Nonverbal cues in the employment interview: Links between applicant qualities and interviewer judgments.

Abstract

The role of nonverbal behavior in the employment interview inference process was investigated using a modified Brunswik lens model. Thirty-four job interviews for an actual research assistant position were conducted and videotaped. Job applicants' self-appraised motivation to work and social skill were assessed, and their nonverbal behaviors during the interview were scored. Eighteen judges with training and several years' experience in employment interviewing watched the videotaped interviews and rated the applicants on their motivation, social skill, and "hireability." Social skill was found to be more accurately inferred by the judges as a group than was motivation to work. Applicants' social skill was apparently transmitted to the judges via three nonverbal cues. In contrast, there was a lack of correspondence between cues correlated with applicants' selfappraised motivation to work and those used by judges in making their attributions. Implications for employment interview training are discussed.

Verbal and Nonverbal Impression Management Tactics in Behavior Description and Situational Interviews

“…It is worth noting that ample research evidence shows that attempts to produce specific nonverbal behaviors often cannot be executed successfully (DePaulo, 1992). Furthermore, our results are in line with previous findings that candidates' motivation is difficult to infer from their nonverbal cues (Gifford et al, 1985) and that in real job interviews candidates do not differ very much in their nonverbal behaviors (Riggio & Throckmorton, 1988). Second, interview format influenced the kind of verbal tactics applicants used when they were instructed to convey a favorable impression.…”

“…Furthermore, research has consistently shown that friendly nonverbal behaviors, especially eye contact, smiling, hand gesturing, and head nodding, are associated with higher interview evaluations (e.g., Anderson, 1991;Anderson & Shackleton, 1990;Burnett & Motowidlo, 1998;Cash & Kilcullen, 1985;DeGroot & Motowidlo, 1999;Forbes & Jackson, 1980;Gifford, Ng, & Wilkinson, 1985;Hollandsworth, Kazelskis, Stevens, & Dressel, 1979;Imada & Hakel, 1977;McGovern, Jones, Warwick, & Jackson, 1981;Motowidlo & Burnett, 1995;Parsons & Liden, 1984;Rasmussen, 1984). This leads to the following hypothesis, which basically attempts to replicate prior findings of a relationship between IM use (both verbal and nonverbal) and interview ratings.…”

Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review.

“…Smith & Krantz (1986) 11 M 8.5 I J. Smith & Krantz (1986) 12 F 8.5 I 62 M M I Gabriel, Critelli, & F_,e (1994) 83 F F I Gifford, Ng, & Wilkinson (1985) 13 M M I D. J. …”

On Being Consistent: The Role of Verbal–Nonverbal Consistency in First Impressions

“…Decades of research have revealed a great deal about the impact of stereotypes, situations, and more on the dispositional inferences we make about other people, yet much of this research carefully controlled for confounding variables and in so doing often limited stimuli to written descriptions (often of ''Donald'') or more recently, pictures of faces (for a review, see Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000). Exceptions to the single modality approach also existresearch on the lens model (Gifford, 1994;Gifford, Ng, & Wilkinson, 1985), the social relations model (Kenny, 1994), and on thin-slices (Ambady, Bernieri, & Richeson, 2000;Weisbuch & Ambady, in press) often record perceivers' first impressions based on real interaction or audiovisual stimuli. Some of these latter approaches examine the relative contribution of observable cues (e.g., smiles) or particular channels of communication (e.g., the body) to a final impression (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992).…”