Applicants’ Perceptions of Selection Procedures and Decisions: A Critical Review and Agenda for the Future

Ryan, Ann Marie; Ployhart, Robert E.

doi:10.1177/014920630002600308

Cited by 380 publications

(539 citation statements)

References 90 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

526

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This work should examine actual applicants whenever possible. Future work should also build on those studies that have examined applicant withdrawal (e.g., Ryan et al, 2000;Truxillo et al, 2002). Organizations that are concerned with applicant retention and, more specifically, losing top applicants (Murphy, 1986), should track how reactions compete with other factors to explain self-selection from the hiring process.…”

Section: Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: An Updated Model and Meta-Analysis

Hausknecht¹

2005

PsycEXTRA Dataset

195

453

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract[Excerpt] An updated theoretical model of applicant reactions to selection procedures is proposed and tested using meta-analysis. Results from 86 independent samples (N = 48,750) indicated that applicants who hold positive perceptions about selection are more likely to view the organization favorably and report stronger intentions to accept job offers and recommend the employer to others. Applicant perceptions were positively correlated with actual and perceived performance on selection tools and with self perceptions. The average correlation between applicant perceptions and gender, age, and ethnic background was near zero. Face validity and perceived predictive validity were strong predictors of many applicant perceptions including procedural justice, distributive justice, attitudes towards tests, and attitudes towards selection. Interviews and work samples were perceived more favorably than cognitive ability tests, which were perceived more favorably than personality inventories, honesty tests, biodata, and graphology. The discussion identifies remaining theoretical and methodological issues as well as directions for future research. This paper is based in part on John Hausknecht's doctoral dissertation, which was completed at Penn State University under the supervision of David Day. The dissertation was the co-recipient of the 2004 S. Rains Wallace Dissertation Award sponsored by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Special thanks to committee members James Farr, Susan Mohammed, and Karen Jansen. We also acknowledge the helpful comments provided by Kevin Murphy and Alice Stuhlmacher on earlier drafts of this paper. We thank Bridgette Harder, Anna Matuszewska, and Julianne Rodda for assistance with coding and data management.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John P. Hausknecht, Department of Psychology, DePaul University, 2219 N. Kenmore Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60614. E-mail: jhauskne@depaul.edu Applicant Reactions 2 Abstract An updated theoretical model of applicant reactions to selection procedures is proposed and tested using meta-analysis. Results from 86 independent samples (N = 48,750) indicated that applicants who hold positive perceptions about selection are more likely to view the organization favorably and report stronger intentions to accept job offers and recommend the employer to others. Applicant perceptions were positively correlated with actual and perceived performance on selection tools and with self perceptions. The average correlation between applicant perceptions and gender, age, and ethnic background was near zero. Face validity and perceived predictive validity were strong predictors of many applicant perceptions including procedural justice, distributive justice, attitudes towards tests, and attitudes towards selection. Interviews and work samples were perceived more favorably than cognitive ability tests, which were perceived more favorably than personality inventories, honesty tests, biodata, and graphology.The discussion ide...

show abstract

Section: Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: An Updated Model and Meta-Analysis

Hausknecht¹

2005

PsycEXTRA Dataset

195

453

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, and perhaps most importantly, recent research has shown that outcome favorability (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000) and perceived performance (Chan, Schmitt, Jennings, Clause, & Delbridge, 1998a) are key determinates of justice judgments and post-test motivation, suggesting that self-serving bias is a critical mechanism in the formation of many applicant reactions. The current study continues this vein of research by examining the effects of both expected outcome and actual outcome on justice judgments and test-taking motivation.…”

Section: Self-serving Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In their review of applicant reactions research, Ryan and Ployhart (2000) cite a wide array of studies that show outcome favorability as a primary determinant of applicant reactions. In other words, applicants who do not receive the job generally perceive the selection process as less fair than those who do receive the job.…”

Section: Self-serving Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This may provide a partial explanation for some ofthe nonsignificant findings. However, past research suggests that test-takers are not very good at assessing their actual performance without the aid of feedback (e.g., Ryan & Ployhart, 2000). To test this possibility, I examined the correlations between test scores and two measures of post-test expected performance.…”

Section: Potential Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sour grapes while you're down and out : self-serving bias and applicant attributions for test performance

Mack¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research has shown that outcome favorability (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000) and perceived performance (Chan, Schmitt, Jennings, Clause, & Delbridge, 1998a) are key determinates of justice judgments, suggesting that self-serving bias is a critical mechanism in the formation of applicant reactions. However, organizational justice theory continues to be the dominant paradigm for understanding applicant reactions. Chan and Schmitt (2004) have suggested a far ranging agenda for research into reactions, which includes considering reactions in a longitudinal framework and considering the natural effect of time on reactions. The current study incorporates these theoretical approaches and addresses these gaps in the research by examining applicant reactions at four time points during and after a selection procedure. This study also uses a multi-dimensional measure of test taking motivation (TTM) based on expectancy theory which enables me to explicate the

show abstract

Recruitment Research in the Twenty‐First Century

Rynes

Cable

2003

Handbook of Psychology

160

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on recruitment practices (recruiters, recruitment sources, administrative procedures, vacancy characteristics, and selection standards) and recruitment processes (time‐related, social, information‐related, and interactive processes plus applicant self‐selection and person‐organization fit) is reviewed, and increments to knowledge about recruitment over the past decade are summarized. Trends in recruitment practices are noted, along with their potential implications for organizations and organizational researchers. A call is made for increased cross‐level recruitment research, as well as recruitment research at the organizational level of analysis.

show abstract

Applicants’ Perceptions of Selection Procedures and Decisions: A Critical Review and Agenda for the Future

Cited by 380 publications

References 90 publications

Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: An Updated Model and Meta-Analysis

Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: An Updated Model and Meta-Analysis

Sour grapes while you're down and out : self-serving bias and applicant attributions for test performance

Recruitment Research in the Twenty‐First Century

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About