Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the factors influencing interviewer hiring decisions for applicants with and those without disabilities

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

Abstract

Two studies present an examination of the factors that influence hiring decisions for applicants with, and those without, disabilities in the employment interview. In Study 1, an integrative conceptual model of interviewer hiring decisions was proposed and tested in a field sample of applicants with disabilities. Interviewers provided ratings for 70 unstructured interviews with disabled applicants. Study 2 examined the fit of the model in an independent field sample of interviews with fully-able applicants (n=165). Results supported the model among both groups of applicants. Implications and recommendations for future research are discussed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arvey, R.D., & Faley, R.H. (1988).Fairness in selecting employees (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M.A. (1978). Identification of variables most influential in determining interviewers' evaluations of applicants in a college placement center.Psychological Reports, 42, 947–952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cesare, S.J., Tannenbaum, R.J., & Dalessio, A. (1990). Interviewers' decisions related to applicant handicap type and rater empathy.Human Performance, 3, 157–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christman, L.A. & Slaten, L.B. (1991). Attitudes toward people with disabilities and judgments of employment potential.Perceptual & Motor Skills, 72, 467–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dipboye, R.L. (1992).Selection interviews: Process perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1990). Annual report on the employment of minorities, women, and people with disabilities in the Federal government. Washington, D.C.: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1991).Federal Register, 56, 35726–35756.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley, R.C., & Hinman, S. (1988). Teaching rehabilitation clients effective job interview skills.Vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin, 21, 157–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D.T., Pelham, B.W., & Krull, D.S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 733–740.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, L. & Powell, G. (1988). An investigation of sex discrimination in recruiters' evaluations of actual applicants.Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 20–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, F.S., & Hall, E.L. (1994). The ADA: Going beyond the law.The Academy of Management Executive, 8, 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M.M., Dworkin, J.B., & Park, J. (1990). Preemployment screening procedures: How human resource managers perceive them.Journal of Business and Psychology, 4, 279–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herriot, P., & Rothwell, C. (1983). Expectations and impressions in the graduate selection interview.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, 303–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imada, A.S., & Hakel, M.D. (1977). Influence of nonverbal communication and rater proximity on impressions and decisions in simulated employment interviews.Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 295–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, A. (1977). Some relationships between interviewers' personal feelings about candidates and their general evaluation of them.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 50, 275–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilborn, P.T. (1992, July 19). Big change likely as law bans bias toward disabled. TheNew York Times, pp. 1, 16.

  • Kinicki, A.J., & Lockwood, C.A. (1985). The interview process: An examination of factors recruiters use in evaluating job applicants.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 117–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinicki, A.J., Lockwood, C.A., Hom, R.W., & Griffeth, R.W. (1990). Interviewer predictions of applicant qualifications and interviewer validity: Aggregate and individual analyses.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 477–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G.P., Wexley, K.N., & Pursell, E.D. (1975). Training managers to minimize rating errors in the observation of behavior.Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 550–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macan, T.H., & Dipboye, R.L. (1990). The relationship of interviewers' pre-interview impressions to selection and recruitment outcomes.Personnel Psychology, 43, 745–768.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, J., Andrews, H., & Mercer, A. (1983). The effects of physical attractiveness and disability on client ratings by helping professionalsJournal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 14, 41–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nester, M.A. (1993). Psychometric testing and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.Rehabilitation Psychology, 38, 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, M.L., Churchill, M.E., Farag, F., & Borden, E. (1992) Impression management, cognitive demand, and interpersonal sensitivity.Current Psychology Research and Reviews, 10, 263–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, A.P., & Dipboye, R.L. (1989) Correlational tests of predictions from a process model of the interview.Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, K.G. (1984). Nonverbal behavior, verbal behavior, resume credentials, and selection interview outcomes.Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 551–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raza, S.M., & Carpenter, B.N. (1987). A model of hiring decisions in real employment interviews.Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 596–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, R.R., & Chao, G.T. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative employee selection procedures.Personnel Psychology, 35, 1–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahani, C., Dipboye, R.L. & Gehrlein, T.M. (1993). Attractiveness bias in the interview: Exploring the boundaries of an effect.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 317–328.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gallup Inc., 301 South 68th Street Place, 68510, Lincoln, NE

    Theodore L. Hayes

  2. Department of Psychology, 8001 Natural Bridge Road, University of Missouri-St. Louis, 301 South 68th Street Place, 63121-4499, St. Louis, MO

    Therese Hoff Macan

Authors
  1. Theodore L. Hayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Therese Hoff Macan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This paper has been improved greatly through the suggestions of John Binning, Michael Campion, Robert L. Dipboye, Miles Patterson, and Mark Tubbs, and Lisa Brady and Jennifer Malatesta. Study 1 was partially funded by a grant from the U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services to the Wright State University Office of Disability Services (Theodore L. Hayes, co-Principal Investigator).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hayes, T.L., Macan, T.H. Comparison of the factors influencing interviewer hiring decisions for applicants with and those without disabilities. J Bus Psychol 11, 357–371 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02195899

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02195899

Keywords

Search

Navigation