One cost effective way to improve applicant reactions is by giving explanations. Although a literature on this topic has accumulated, the effects of explanations on applicant reactions have not been examined meta-analytically, and several aspects of giving explanations to applicants are unclear. For example, do explanations affect applicant reactions, and which outcomes are most affected? Do findings from lab studies generalize to field settings? Under what conditions are explanations most effective? To answer these questions, we meta-analytically examined the effects of providing explanations on applicant reactions. Based on 26 distinct samples from experiments and quasi-experiments (N ¼ 3481), our results suggest that explanations do affect applicants' fairness perceptions, perceptions of the hiring organization, test-taking motivation, and performance on cognitive ability tests. The effects on fairness are larger in field contexts than in lab settings and when they are used with a personality test rather than a cognitive ability test. Test-taking motivation mediated the relationship between explanations and test performance. Our discussion focuses on when to provide explanations to applicants in employment settings and directions for future research.

The authors examined the influence of personal information privacy concerns and computer experience on applicants’ reactions to online screening procedures. Study 1 used a student sample simulating application for a fictitious management intern job with a state personnel agency (N = 117) and employed a longitudinal, laboratory-based design. Study 2 employed a field sample of actual applicants (N = 396) applying for jobs online. As predicted, procedural justice mediated the relationship between personal information privacy concerns and test-taking motivation, organizational attraction, and organizational intentions in the laboratory and field. Experience with computers moderated the relationship between procedural justice with test-taking motivation and organizational intentions in the field but not in the laboratory sample. Implications are discussed in terms of the importance of considering applicants’ personal information privacy concerns and testing experience when designing online recruitment and selection systems.

SummaryBased on changes in motivation thought to occur across the lifespan, we investigated whether age would moderate the relationship between proactive personality and three training-related variables: training motivation, perceived career development from training, and training behavioral intentions. A survey was completed by 252 municipal government employees. As hypothesized, participants' age moderated the relationship between proactive personality and these outcomes. Specifically, there was generally a more positive relationship between proactive personality and the outcomes for younger participants than for older participants. Our discussion focuses on implications for training in organizations and recommendations for practice.

Perspectives from 22 countries on aspects of the legal environment for selection are presented in this article. Issues addressed include (a) whether there are racial/ethnic/religious subgroups viewed as “disadvantaged,” (b) whether research documents mean differences between groups on individual difference measures relevant to job performance, (c) whether there are laws prohibiting discrimination against specific groups, (d) the evidence required to make and refute a claim of discrimination, (e) the consequences of violation of the laws, (f) whether particular selection methods are limited or banned, (g) whether preferential treatment of members of disadvantaged groups is permitted, and (h) whether the practice of industrial and organizational psychology has been affected by the legal environment.

This study examined the fairness reactions to 10 personnel selection methods in a sample of Italian students. University students (N ¼ 137) were asked to rate the favorability of these selection procedures and then to evaluate them on eight procedural justice dimensions. Work-sample tests were the most favorably rated of the selection methods, followed by ré sumé s, written ability tests, interviews and personal references. Graphology was perceived negatively. Opportunity to perform and the perceived face validity of selection procedures were the strongest procedural justice dimensions for predicting the process favorability ratings. The results of this study are compared with those from similar studies conducted in other countries. Similar results have been found in the various countries where such research has been conducted to date.