Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 155–170 | Cite as

The Structured Interview: Reducing Biases Toward Job Applicants with Physical Disabilities

Article

Abstract

Research shows that the traditional job interview is a poor indication of a candidate's potential. However, when employers structure the interview process, they are more effective at predicting success, forming consistent evaluations, and reducing discrimination. The current study tested whether the structured interview also serves to reduce biases involved in interviewing applicants who have a physical disability. In the non-structured interview, results showed that there was a leniency bias, where raters evaluated disabled candidates more positively than equally qualified non-disabled candidates. Structured interviews reduced this effect. These findings add to the support for the structured interview as a way of increasing fairness in employee selection.

Key words

structured interview employment selection disabled discrimination 

References

  1. Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., LePine, M. A., & Moynihan, L. M. (2003). Individual job choice decisions and the impact of job attributes and recruitment practices: A longitudinal field study. Human Resource Management, 42(1), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bragger, J. D., Kutcher, E. J., Morgan, J., & Firth, P. (2002). The effects of the structured interview on reducing biases against pregnant job applicants. Sex Roles, 46, 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bricout, J., & Bentley, K. (2000). Disability status and perceptions of employability by employers. Social Work Research, 24, 87–95.Google Scholar
  4. Campion, M. A., Campion, J. E., & Hudson, J. P. (1994). Structured interviewing: A note on incremental validity and alternative question types. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 998–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 79, 655–702.Google Scholar
  6. Campion, M. A., Pursell, E. D., & Brown, B. K. (1988). Structured interviewing: Raising the psychometric properties of the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 41, 25–42.Google Scholar
  7. Cesare, S., Tannenbaum, R., & Dalessio, A. (1990). Interviewers' decisions related to applicant handicap type and rater empathy. Human Performance, 3, 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christman, L., & Branson, D. (1990). Influence of physical disability and dress of female job applicants on interviewers. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8, 51–57.Google Scholar
  9. Christman, L., & Slaten, B. (1991). Attitudes toward people with disabilities and judgments of employment potential. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 467–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1965). Some statistical issues in psychological research. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of clinical psychology (pp. 95–121). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Conway, J. M., Jako, R. A., & Goodman, D. F. (1995). A meta-analysis of interrater and internal consistency reliability of selection interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 565–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drehmer, D., & Bordieri, J. (1985). Hiring decisions for disabled workers: The hidden bias. Rehabilitation Psychology, 30, 157–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gething, L. (1992). Judgments by health professionals of personal characteristics of people with a visible physical disability. Social Science & Medicine, 34, 809–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graves, L. M., & Karren, R. J. (1996). The employee selection interview: A fresh look at an old problem. Human Resource Management, 35, 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris, M. M., & Eder, R. W. (1999). The state of employment interview practice: Commentary and extension. In R. W. Eder & M. M. Harris (Eds.), The employment interview handbook (pp. 369–398). Thousands Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Huffcut, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 184–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huffcut, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L., & Stone, N. J. (2001). Identification and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 897–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Janz, T. (1982). Initial comparisons of patterned behavior description interviews versus unstructured interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 577–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Judge, T., Higgins, C., & Cable, D. (2000). The employment interview: A review of recent research and recommendations for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 383–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelly, H. H. (1972). Causal schemata and the attribution process. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 151–174). Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kohn, L. S., & Dipboye, R. L. (1998). The effects of interview structure on recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 821–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kutcher, E. J., & Bragger, J. D. (2004). Selection interviews of overweight job applicants: Can structure reduce the bias? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 1993–2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Latham, G. P., Saari, L. M., Pursell, E. D., & Campion, M. A. (1980). The situational interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 422–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lievens, F., & DePaepe, A. (2004). An empirical investigation of interviewer-related factors that discourage the use of high structure in interviews. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994). The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mercer, M. W., & Seres, J. J. (1987, June). Using scorable interview “tests” in hiring. Personnel, 57–60.Google Scholar
  28. Miceli, N. S., Harvey, M., & Buckley, M. R. (2001). Potential discrimination in structured employment interviews. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 13, 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nordstrom, C., Huffaker, B. J., & Williams, K. (1998). When physical disabilities are not liabilities: The role of applicant and interviewer characteristics on employment interview outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parsons, C., Liden, R., & Bauer, T. (2001). Person perception in employment interviews. In M. London (Ed.), How people evaluate others in organization (pp. 67–90). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Posthuma, R., Morgeson, F., & Campion, M. (2002). Beyond employment interview validity: A comprehensive narrative review of recent research and trends over time. Personnel Psychology, 55, 1–81.Google Scholar
  32. Pulakos, E. D., & Schmitt, N. (1995). Experience-based and situational interview questions: Studies of validity. Personnel Psychology, 48, 289–308.Google Scholar
  33. Ravaud, J., Madiot, B., & Ville, I. (1992). Discrimination towards disabled people seeking employment. Social Science and Medicine, 35, 951–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Singer, M., & Bruhns, C. (1991). Relative effect of applicant work experience and academic qualification on selection interview decisions: A study of between-sample generalizability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 550–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stone, C., & Sawatzki, B. (1980). Hiring bias and the disabled interviewee: Effects of manipulating work history and disability information of the disabled job applicant. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16, 96–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. US Department of Justice (1990). Americans with Disabilities Act. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/pubs/ada.txt.
  37. US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section (2002, May). A guide to disability rights laws. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/cguide.htm.
  38. US Department of Labor, Employment, and Training Administration (1991). Dictionary of occupational titles (4th edition). Lanham, Maryland: Bernan Press.Google Scholar
  39. US Department of Labor, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1978). Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/Title_41/Part_60-3/toc.htm.
  40. Waldrop, J., & Stern, S. (2003, March). Census 2000 brief. US Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability.html.
  41. Weekley, J. A., & Gier, J. A. (1987). Reliability and validity of the situational interview for a sales position. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 484–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wiesner, W. H., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1988). A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 275–290.Google Scholar
  43. Williamson, L. G., Campion, J. E., Malos, S. B., Roehling, M. V., & Campion, M. A. (1997). Employment interview on trial: Linking interview structure with litigation outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 900–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wright, P. M., Lichtenfels, P. A., & Pursell, E. D. (1989). The structured interview: Additional studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 191–199.Google Scholar
  45. Van der Zee, K. I., Bakker, A. B., & Bakker, P. (2002). Why are structured interviews so rarely used in personnel selection? Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 176–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ellyn Brecher
    • 1
  • Jennifer Bragger
    • 2
  • Eugene Kutcher
    • 3
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentThe College of New JerseyEwingUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyMontclair State UniversityUpper MontclairUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyVirginia Tech Williams HallBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations