparative test. Applied Psychology, 57, 361–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. (2007). Capitalizing on one’s advantages: Role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1212–1227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kacmar, K. M., Collins, B. J., Harris, K. J., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and job performance: The role of perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1572–1580.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kluemper, D. H., McLarty, B. D., & Bing, M. N. (2015). Acquaintance ratings of the big five personality traits: Incremental validity beyond and interactive effects with self-reports in the prediction of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 237–248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & Rothstein, H. R. (1993). The influence of selection test type on applicant reactions to employment testing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8, 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koedel, C. and Betts, J. R. (2008). Test score ceiling effects and value-added measures of school quality. JSM proceedings, Social Statistics Section. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.

  • Koedel, C., & Betts, J. R. (2010). Value-added to what? How a ceiling in the testing instrument influences value-added estimation. Education Finance and Policy, 5, 54–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazar, 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 selecton procedure. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 94–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levashina, J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2012). Tell me some more: Exploring how verbal ability and item verifiability influence responses to biodata questions in a high-stakes selection context. Personnel Psychology, 65, 359–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lievens, F., & Patterson, F. (2011). The validity and incremental validity of knowledge tests, low-fidelity simulations, and high-fidelity simulations for predicting job performance in advanced-level high-stakes selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 927–940.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macan, T. H., Avedon, M. J., Paese, M., & Smith, D. E. (1994). The effects of applicants’ reactions to cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47, 715–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maertz, C. P., Bauer, T. N., Mosley, D. C., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J., Hrabluik, C., & Jelley, R. B. (2009). Progression through the ranks: Assessing employee reactions to high-stakes employment testing. Personnel Psychology, 62, 793–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, M., Taylor, N., & Lawton, R. J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviors with the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5, 97–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, H. D., O’Neal, A., & Ryan, A. M. (2003). Relating test-taking attitudes and skills and stereotype threat effects to the racial gap in cognitive ability test performance. Human Performance, 16(3), 261–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ni, Y., & Hauenstein, N. M. A. (1998). Applicant reactions to personality tests: Effects of item invasiveness and face validity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12, 391–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikolaou, I., & Judge, T. A. (2007). Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in Greece: The role of core self-evaluations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 206–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, I.-S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. (2011). Validity of observer ratings of the five-factor model of personality traits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 762–773.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2004). Simple intercepts, simple slopes, and regions of significance in MLR 2-way interactions. Retrieved December 15, 2014, from http://quantpsy.org/interact/mlr2.htm.

  • Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc analysis techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 762–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. M., & Huth, M. (2008). Not much more than platitudes? A critical look at the utility of applicant reactions research. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 419–489). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salgado, J. F. (1998). Sample size in validity studies of personnel selection. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 161–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schinkel, S., van Vianen, A., & van Dierendonck, D. (2013). Selection fairness and outcomes: A field study of interactive effects on applicant reactions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21, 22–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey, R. W. (1993). Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 49–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, D. D., & Gilliland, S. W. (1996). Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in France and the United States. Journal of Applied Psychology, 31, 134–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, E. C., & Bockanic, W. N. (2009). Avoiding liability for wrongful termination: “Ready, aim,…fire!”. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 21, 77–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Importance of perceived personnel selection system fairness determinants: Relations with demographic, personality, and job characteristics. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 172–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, H. J., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Bernerth, J. B. (2008). The interactive effects of job advertisement characteristics and applicant experience on reactions to recruitment messages. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 619–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanous, J. P., & Hudy, M. J. (2001). Single-item reliability: A replication and extension. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rucks Department of Management, Louisiana State University, 2700 Business Education Complex, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA

    Benjamin D. McLarty & Daniel S. Whitman

Authors
  1. Benjamin D. McLarty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel S. Whitman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin D. McLarty.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McLarty, B.D., Whitman, D.S. A Dispositional Approach to Applicant Reactions: Examining Core Self-Evaluations, Behavioral Intentions, and Fairness Perceptions. J Bus Psychol 31, 141–153 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9405-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9405-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation