Advertisement

Candidate Reactions to Simulations and Media-Rich Assessments in Personnel Selection

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter reviews the literature on candidate reactions to the use of advanced technologies in employee assessment. The chapter distinguishes between administration mediums and media types with a special emphasis on the use of multimedia simulations presented in a computerized- or Internet-based testing format. In this context, candidate perceptions of both procedural and distributive justice are discussed. Individual differences affecting candidate reactions to multimedia simulations and organizational outcomes associated with candidate perceptions are also summarized. The chapter reviews technology’s influence on candidate acceptability and preferences for media types, and introduces the application of the concept of the uncanny valley to this literature. Practical considerations and questions for future research are raised.

Keywords

Applicant reactions Applicant perceptions Simulations Technology Uncanny valley Assessment 

References

  1. Anderson, N. (2003). Applicant and recruiter reactions to new technology in selection: A critical review and agenda for future research. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arvey, R. D., & Sackett, P. R. (1993). Fairness in selection: Current developments and perspectives. In Schmitt, N., & Borman, W. (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 171–202). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Arvey, R. D., Strickland, W., Drauden, G., & Martin, C. (1990). Motivational components of test taking. Personnel Psychology, 43, 695–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Tucker, J. S., Weathers, V., Bertolino, M., & Erdogan, B. (2006). Selection in the information age: The impact of privacy concerns and computer experience on applicant reactions. Journal of Management, 32, 601–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Mack, K., & Costa, A. B. (2011). Applicant reactions to technology-based selection: What we know so far. In Tippins, N. T., Adler, S., & Kraut, A. I. (Eds.), Technology enhanced assessment of talent (pp. 190–223). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaty, J. C., Dawsom, C. R., Fallaw, S. S., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2009). Recovering the scientist-practitioner model: How I/Os should respond to unproctored internet testing. Industrial and Organizational Psychologist, 2, 58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broderson, D. A., &, Murphy., C. (2010, April). Applicant perceptions of online assessment and the companies using them. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  8. Bryant, S. E., &, Malsey., S. (2012, April). 21st century assessment centers: Technology’s increasing role and impact. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Cascio, W. F., & Phillips, N. F. (1979). Performance testing: A rose among thorns? Personnel Psychology, 32, 751–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (1997). Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: Subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 143–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Drew, E. N., Lamer, J. J., Bruk-Lee, V., LeVine, P. J., & Wrenn, K. A. (2012a). Applicant reactions to multimedia simulations. Unpublished data.Google Scholar
  13. Drew, E. N., Lamer, J. J., Bruk-Lee, V., LeVine, P. J., & Wrenn, K. A. (2012b, April). Keeping up with the Joneses: Applicant reactions to multimedia SJTs. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  14. Drew, E. N., Bruk-Lee, V., Wrenn, K., & Levine., K. (2013, April). Test taker dispositions in response to a multimedia SJT. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
  15. Eddy, E. R., Stone, D. L., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1999). The effects of information management policies on reactions to human resource information systems: An integration of privacy and procedural justice perspectives. Personnel Psychology, 52, 335–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flach, L. M., de Moura, R. H., Musse, S. R., Dill, V., Pinho, M. S., & Lykawka, C. (2012). Evaluation of the uncanny valley in CG characters. Proceedings of SBGames 2012. http://sbgames.org/sbgames2012/proceedings/papers/computacao/comp-full_14.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2013.
  17. French, W. L. (1987). The personnel management process. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  18. Gilliland, S. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694–734.Google Scholar
  19. Giumetti, G. W., Wasko, L. E., & Sinar, E. F. (2010, April). Mediated pathways linking internet testing features and applicant reactions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Golubovich, J., & Ryan, A. M. (2012, April). Demographic cues in video-based situational judgment tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Gutierrez, S. L. (2010, April). Comparing examine reactions to multimedia and text-based simulation items. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  22. Gutierrez, S. L. (2011a, February). Moving beyond multiple-choice items: Examining the technological considerations and examinee reaction to a new point and click innovative item format. Poster presented at the annual conference of the Association of Test Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Gutierrez, S. L. (2011b, April). Perceptions of fairness and opportunity to perform on CAT in personnel selection. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  24. Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. D., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57, 639–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hawkes, B. J. (2012a). Multimedia situational judgment tests: Are animation and live action really equivalent? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  26. Hawkes, B. J. (2012b). Test-takers’ empathy for animated humans in SJTs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  27. Huffcut, A. (1990). Intelligence is not a panacea in personnel selection. The Industrial Organizational Psychologist, 27, 66–67.Google Scholar
  28. Laumer, S., Eckhardt, A., & Weitzel, T. (2012). Online gaming to find a new job? Examining job seekers? Intention to use serious games as a self-assessment tool. German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, 26, 218–240.Google Scholar
  29. MacDorman, K. F., & Ishiguro, H. (2006). The uncanny advantage of using androids in social and cognitive science research. Interaction Studies, 7, 297–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MacDorman, K. F., Green, R. D., Ho, C.-C., & Koch, C. (2009). Too real for comfort: Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 695–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacDorman, K. F., Coram, J. A., Ho, C.-C., & Patel, H. (2010). Gender differences in the impact of presentational factors in human character animation on decisions in ethical dilemmas. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 19, 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moosa, M., & Ud-Dean, S. M. (2010). Danger avoidance: An evolutionary explanation of the uncanny valley. Biological Theory, 5, 12–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moreno-Ger, P., Torrente, J., Hseih, Y. G., & Lester, W. T. (2012). Usability testing for serious games: Making informed design decisions with user data. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2012, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mori, M. (1970). Bukimi no tani [The Uncanny Valley]. Energy, 7(4), 33–35.Google Scholar
  35. Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). Alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 640–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Murphy, K., & Davidshofer, C. (1998). Psychological testing: Principles and applications (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  37. Nakashima, R. (2011). Mars needs moms: Animation is too real, too creepy. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/too-real-means-too-creepy-in-new-disney-animation-20110404-1cyt8.html. Accessed 16 Feb 2013.
  38. Oostrom, J. K., Born, M. P., Serile, A. W., & van der Molen, H. T. (2010). Effects of individual differences on the perceived job relatedness of a cognitive ability test and a multimedia situational judgment test. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 394–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parr, C. (2012). Unheimlich manoeuvres in the race to make CGI real. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=421455. Accessed 4 Feb 2013.
  40. Parshall, C. G., Harmes, J. C., Davey, T., & Pashley, P. (2010). Innovative items for computerized testing. In can der Linden, W. J., & Glas, C. A. W. (Eds.), Elements of adaptive testing (pp. 215–230). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Pavlus, J. (2012). Did the “Uncanny Valley” kill Disney’s CGI company? http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663530/did-the-uncanny-valley-kill-disneys-cgi-company. Accessed 19 Feb 2013.
  42. Pew Research Center (2010). Millenials: A portrait of generation next. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/millennials-confident-connected-open-to-change.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2013.
  43. Ployhart, R. E., & Holtz, B. C. (2008). The diversity-validity dilemma: Strategies for reducing racioethnic and sex sub group differences and adverse impact in selection. Personnel Psychology, 61, 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pommerich, M., & Burden., T. (2000, April). From simulation to application: Examinees react to computerized testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  45. Reynolds, D. H., Sinar, E. F., & McClough, A. C. (2000). Evaluation of an internet-based selection procedure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  46. Richman-Hirsch, W. L., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Drasgow, F. F. (2000). Examining the impact of administration medium on examinee perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 880–887.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Robertson, I. T., & Kandola, R. S. (1982). Work sample tests: Validity, adverse impact and applicant reaction. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55, 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94, 23–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2000). Applicant perception of selection procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 26, 565–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ryan, A. M., & Tippins, N. T. (2004). Attracting and selecting: What psychological research tells us. Human Resource Management, 43, 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sanderson, K., Drew, E., Bruk-Lee, V., LeVine, P. J., & Wrenn, K. A. (2012, April). For your eyes only? Reactions to internet based multimedia SJTs. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  52. Schleicher, D. J., Venkataramani, V., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2006). So you didn’t get the job… now what do you think? Examining opportunity-to-perform fairness perceptions. Personnel Psychology, 59, 559–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schmidt, F. L., Greenthal, A. L., Hunter, J. E., Berner, J. G., & Seaton, F. W. (1977). Job sample vs. paper-and-pencil trades and technical tests: Adverse impact and examinee attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 30, 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schuler, H. (1993). Social validity of selection situations: A concept and some empirical results. In Schuler, H., Fair, J. L., & Smith, M. (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 11–26). NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  55. Sinar, E. F., Reynolds, D. H., & Paquet, S. L. (2003). Nothing but net? Corporate image and web-based testing. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 150–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tinwell, A. (2009). The Uncanny as usability obstacle. In A. A. Ozok, & P. Zaphiris (Eds.), Proceedings of the HCI International 2009: Online Communities and Social Computing Workshop (pp. 622–631). San Diego: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tinwell, A., & Grimshaw, M. (2009). Bridging the uncanny: an impossible traverse? In O. Sotamaa, & A. Lugmayr, H. Franssila, P. Näränen, & J. Vanhala (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International MindTrek Conference: Everyday Life in the Ubiquitous Era (pp. 66–73). Tampere: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tinwell, A., Grimshaw, M., & Williams, A. (2011). The uncanny wall. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 4, 326–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tippins, N. T. (2009). Internet alternatives to traditional proctored testing: Where are we now? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tuzinski, K., Drew, E. N., Bruk-Lee, V., & Fetzer, M. (2012, April). Applicant perceptions of multimedia situational judgment tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  62. Viswesvaran, C. (2003). Introduction to special issue: Role of technology in shaping the future of staffing and assessment. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 107–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wendt, A., Harmes, J. C., Wise, S. L., & Jones, A. T. (2008). Development and evaluation of innovative test items for a computerized nursing licensure exam. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  64. Wiechmann, D., & Ryan, A. M. (2003). Reactions to computerized testing in selection contexts. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wrenn, K., Drew, E., Buxo, N., Bruk-Lee, V., & Levine, P. J. (2011, April). Applicant perceptions of multimedia situational judgment tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Kenexa LimitedLondonUK

Personalised recommendations