It Takes More Than a Good Camera: Which Factors Contribute to Differences Between Face-to-Face Interviews and Videoconference Interviews Regarding Performance Ratings and Interviewee Perceptions?

Abstract

Due to technological progress, videoconference interviews have become more and more common in personnel selection. Nevertheless, even in recent studies, interviewees received lower performance ratings in videoconference interviews than in face-to-face (FTF) interviews and interviewees held more negative perceptions of these interviews. However, the reasons for these differences are unclear. Therefore, we conducted an experiment with 114 participants to compare FTF and videoconference interviews regarding interview performance and fairness perceptions and we investigated the role of social presence, eye contact, and impression management for these differences. As in other studies, ratings of interviewees’ performance were lower in the videoconference interview. Differences in perceived social presence, perceived eye contact, and impression management contributed to these effects. Furthermore, live ratings of interviewees’ performance were higher than ratings based on recordings. Additionally, videoconference interviews induced more privacy concerns but were perceived as more flexible. Organizations should take the present results into account and should not use both types of interviews in the same selection stage.

A Comparison of Conventional and Technology-Mediated Selection Interviews With Regard to Interviewees’ Performance, Perceptions, Strain, and Anxiety

“…All other ANCOVAs remained significant. Furthermore, we also compared ratings from the interviewer with those from the second rater for the FTF condition directly because this is the same kind of comparison as in Basch et al’s (2020b) and Van Iddekinge et al’s (2006) studies. None of these comparisons reached significance, all ts < 1.48, all ps > 0.05.…”

“…In line with this, Blacksmith et al’s (2016) meta-analysis found that, overall, interviewees react negatively to technology-mediated interviews in comparison to FTF interviews. Furthermore, evidence from a recent study by Basch et al (2020b) that compared perceptions of FTF and videoconference interviews confirmed that social presence is a mediator of the effects of the interview medium on interviewees’ fairness perceptions.…”

“…In addition, interviewees in previous studies also had higher outcome expectations in FTF interviews than in telephone or videoconference interviews, which means that they also considered their performance to be better in FTF interviews ( Chapman et al, 2003 ) and assumed to be able to use more impression management in FTF interviews than in technology-mediated interviews ( Basch et al, 2020a ). However, despite using modern videoconference technology, two recent studies still found higher interview performance ratings ( Sears et al, 2013 ; Basch et al, 2020b ) in FTF interviews compared to videoconference interviews with mean differences of intermediate size.…”

“…In addition, the effects from the corresponding primary studies vary considerably so that specific aspects of the few primary studies and the respective interviews have more impact on the meta-analytic estimate than is usually the case in other meta-analyses. Furthermore, earlier primary studies usually also only compared FTF interviews with one kind of technology-mediated interviews (e.g., Silvester et al, 2000 ; Sears et al, 2013 ; Basch et al, 2020b ). Thus, it is unclear whether the differences between FTF and telephone or videoconference interviews are indeed comparable when the content and other aspects of the interviews beyond the interview medium are held consistent.…”

“…Furthermore, the primary studies that considered telephone as well as videoconference interviews either could not ensure that the interviews per se were comparable concerning the different interview media ( Chapman et al, 2003 ) or the available videoconference technology that was used in the primary studies was much more plagued by impaired conversation flow in comparison to present technology ( Straus et al, 2001 ). Finally, in some more recent studies, participants did not take part in actual interviews but only had to answer survey questions after a description of the different interviews (e.g., Basch et al, 2020a ), they only observed videos of technology-mediated interviews (e.g., Langer et al, 2020 ), or the study did not consider telephone interviews ( Basch et al, 2020b ).…”