The Impact of Selection Encounters on Applicants: An Experimental Study into Feedback Effects after a Negative Selection Decision

Abstract

This study investigates the role of feedback in minimizing the psychological impact of a negative selection decision on job applicants. The method and findings of a laboratory experiment into subjects' reactions to rejection, combined with feedback on this decision as well as perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness, are discussed. Subjects participating in the experiment (N 5 119) were asked to complete two GMA tests and were told they had to belong to the 20% best performers to be invited for a selection interview. Upon completion, all subjects received a rejection message, supposedly based on their performance scores on the two tests. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two feedback conditions: either a mere rejection message, or a rejection message including performance feedback. Analyses revealed that core self-evaluations and affective wellbeing of rejected subjects receiving performance feedback significantly decreased compared to that of subjects in the mere rejection message condition. Furthermore, it was found that procedural fairness perceptions interacted with feedback on subjects' core self-evaluations, while distributive fairness perceptions interacted with feedback on affective well-being. These findings raise the question whether performance feedback following a negative selection decision is as advantageous as generally assumed. Implications for giving feedback in rejection situations are discussed in the conclusion.

Improving Feedback Reports: The Role of Procedural Information and Information Specificity

“…When learners receive the same feedback without these personalized remarks, making external attributions for this feedback is more likely. A study by Schinkel, van Dierendonck and Anderson (2004) supports this explanation. Providing participants with detailed performance feedback in the context of a negative selection decision sometimes led to more negative participants' reactions, suggesting that the provision of detailed performance feedback is not always as advantageous as often assumed.…”

The effect of state core self-evaluations on task performance, organizational citizenship behaviour, and counterproductive work behaviour

“…Note that this question is far from trivial, as there are theoretical (Judge, Hulin, & Dalal, 2012) and empirical (Dóci & Hofmans, 2015;Ferris et al, 2011;Schinkel, Van Dierendonck, & Anderson, 2004) indications of substantial and systematic within-person variability in people's CSEs. Judge et al (2012), for example, argued that CSEs can change over a course of minutes, hours, and days in response to working events such as receiving feedback, past performance, and job rewards.…”

The Mediating Role of Feedback Acceptance in the Relationship between Feedback and Attitudinal and Performance Outcomes

“…In general, results showed that providing personal information enhanced fairness and organizational perceptions but harmed self-perceptions. A similar study by Schinkel, van Dierendonck, and Anderson (2004) examined the effect of providing applicants with bogus performance feedback after rejection decisions. Participants in the feedback condition were told that their performance on the tests fell below the required standard.…”