Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relationships Between Candidate Self-Monitoring, Perceived Personality, and Selection Interview Outcomes

  • Published:
Human Relations

Abstract

A study into the relationships between candidateself-monitoring ability, interviewer perceptions ofcandidate personality, and interviewer outcome decisionsin the context of actual graduate recruitment interviews (n = 130) is presented. Detailedpsychometric norm data is also reported on the Lennoxand Wolfe (1984) revised Self-Monitoring (RS-M) scale,together with the results of confirmatory factoranalyses into the factor structure of this measure. Itwas found that candidate self-monitoring ability wasonly moderately and nonsignificantly related tointerviewer outcome evaluations, and thatself-monitoring was generally uncorrelated with thepositiveness of recruiter impressions of candidatepersonality. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed thata two correlated factor structure for the RS-M scale, inaccordance with the original authors' formulation,provided the most parsimonious fit. Norm data for theRS-M scale is reported for this sample of Britishgraduates, including item statistics, item to subscale,item to scale correlations, and internal reliabilitycoefficients. Implications for future research intocandidate impression management, self-monitoring,interviewer decision making, and the practicalimplications arising from these findings arediscussed.

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

  • ANDERSON, N. R. Eight decades of employment interview research: A retrospective metareview and prospective commentary. European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 1992, 2, 1-32.

    Google Scholar 

  • ANDERSON, N. R., & SHACKLETON, V. J. Decision making in the graduate se lection interview: A field study. Journal of Occupation al Psychology, 1990, 63, 63-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • ANDERSON, N. R., SILVESTER, J., CUNNINGHAM-SNELL, N., & HADDLE TON, E. Interviews of the Selection Interview: Recruiter and Candidate Decision Making in Graduate Employment Interviews. Submitted.

  • ARBUCKLE, J. L. AMOS version 3.51. Chicago, IL: Smallwaters Corporation, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • ARVEY, R. D., & CAMPION, J. E. The employment interview: A summary and review of recent research. Personnel Psychology, 1982, 35, 281-322.

    Google Scholar 

  • BARON, R. A. Impression management by applicants during employment interviews: The “too much of a good thing” effect. In R. W. Eder and G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: theory, research, and practice. Newbury Park: Sage, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • BENTLER, P., & BONNETT, D. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 88, 588-606.

    Google Scholar 

  • BOLLEN, K. A. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • BRANNICK, M. T. Critical comments on applying covariance structure modelling. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 1995, 16, 201-213.

    Google Scholar 

  • BRIGGS, S. R., & CHEEK, J. M. On the nature of self-monitoring: Problems with assessment, problems with validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988, 54, 663-678.

    Google Scholar 

  • BRIGGS, S. R., CHEEK, J. M., & BUSS, A. H. An analysis of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38, 678-686.

    Google Scholar 

  • BRYNE, B. A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • DIPBOYE, R. L. Selection interviews: Process perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Co., 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • DIPBOYE, R. L. Structured employment interviews: Why do they work? Why are they under-utilised. In. N. R. Anderson and P. Herriot (Eds.), International handbook of selection and assessment. New York: Wiley, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • FLETCHER, C. Impression management in the selection interview. In R. A. Giacalone and P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • FLETCHER, C. The relationships between candidate personality, self-presentation strategies, and interviewer assessments in selection interviews: An empirical study. Human Relations, 1990, 43, 739-749.

    Google Scholar 

  • FLETCHER, C. Candidate personality as an influence on selection interview assessment. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 1987, 36, 157-162.

    Google Scholar 

  • GABRENYA, W. K. Jr., & ARKIN, R. M. Self-Monitoring Scale: Factor structure and correlates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1980, 6, 13-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • GANGESTAD, S., & SNYDER, M. “To carve nature at its joints”: On the existence of discrete classes in personality. Psychological Review, 1985, 92, 317-349.

    Google Scholar 

  • GILMORE, D. C., & FERRIS, G. R. The effects of applicant impression management tactics on interviewer judgements. Human Relations, 1989, 15, 557-564.

    Google Scholar 

  • HARRIS, M. M. Reconsidering the employment interview: A review of recent literature and suggestions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 1989, 48, 691-723.

    Google Scholar 

  • HERRIOT, P. The selection interview. In P. Warr (Ed.), Psychology at work. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1987, pp. 139-158.

    Google Scholar 

  • HUFFCUTT, A. I., & ARTHUR. W., Jr. Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1994, 79, 184-190.

  • KEENAN, A. Candidate personality and performance in the se lection interview. Personnel Review, 1982, 11, 22-25.

    Google Scholar 

  • LENNOX, R. D., & WOLFE, R. N. Revision of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984, 46, 1349-1364.

    Google Scholar 

  • LOEHLIN, J. Latent variables models. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • MARSH, H., BALLA, J., & MACDONALD, R. Goodness-of-fit in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 1988, 103, 391-410.

    Google Scholar 

  • MULAIK, S., JAMES, L., VAN ALSTINE, J., BENNETT, N., LIND, S., & STILWELL, C. Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 1989, 105, 430-445.

    Google Scholar 

  • ROSENFELD, P., GIACALONE, R. A., & RIORDAN, C. A. Impression management in organisations: Essential business psychology series. London: Routledge, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • SILVESTER, J., ANDERSON, N., HADDLETON, E., CUNNINGHAM-SNELL, N., & GIBB, A. A cross-modal comparison of telephone and face-to-face selection interviews in graduate recruitment. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. In press.

  • SNYDER, M., & COPELAND, J. Self-Monitoring processes in organizational settings. In R. A. Giacalone and P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbarm, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • SNYDER, M., & GANGSTAD, S. On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986, 51, 125-139.

    Google Scholar 

  • SNYDER, M. Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 526-537.

    Google Scholar 

  • SNYDER, M., BERSCHEID, E., & MATWYCHUK, A. Orientations towards personnel selection: Differential reliance on appearance and personality, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988, 54, 972-979.

    Google Scholar 

  • WIESNER, W. H., & CRONSHAW, S. F. A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview. Journal of Occupation al Psychology, 1988, 61, 275-290.

    Google Scholar 

  • WILLIAMS, L. J. Covariance structure modelling in organizational research: Problems with the method versus applications of the method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1995, 16, 225-233.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths College, University of London, New Cross, SE14 6NW, London, England

    Neil Anderson

  2. Department of Psychology, City University, Blackfriars, London, England

    Jo Silvester

  3. Goldsmiths College, University of London, England

    Nicole Cunningham-Snell

  4. Department of Psychology, University of Wales Swansea, Swansea, Wales

    Emma Haddleton

Authors
  1. Neil Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jo Silvester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicole Cunningham-Snell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emma Haddleton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anderson, N., Silvester, J., Cunningham-Snell, N. et al. Relationships Between Candidate Self-Monitoring, Perceived Personality, and Selection Interview Outcomes. Human Relations 52, 1115–1131 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016939809734

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016939809734

Search

Navigation