DIFFERENTIAL REACTIONS TO TESTS AND INTERVIEWS IN SELECTION (PERSONNEL, ATTRIBUTIONS, DISCRIMINATION)

BERNARD LOREN DUGONI, Purdue University

Abstract

Although it has been shown that interviews are subject to bias and often are not valid predictors of job performance, they continue to be used widely as a selection technique. Yet, the evidence shows that relatively few complaints of discrimination through unfair interview practices have been raised compared to the considerable number of lawsuits filed over bias in testing. This continues to be the case despite the fact that most of the litigation that has been filed regarding discriminatory interviews has led to a decision in favor of the plaintiff. The present study was an attempt to investigate possible differences in perceptions of fairness in interviews as compared to tests in terms of the degree of negative reaction to various hypothetical selection situations. Subjects reviewed applicant files for a test-based or an interview-based selection method. In the test condition, files included a job description, a resume/application, selection tests and test scores, and the company's ostensible evaluation of the applicant. In the interview condition, subjects watched videotaped interview interactions and reviewed similar files, with an interview evaluation replacing the evaluation of test scores. Results showed that, when applicants were rejected on the basis of their performance on a job-related selection instrument, subjects reacted more negatively to the interview than to the test. However, when the instruments were non-job-related, the test caused the stronger negative reaction. Subjects also were asked to make attributions about the performance of the applicants in the various selection settings and differences in the patterns of attributions made in the different conditions were examined in light of previous research on attribution theory and stereotyping.

Degree

Ph.D.

Subject Area

Occupational psychology

COinS