LET’S BE CLEAR: THE EFFECTS OF INTERVIEW TRANSPARENCY ON APPLICANT

REACTIONS

_______________

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the Department

of Psychology

University of Houston

_______________

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

_______________

By

Kimberly T. Silva

August, 2016
LET’S BE CLEAR: THE EFFECTS OF INTERVIEW TRANSPARENCY ON APPLICANT
REACTIONS

_______________

An Abstract of a Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the Department

of Psychology

University of Houston

_______________

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

_______________

By

Kimberly T. Silva

August, 2016
 ABSTRACT

Transparency is an emerging component of the structured interview yet to be thoroughly

explored in existing literature. This study aimed to uncover both potential positive and negative

aspects of interview transparency as it relates to applicant reactions and behaviors. The

conceptual model was grounded on signaling theory whereby an interview structural component

signals favorable characteristics about the organization. I hypothesized that transparency would

increase applicants’ perceptions of procedural justice, informational justice, and organizational

attractiveness. Further, I predicted transparency would affect perceptions of organizational

attractiveness indirectly through perceptions of procedural and informational justice. Drawing on

a model of faking behavior, I proposed transparency would also increase applicants’ likelihood

to fabricate information and create an untrue self-image during their interview. A sample of 82

participants completed an online, asynchronous interview, questionnaire, and accurately

identified their manipulation group. Results indicated no statistical relationships between

transparency, organizational attractiveness, the justice factors, nor faking behaviors. Procedural

justice had a non-significant relationship with organizational attractiveness, however,

informational justice positively related to organizational attractiveness after controlling for

perceptions of interview difficulty and performance. The results are reviewed in terms of their

practical use and implications for future research.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Applicant Reactions ........................................................................................................................ 1

Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 4
The Interview Process ................................................................................................................. 4
Applicant Reactions .................................................................................................................... 6
History and Theory. ................................................................................................................. 8
Determinants and Consequences of Applicant Reactions. .................................................... 14
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................. 15
Transparency ............................................................................................................................. 17
Transparency and Organizational Attractiveness ...................................................................... 20
Transparency and Applicant Reactions ..................................................................................... 21
Hypothesis 2 .......................................................................................................................... 24
Hypothesis 3 .......................................................................................................................... 24
Applicant Reactions and Organizational Attractiveness ........................................................... 24
Hypothesis 4 .......................................................................................................................... 25
Hypothesis 5 .......................................................................................................................... 25
New Directions in Selection Interview Research ...................................................................... 25
Hypothesis 6 .......................................................................................................................... 27
Hypothesis 7 .......................................................................................................................... 27
Faking Behaviors....................................................................................................................... 27
Hypothesis 8 .......................................................................................................................... 32
Perceived Interview Difficulty .................................................................................................. 32
Perceived Performance .............................................................................................................. 33
Method .......................................................................................................................................... 33
Sample ....................................................................................................................................... 33
Procedure ................................................................................................................................... 33
Question Construction ........................................................................................................... 34
Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 35
Transparency Manipulation ................................................................................................... 37
Measures.................................................................................................................................... 38

v
 Organizational Justice............................................................................................................ 38
Organizational Attraction ...................................................................................................... 38
Interview Faking Behavior .................................................................................................... 38
Perceived Performance .......................................................................................................... 39
Perceived Difficulty............................................................................................................... 39
Demographics ........................................................................................................................ 39
Manipulation Check .............................................................................................................. 39
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 39
Manipulation Check .................................................................................................................. 39
Statistical Analyses ................................................................................................................... 40
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 43
Test of Hypotheses .................................................................................................................... 43
Practical Implications ................................................................................................................ 46
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 46
Future Directions ....................................................................................................................... 48
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 49
References ..................................................................................................................................... 51
Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 67
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 71
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 72
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 74
Appendix D ................................................................................................................................... 80

vi
 1

Let’s be Clear: The Effect of Interview Transparency on

Applicant Reactions

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013) projects that by 2022 the labor force participation

rate will drop to 61.6%—down from 67.1% in 2000. An anticipated 50.6 million positions in

every occupation are expect to open up by 2022 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013).The stunted

growth of the labor force coincides with an increasing need to replace retiring employees and

people who will voluntarily opt out of the workforce. That said organizations will likely face

fierce competition for skilled personnel and need to attract and select the most qualified

applicants over the next several decades.

Competition for talented employees starts with applicant recruitment and continues

through the employment process. During the employment process, nearly all organizations use

an interview format to select the most talented applicants (Macan, 2009; Levashina, Hartwell,

Morgeson, & Campion, 2014). Interview formats range from highly structured to completely

unstructured (Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014). Structure refers to the

standardization of questions and response scoring with the intent to improve psychometric

properties and assist interviewers by predetermining rules for questions, observations, and

evaluations (Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994; Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 1997; Levashina,

Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014). Though a higher level of structure is the preferred

method for enhancing validity and reliability, structured interviews are often perceived as less

favorable by applicants (Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014). It is important to

consider applicants’ point of view because their reactions are linked to significant organizational

outcomes including intentions to accept a job offer from the organization and likelihood of
 2

initiating legal proceedings against the organization (Hausknetch, Day, & Thomas, 2004; Bauer,

Truxillo, Sanchez, Ferrara, & Campion, 2001; Smither et al., 1993).

Models of applicant reactions propose that characteristics of the selection interview

influence how applicants perceive the interview and these perceptions, in turn, guide applicants’

overall impression of the organization (Gilliland, 1993; Ryan & Ployhart, 2000). For example,

Conway and Peneno (1999) demonstrated that the type of questions asked during the interview

affected applicants’ perceptions of interview fairness. Perceptions of fairness predicted

applicants’ intentions to accept a job offer from the organization (Hausknetch, Day, & Thomas,

2004). It is probable that components of the interview signal unknown information to applicants;

then, applicants interpret the information and use it to form opinions about the organization

(Spence, 1973).

Researchers have considered components of the structured interview in order to

determine which factors are likely to improve applicants’ perceptions (e.g. Farago, Zide, &

Shahani-Denning, 2013). For example, researchers have considered interview length, job

relatedness, and the use of prompting questions as potential determinants of applicant reactions

(Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 1997; Bauer, Truxillo, Sanchez, Ferrara, & Campion, 2001). In

more recent literature, scholars have identified another structural component that has yet to be

studied in relation to applicant reactions; a component termed interview transparency

(Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014).

Interview transparency refers to the extent of information applicants receive about how

they will be evaluated in an interview (Klehe, Konig, Richter, & Melchers, 2008). Currently,

there is debate around the costs and benefits of using interview transparency (Klehe, Konig,

Richter, Kleinmann, & Melchers 2008; Levashina et al., 2014). Some researchers highlight that
 3

interview transparency helps organizations gain a more accurate picture of applicants’ strengths

and weaknesses allowing them to better predict future performance (Klehe, Konig, Richter, &

Melchers, 2008; Smith & Jentsch, 2007).Others are concerned that interview transparency

decreases inter-observer reliability from situational questions and may provide applicants with

more opportunity to fake their answer responses (Lantham & Saari, 1984; Levashina &

Campion, 2006). Mixed opinions on interview transparency have spurred researchers to call for

additional information on transparency and how it impacts the selection process (Levashina,

Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014).

This study answers the call by addressing three pertinent matters. First, this study aimes

to determine how transparency impacts applicant reactions. Though researchers have made

significant contributions regarding interview components and reactions, none address interview

transparency specifically. Second, the study demonstrates how applicant reactions impact

organizational outcomes, specifically organizational attractiveness. Consistent with the literature,

I propose that higher perceptions of justice will be positively related to applicant reactions.

However, I extend existing literature by operationalizing applicant reactions as perceptions of

procedural justice and informational justice separately whereas past studies combine the two

dimensions. Third, I offer a theoretical contribution to the selection literature by testing a

heuristic model of applicant reactions and framing the model within a theoretical context where

theory “has largely been unapplied” (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000, p. 595). Specifically, I apply

signaling theory (Spence, 1973) to support the assertion that applicants develop perceptions

about the organization based on information learned during the selection process. Fourth, I

consider the relationship between interview transparency and faking behaviors. Organizations

may be hesitant to implement transparency into their interviews expecting it to make faking
 4

question responses easier. Thus, I provide an applied contribution by testing whether the

implementation of interview transparency is an effective tool for improving applicant reactions

to the selection interview without hindering the utility of the interview process. Figure 1

illustrates the conceptual model.

To address how interview characteristics impact applicant reactions, I first provide a

review of structured interviews and applicant reactions. Next, I provide a theoretical framework

to support the claim that interview characteristics impact organizational outcomes through

applicants’ reactions to the selection interview. I then offer a detailed argument linking interview

transparency to perceptions of procedural and informational justice and the perceptions to

organizational attractiveness. Last, I give rationale for the relationship between interview

transparency and faking behaviors supported by a model of faking behavior motivation

(Levashina & Campion, 2007).

Literature Review

The Interview Process

Interviews are the most widely used procedure for hiring job applicants (Levashina,

Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014). An organization’s interview process falls somewhere

along a spectrum from highly structured to unstructured. “Structure” can be defined as any

interview component that helps interviewers develop questions, collect useful information, or

evaluate responses with the purpose of increasing an interview’s psychometric properties

(Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 1997; Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014).

There are fifteen components of structure that are most often used to evaluate the interview

process. The components can be broken up into two categories— those that influence content of
 5

the interview and those that influence the evaluation process (Campion, Palmer, & Campion,

1997; Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014).

Content and evaluation components are often assessed in terms of reliability, validity,

EEO defensibility and user reactions (Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 1997). In terms of the

interview process, reliability research captures the consistency of information collected and

homogeneity of decisions made by interviewers. For example, reliability research in interviewing

answers questions such as “do aspects of the interviewer-applicant interaction introduce error

into the interview?” and “do different interviewers score the same applicant in a similar way?”

(Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 1997). Validity research determines how well the interview

assessments or questions measure what the organization intends to measure. Validity studies

answer questions like “do the interview questions reflect the job demands?” and “does the

interview process help the organization collect useful information?” (Campion, Palmer, &

Campion, 1997). Last, studies that incorporate user reactions tend to consider three types—EEO

bias, applicant reactions, and interviewer reactions (Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 1997). Equal

employment opportunity (EEO) research targets interview components that diminish or give rise

to biases against protected subgroups (e.g. minorities, veterans) including adverse impact and

disparate treatment (Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 1997). EEO studies propose questions such

as “does use of the interview component enhance legal defensibility?” (Campion, Palmer, &

Campion, 1997). User reactions research focuses on applicants’ and interviewers’ impression of

structural components and the components’ ability to reduce error (Campion, Palmer, &

Campion, 1997). User reactions research considers questions such as “did the applicant and

interviewer view the process positively?” and “do the components reduce or cause adverse

impact?” (Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 1997).

 6

An overwhelming majority of research indicates that interviews with more structure are

superior to unstructured interviews in cases of validity and reliability (Huffcutt, Conway, Roth,

& Klehe, 2004; Latham & Sue-Chan, 1999; Schmidt & Zimmerman, 2004). However,

organizations continue to use less structured interview formats because applicants and

interviewers tend to prefer unstructured interviews (Farago, Zide, & Shanani-Denning, 2013;

Dipboye et al., 2012; Bakker & Bakker, 2002). Unstructured interviews may be preferred

because they create a more comfortable situation for the individuals involved and allow

applicants to better demonstrate their unique knowledge, skills, and abilities (Dipoye et al.,

2012). The goal for organizations, therefore, is to create an interview process that has high

validity and reliability and enhances legal defensibility but does not generate negative reactions

from applicants.

One potential method for achieving this aim is the use of interview transparency (Klehe,

König, Richter, Kleinmann, & Melchers, 2008). Interview transparency does not negatively

impact interview validity which is characteristic of structured interviews (Klehe, Konig, Richter,

Kleinmann, & Melchers 2008; Smith-Jentsch 2007) and has the potential to give applicants the

control they desire characteristic of unstructured interviews. Therefore, one aim of this study is

to determine if the use of interview transparency is related to positive reactions from applicants.

Postulating this relationship, however, first requires an understanding of applicant reactions.

Applicant Reactions

Applicant reactions are defined as perceptions or impressions about the hiring process

(Gilliland, 1993). Research on applicant reactions has grown in popularity over the last several

decades (Hülsheger & Anderson, 2009). The popularity of applicant reactions is likely due to a

number of forces including fierce competition for skilled personnel, the need to attract a diverse
 7

group of applicants, the desire to predict which applicants will be successful employees, and the

prevention of legal ramifications against the organization (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000; Bauer,

McCarthy, Anderson, Truxillo, & Salgado, 2012; Bauer, Truxillo, Sanchez, Ferrara, & Campion,

2001). Despite the growing volume of research in this area, researchers continue to call for

further development and attention to the topic (e.g. Chan & Schmitt, 2004; Ryan & Ployhart,

2000).

There are several convincing reasons as to why more attention should be paid to applicant

reactions. First, applicant reactions are related to costs that are likely to impact organizations in

the short and long term (Hülsheger & Anderson, 2009). For example, applicant reactions are

associated with the propensity to withdraw from the selection process and intentions to accept a

job offer (Schmit & Ryan, 2006; Baskin, Zeni, & Buckley, 2014; Hausknetch, Day, & Thomas,

2004; Kuo & Chang, 2011). In the short run, poor reactions may sway applicants to withdraw

their application or turn down offers costing organizations time and money used towards the

recruitment and selection procedure (Hülsheger & Anderson, 2009). In the long run, poor

reactions from high potential applicants may lead to the loss of high performing employees to

competitor organizations (Hülsheger & Anderson, 2009; Murphy, 1986). Researchers expect

organizations to experience decreases in overall performance by hiring a second or third-ranked

candidate (Scullen, 2013), noting that the productivity of elite performers is about four times

better than that of an average worker (O’Boyle & Aguinis, 2012).

Applicant reactions are also associated with intentions to recommend the organization to

others (Hülsheger & Anderson, 2009). Applicants may share positive or negative reactions with

friends or family members consequently influencing others’ decisions to apply or not apply to

the organization in the future, essentially impacting the organization’s selection pool (Hülsheger
 8

& Anderson, 2009). Larger pools more often yield good hires than smaller pools of applicants

(Scullen, 2012).

Second, it is important to study applicant reactions for the sake of scientific research on

selection procedures. Some studies suggest that applicants’ attitudes impact the validity of

selection tools (Barbera, Ryan, Desmarais & Dyer, 1995). For example, negative reactions were

found to lower test taking motivation (Smither et al., 1993) which diminishes the validity of the

selection instrument (Thorsteinson & Ryan, 1997). Others, however, report that reactions have

neither a positive nor negative influence on the validity of selection procedures (McCarthy,

Lievens, Sinar, Iddekinge, Kung, & Campion, 2013). Additional research on applicant reactions

has the potential to shed light on the relationship between interview perceptions and interview

procedure utility, resolving mixed findings from past studies.

Third, preliminary findings show that perceptions of the selection process are related to

the applicants’ overall well-being (Hülsheger & Anderson, 2009). For example, Ployhart and

Ryan (1997) demonstrated that perceptions of process fairness were positively related to

applicants’ self-perceptions signifying that applicant reactions research has a place in

occupational health studies (Ployhart, Ryan, Bennett, 1999; Hülsheger & Anderson, 2009).

Researchers continue to study applicant reactions because they are immensely important

from an economic, scientific, and health related standpoint. However, the way applicant

reactions are explored varies from study to study, greatly depending on the theoretical

perspective used for the foundation of the study. The following theoretical frameworks guide

most research on applicant reactions.

History and Theory. For several decades, scholars and practitioners have recognized the

significance of justice as a requirement for organizational effectiveness (Greenberg, 1990).

 9

Initial research on justice in the workplace depended on early justice theories to explain fairness

in an organizational context (e.g. distributive justice theory, Homans, 1961; equity theory,

Adams, 1965; relative depravation theory, Stouffer, Suchman, DeVinney, Starr, & Williams,

1949; Smith & Pettigrew, 2015). However, these theories explained organizational behavior

poorly because they were intended to test principles of justice in a social context not an

organizational context (Greenberg, 1978). In an attempt to better describe justice as a function of

the workplace, Greenberg (1990) developed organizational justice theory in order to explain

unique issues related to the workplace.

Traditionally, equity theory (Adams, 1963) has been the cornerstone of much

organizational justice research. Equity theory focuses on how people determine if an exchange is

fair (Adams, 1963). The theory offers that employees compare the ratio of their inputs (e.g.

work effort) to outcomes (e.g. payment or rewards) to a relative standard (e.g. co-workers, peers

with a similar job at another organization, or a past employment experience; Jex, 2002). In a

state of equity, the employee perceives his or her ratio of inputs to outcomes is equal to the ratio

of the relative standard leaving the employee reasonably satisfied (Adams, 1963; Greenberg,

1990; Jex, 2002). In a state of inequity, the employee perceives the input to outcome ratios are

unequal (Adams, 1963) and he or she is likely to become unsettled and strategize ways to restore

equity (Greenberg, 1990; Jex, 2002). Equity theory is considered one of the more useful theories

in relation to organizational justice because its components can be easily quantified in business

terms (Weick, 1966, Greenberg, 1990).

Though useful in many respects, researchers later refined equity theory so that it better

reflected aspects of the organization. Leventhal (1976) used equity theory to develop the justice

judgment model of distributed justice. The theory of distributive justice concerns the perceived
 10

fairness of decision outcomes (Leventhal, 1976; Colquitt, 2012). There are three significant rules

of distributive justice identified in the model—the rule of equity, the rule of equality, and the rule

of need (Beurgré, 2007). In an organizational setting, equity is achieved when the outputs

received are equivalent to the inputs provided by employees, equality is achieved when outputs

are distributed in the same way to employees to promote harmony (Deustch, 1985), and need is

achieved when outcomes are distributed according to the individual requirements of each

employee (Beurgré, 2007). Together, distributive justice entails the extent that the rules are

appropriately followed in a decision making situation (Beurgré, 2007).

Following distributive justice, Thibaut and Walker (1975) ran multiple studies concerned

with fairness of processes used to make decisions—later deemed procedural justice. Procedural

justice refers to the extent that decisions are made using fair processes and methods (Colquitt,

2001). Procedures are considered fair when they are consistent, suppress bias, ensure the

collection of accurate information, allow for the correction of flaws, and conform to ethical

standards (Leventhal, 1980; Colquitt, Wesson, Conlon, & Ng, 2001).

Bies and Moag (1986) extended theories of organizational justice by focusing on the

quality of the interaction between people when processes are implemented. Termed interactional

justice, this aspect of fairness is thought to consist of two parts—interpersonal justice and

informational justice (Colquitt, Wesson, Conlon, & Ng, 2001). Interpersonal justice reflects the

extent that people feel they are treated with dignity and respect when decisions are made and

procedures are applied (Colquitt, Wesson, Conlon, & Ng, 2001). Informational justice refers to

perceptions of fairness linked to explanations and information provided to people (Colquitt,

Wesson, Conlon, & Ng, 2001). Informational justice taps into the communication of procedures
 11

and requires agents of the organization to be truthful, explain procedures thoroughly, provide

reasonable explanations, and offer information in a timely manner (Colquitt et al., 2001).

From there on, Gilliland (1993) took organizational justice theory and applied it the

selection process. Based on theories of distributive justice (Homans, 1961; Adams, 1965),

procedural justice (Leventhal, 1980), informational justice (Tyler & Bies, 1990; Bies & Moag,

1986), and interpersonal justice (Tyler & Bies, 1990; Bies & Moag, 1986), Gilliland (1993)

proposed a theoretical model to explain how and why interview factors influence applicant’s

perceptions of organizational justice and the potential outcomes that stem from the reactions. The

model suggests that applicants evaluate situational factors (e.g. HR policy, interview methods

used) according to ten procedural justice rules and three distributive justice rules; the extent that

each rule is satisfied or violated combines to form an overall evaluation of fairness of the

selection process and outcome (Gilliland, 1993). The overall perception of fairness relates to

applicants’ perceptions during hiring, future behaviors post hire, and self-perceptions (e.g. job

acceptance intentions, job performance, self-esteem; Gilliland, 1993).

Later, Ryan and Ployhart (2000) revamped Gilliland’s (1993) model of organizational

justice by including antecedents of applicants’ perceptions as well as potential moderators of the

proposed relationships. In the model, characteristics of the applicant, job, selection procedure,

and organizational context influence applicants’ perceptions of the selection process (Ryan &

Ployhart). Characteristics include factors like applicants’ personality, industry stereotypes,

interview format, and history of the organization (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000). These perceptions, in

turn, lead to outcomes such as applicants’ perceptions of the organization or behavioral

intentions (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000). Moderators of the aforementioned relationships thought to

impact perceptions and outcomes include factors like hiring expectations and available
 12

alternatives to applicants (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000). The model serves as an excellent starting

point for research on applicant reactions; however, it fails to address the how and why people

form justice perceptions (Ployhart & Harold, 2004).

In response, Ployhart and Harold (2004) put forth the Applicant Attribution-Reaction

Theory (AART) to explain the “attributional processes in the formation of applicant reactions”

(Ployhart & Harold, 2004, p. 84). The theory proposes that applicant reactions are the byproduct

of attributions ascribed to objective events that arise during or after the selection interview.

According to AART, first, a “surprising, stressful, unfavorable, or important” event occurs which

spurs an attributional search for cause (Ployhart & Harold, 2004, p. 90). Objective events might

include taking a test, interviewing with the organization, or receiving notification of a selection

decision (Ployhart & Harold, 2004). Second, the applicant perceives and interprets the event,

noting its saliency (Ployhart & Harold, 2004). Third, the applicant compares his or her treatment

or experience to a set of expectations that are based on Gilliland’s (1993) rules of justice

(Ployhart & Harold, 2004). Fourth, the applicant determines whether or not the justice rules were

satisfied or violated relevant to the applicant’s expectations, subsequently forming a satisfied or

dissatisfied opinion (Ployhart & Harold, 2004). Fifth, the applicant forms an explanation for the

cause of the event (Ployhart & Harold, 2004). For example, an applicant may learn that he or she

did not receive a job offer; the applicant attributes the decision to a poor test format that did not

allow the applicant to portray his or her skills. Sixth, based on the attribution, the applicant

displays attitudinal, behavioral, and cognitive reactions according to the attribution (Ployhart

&Harold, 2004; Weiner, 1985). Reactions may include withdrawal from the selection pool,

favorable attitudes towards the organization, or job acceptance (Ployhart & Harold, 2004).

AART contributes to justice theory by suggesting that perceptions of fairness result from the
 13

attributional analysis (Ployhart & Harold, 2004). Accordingly, perceptions of justice partially

mediate the relationship between objective events, attributions, and consequences but explain

little about consequences on their own (Ployhart & Harold, 2004).

Though a promising theory, the crux of AART is not the cause of the event but rather

whether applicants attribute selection outcomes (e.g. test performance) to stable, controllable, or

internal/external characteristics. For example, does the applicant believe he or she performed

poorly during the interview because the tests used lacked face validity or because he or she did

not prepare for the interview (Ployhart & Harold, 2004)? The focus of AART is “understanding

the antecedents and consequences of attributions” and not that of fairness (Ployhart & Harold,

2004, p. 92). Like Gilliand’s (1993) organizational justice theory, AART emphasizes satisfaction

versus violation of justice rules. In the case of transparency, the central question is whether

transparency increases perceptions of justice, not whether transparency satisfies or violates

expectations of justice.

In general, there is no one overarching theoretical framework that receives buy-in from

all applicant reactions researchers. Most researchers of applicant reactions incorporate some

form of justice theory into their models but rarely integrate ideas outside this theoretical realm.

Ryan and Ployhart (2000) have called for researchers to expand their studies to incorporate more

disparate theories and explore applicant perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors beyond general

fairness. Accordingly, the current study does so by first explaining applicant reactions using

signaling theory (Spence, 1973) to explain the relationship between selection procedures,

applicant reactions, and organizational outcomes. Second, this study offers a perspective of

justice beyond general fairness and procedural rules by pinpointing justice dimensions most

relevant to the selection process. Last, this study explores applicant behaviors as a consequence
 14

of the selection procedure to determine how applicants react to a specific structural interview

component.

Determinants and Consequences of Applicant Reactions. Before the theoretical

framework, components of the current study, and applicant behaviors are addressed, a review of

current findings related to applicant reactions is needed. Applicant reaction research first aims to

answer the question “how are selection processes evaluated by applicants?” (Hülsheger &

Anderson, 2009). Researchers go about addressing this question from two perspectives—first,

from the consequences associated with applicant reactions and, second, from the antecedents of

applicant reactions.

Consequences of applicant reactions are often quantified as intentions, perceptions, or

behavioral reactions (e.g. Hausknetch, Day, & Thomas, 2004; Gilliland, 1994). Research

suggests that applicant reactions (measured as perceptions of procedural justice) have a moderate

to strong impact on organizational outcomes (e.g. Gilliand, 1993; Bauer, Truxillo, Sanchez,

Ferrara, & Campion, 2001; Ryan & Ployhart, 2001). For example, applicants who perceived their

selection interview as fair had greater intentions to accept a position with the company,

recommend the organization to colleagues, and had higher motivation to perform well at the

interview (Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, & Stoffey, 1993; Truxillo, Bauer, Campion, &

Raronto, 2002; Hausknetch, Day, & Thomas, 2004; Arvey, Strickland, Drauden, & Martin, 1990;

Chan et al., 1997). Further, applicants who perceived the selection process as unfair had lower

organizational commitment when hired and a higher likelihood to withdrawal from the selection

process (Rynes, Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991; Schmit & Ryan, 1997).

Antecedents, or determinants, of applicant reactions are also of particular interest, albeit

there is less research focusing on antecedents compared to consequences of reactions. Research

 15

that does aim to explore the factors that influence applicant reactions often focuses on

characteristics of the applicant or of the selection procedure in general (Hülsheger & Anderson,

2009). For example, in a meta-analytic analysis, findings indicate that characteristics such as

age, gender, and personality have little impact on applicants’ perceptions of justice (Hausknetch,

Day, & Thomas, 2004). Procedural characteristics, on the other hand, do impact applicants’

perceptions. Face validity, perceived predictive validity, and job relatedness where all positively

related to perceptions of justice (Hausknetch, Day, & Thomas, 2004).

Structural interview components can be considered a type of procedural characteristic

that influence applicant reactions. Content components such as basing interview questions on a

job analysis, asking all applicants the same questions in the same order, and controlling the

number of follow-up questions are thought to play a role in applicants’ perceptions (Campion,

Palmer, & Campion, 1997). Though research is limited, it is expected that applicants will

evaluate their interview and the organization more favorably when questions allow the applicant

to display their knowledge, skills, and abilities positively (Latham & Finnegan, 1993; Campion,

Palmer, & Campion, 1997).

Theoretical Framework

The current study draws from Ryan and Ployhart’s (2000) heuristic model to determine

the relationship between a unique procedural characteristic, applicant perceptions of the selection

process, and an outcome related to perceptions of the organization. Unlike past research,

however, this study uses signaling theory (Spence, 1973) to explain the process by which a

characteristic of the interview influences applicant’s perceptions of the interview process and

subsequently the organization itself.

 16

During selection processes, it is the job of the interviewer to evaluate applicants. Yet,

applicants, too, make evaluations about the interview (Gilliland, 1993). These evaluations are

likely based on information, or signals, sent by the interviewer. Signaling theory (Spence, 1973)

primarily explains the process by which one party conveys information about itself to another

party. At the core of signaling theory is information asymmetry. Information asymmetry occurs

when one party has more or superior information over another party (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, &

Reutzel, 2011). Signaling allows people to transfer information so that asymmetry is resolved.

The signaling theory model has four primary elements: the signaler, signal, receiver, and

feedback. The signaler is an insider who has privy information giving him or her an exclusive

perspective about some aspect of a person, organization, or product (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, &

Reutzel, 2011). The signaler decides what and how much information to share with the other

party (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011). The information shared is the signal and the

party who obtains the information is the receiver (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011).

The receiver is an outsider who lacks important information but would like to have the

information (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011).

Signaling theory focuses on the signalers’ deliberate actions used to communicate

imperceptible qualities to the receiver (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011). The signaler

intentionally sends a message to the receiver and the receiver uses that signal to collect unknown

information about a person, organization, or product (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011).

Once information is acquired, the receiver sends feedback to the signaler indicating the

effectiveness of the signal (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011). Key to effective

signaling, “the signaler should benefit by some action from the receiver that the receiver would
 17

not otherwise have done” and the receiver benefits by making decisions based on more complete

information (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011, p. 45).

Signaling theory can be used to explain the process by which perceptions of the selection

process impact applicant reactions and thus, organizational outcomes. Under the assumption that

the selection interview is part of the overall recruitment process, it signals unknown information

to applicants about what life as an employee of the organization might entail (Turban, 2001;

Rynes, Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991). For example, if an applicant feels he or she was treated

respectfully during the interview, it may signal to the applicant that he or she will be treated

respectfully by the organization. Specifically, the interviewer (signaler) conveys unknown

information (signal) to the applicant (receiver) during the interview. Applicants interpret the

signal and develop perceptions based off the information provided. Applicants then use their

perceptions of the interview to guide their behavior and perceptions of the organization

(feedback). In the current study, it is proposed that question transparency is the tool that signals

procedural and informational justice of the selection process to applicants. Applicants are

expected to use this information to form opinions about the organization. The specific

components of the proposed model are discussed in the following sections.

Transparency

Ryan and Ployhart (2000) note that determinants of applicant reactions fall into one of

four categories: person characteristics, job characteristics, procedure characteristics, and

organizational context. Factors categorized as procedure characteristics are particularly

interesting and relevant to the selection process because they can be easily manipulated by the

organization. Interview question transparency is a procedural characteristic that is a potential

determinant that is likely to impact applicant reactions.

 18

Klehe, Konig, Richter, and Melchers (2008) introduced transparency as “the degree to

which applicants are told about the behavioral dimensions that an interview aims to assess” (p.

108). A transparent interview question clarifies what the interviewer intends to assess by

beginning the question with a description, “Recall a time when you acted as the leader of a

group…”, or by inserting the dimension within the question “How might you lead your team to

complete a project?” or “What leadership techniques do you use to manage a large group of

employees?”.

Transparency rests on a continuum ranging from nontransparent to extremely transparent

interviews (Klehe et al., 2008). Research suggests there are four levels of transparency

(Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014). Level one: applicants receive no

information about the knowledge, skills, or abilities evaluated from their answers (Klehe et al.,

2008). Level two: applicants receive some information about the interview criteria like

dimension labels or explanations to ensure applicants understand what the organization intends

to assess (Klehe, König, Richter, Kleinmann, & Melchers, 2008; Maurer, Solamon, & Lippstreu,

2008). For example, interviews may lead the discussion with “We’re evaluating your teamwork,

management skills, and leadership” or applicants are provided with a list of dimensions and

explanations prior to the interview (Klehe et al., 2008, p. 108). Level three: the organization

provides applicants with interview questions prior to the actual interview (Levashina et al.,

2014). Level four: the organization provides applicants with interview questions before the

interview and explains what each question intends to measure (Levashina et al., 2014).

Few studies tackle the role and impact of transparency in interviews (Kleinmann, 1993;

Klehe, Konig, Richter, Kleinmann, & Melchers, 2008). Studies that address transparency tend to

focus on validity and reliability – leaving user reactions fairly untouched (Melchers, Klehe,
 19

Richter, Kleinmann, Konig, & Lievens, 2009; Latham & Saari, 1984). Researchers in favor of

transparency highlight its positive impact on validity noting that it increases an interview’s

construct validity (Klehe, Konig, Richter, Kleinmann, & Melchers 2008; Smith-Jentsch 2007),

convergent validity (Kleinmann, 1993), predictive validity (Maurer, Solamon, & Lippstreu,

2008), and it does not negatively impact criterion-related validity (Day & Carroll, 2003). Counter

arguments note that transparency may in fact have a negative impact on reliability suggesting

that it decreases inter-observer reliability from situational questions (Lantham & Saari, 1984).

Without enough evidence to evaluate transparency on either psychometric property, many

researchers turned to the relationship between transparency and applicants’ interview

performance.

Findings show that applicants in transparent interviews receive higher performance

ratings than those in nontransparent interviews (Klehe, Konig, Richter, Kleinmann, & Melchers

2008; Smith-Jentsch 2007; Kleinmann, 1993). These findings led to two very different

conclusions for applied practice. On one hand, organizations are advised to increase transparency

in order to create a level playing field among applicants and reduce the chances unqualified

applicants rise to the top due to uncontrolled access to interview questions or dimensions. On the

other hand, organizations are advised to keep interview questions and dimensions ambiguous

because applicants’ ability to decipher the meaning and purpose of nontransparent questions may

be a relevant skill for their future job performance (Smith-Jentsch et al., 2001).

Consequently, the decision to use transparent questions in selection interviews remains

unclear. Therefore, to bring more clarity to its utility, I focus on the use of transparency from the

third dimension of structured interview research—applicant reactions.

 20

Transparency and Organizational Attractiveness

Rynes, Bretz, and Gerhart (1991) demonstrate in their research that applicants interpret a

variety of selection practices as symbols of organizational characteristics. For example, question

type and question ethicality influence reactions to the interview including intentions to pursue

employment and intentions to recommend the organization (Saks & McCarthy, 2006; Conway &

Peneno, 1999). Applicants—who are organizational outsiders—have imperfect information

about the organizations they pursue (Rynes, et al., 1980). Therefore, applicants must develop

perceptions and make decisions based on information provided to them about the job or

organization (Young, Rinehart, & Place, 1989). Often utilized in recruitment literature, critical

contact theory (Behling, Laboitz, & Gainer, 1968)) suggests that the interview process influences

applicants (Ralston & Brady, 1994). The implication is that organizations that utilize a structured

interview or present critical information to applicants will successfully recruit employees

(Mahony, Mondello, Hums, & Judd, 2006). As part of the recruitment process, the selection

interview may serve as an important contact event between the organization and applicant such

that events that take place during the selection interview (e.g. the use of transparent) influence

applicants’ perception of the organization (e.g. organizational attractiveness).

Consequently, it is probable that higher levels of transparency increases applicants’

attraction to the organization. No current research links transparency and organizational

attractiveness. However, the nature of transparency suggests that it provides applicants with the

opportunity to perform well in the interview because the organization gives applicants the

relevant information needed to answer the interview questions. The opportunity to perform

correlates positively with organizational attractiveness (Hausknecht, Day, & Thomas, 2004).

Thus, I expect the following relationships:

 21

Hypothesis 1: Transparency is positively related to organizational attractiveness.

Specifically, applicants who receive questions and dimensions before the interview will

report the highest degree of attraction to the organization followed by applicants from the

questions only, dimensions only, and non-transparent interview groups.

Transparency and Applicant Reactions

Transparency may be a useful tool for improving applicant reactions to selection

procedures. Applicant reactions can be operationalized in various ways; however, this study

focuses on two primary justice perceptions that require additional consideration by researchers:

perceptions of procedural justice and informational justice (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000). Many

studies operationalize applicant reactions as perceptions of justice; however, they rely on

Gilliland’s (1993) model of justice which collapses aspects of informational justice under the

procedural justice dimension (e.g. Maertz et al., 2006; Bauer, Truxillo, Sanchez, Craig, Ferrara,

& Campion, 2001).Considering informational justice a subset of procedural justice masks

important differences between the dimensions such as the characteristics and quality of shared

information (Colquitt, 2001). Justice researchers have called for more studies on procedural and

informational justice as separate dimensions (Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt, Wesson, Conlon, & Ng,

2001), thus, this study operationalizes application reactions as distinct perceptions of justice.

Empirical research is needed to understand the relationship between levels of question

transparency and applicants reactions (Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion; 2014; Kolk,

Born, van der Flier, 2003; Day & Carroll, 2003). Few studies, if any, directly measure this

relationship. However, a related study demonstrated that providing applicants with a copy of the

interview questions before the interview enhanced their perceptions of procedural justice. It is

probable that this transparency is perceived as more fair because it gives applicants a chance to
 22

prep for the interview and “present themselves favorably” (Day & Carroll, p. 32). Similar studies

show that applicants perceive interviews as more fair when they receive advanced notice of

selection procedures and information about the tests used (Gillian & Hale, 2005; Gilliland, 1995;

Truxillo, Bauer, Campion, & Paronto, 2002). Explanations of interview methods and measures

likely increases perceptions of justice because shared information reduces applicants’ uncertainty

and allows applicants to control the information they share (Arvey & Sackett, 1993; Stone &

Stone, 1990).

It is probable that interview transparency is related to perceptions of procedural justice

because transparency and procedural justice are functionally similar. Transparency is related to

the procedural rules which must be met in order for a process for be considered fair. For

example, the bias suppression rule maintains that influence should be prevented during decision

making processes (Leventhal, 1980). Question transparency prevents applicants from using

separate information or abilities to influence their performance scores. For example, in a non-

transparent interview, the applicant who answers the most questions correctly may receive a job

offer because the applicant was best able to identify the question criteria not because the

applicant has the necessary skills to perform the job tasks.

A second rule of procedural justice is accurate information which dictates that “it is

necessary to base allocative processes on as much good information and informed opinion as

possible” (Leventhal, 1980, p. 27). In a more transparent interview, interviewers explain question

dimensions or clarify what the questions intend to measure (Klehe, Konig, Richter, Kleinmann,

& Melchers, 2008). In this case, the likelihood that applicants answer the questions correctly

increases (Klehe, Konig, Richter, Kleinmann, & Melchers, 2008). Accordingly, applicants can be

more certain that employment decisions are based on accurate information.

 23

In a final example, the consistency rule states that all procedures should be constant

across persons and no one should receive a special advantage (Leventhal, 1980). The use of

interview transparency follows the consistency rule by formally providing applicants with equal

access to important interview information. An organization that provides all applicants with

questions before the interview demonstrates that it intends to treat everyone alike and aims to

prevent applicants with privy information from having a special advantage over other applicants.

It is also probable that interview transparency is related to informational justice.

Transparency is likely related to the informational components that call for candid

communication, explanation of procedures, and timely information. For example, candid

communication calls for clear and truthful information sharing. The extent that question

dimension are clear, transparency should signal to the applicant that the interviewer is making an

effort to be open with the applicant and not attempting to confuse or deceive the applicant in any

way with ambiguous questions.

Explanation of procedures, furthermore, calls for organizations to inform applicants about

the interview process. By sending applicants questions before the interview or explaining what

dimensions will be discussed during the interview, the organization reduces process uncertainty,

thereby increasing perceptions of informational justice.

Last, timeliness suggests that organizations provide information to applicants at a

favorable or opportune time (Gilliland, 2005). Providing applicants with questions or

explanations before the interview may give applicants the opportunity to better prepare for the

interview increasing their control over the interview outcome. Thus, based on the apparent

alignment of interview transparency, procedural justice, and informational justice, I hypothesize

that transparency acts as an antecedent to applicant reactions in the follow ways:

 24

Hypothesis 2: Interview transparency is positively related to applicants’

perceptions of procedural justice. Specifically, applicants who receive questions

and dimensions before the interview will evaluate the interview as more

procedurally just than applicants from the questions only, dimensions only, and

non-transparent interview groups respectively

Hypothesis 3: Interview transparency is positively related to applicants’

perceptions of informational justice. Specifically, applicants who receive

questions and dimension before the interview will evaluate the interview as more

informationally just than applicants from the questions only, dimensions only, and

non-transparent interview groups respectively.

Applicant Reactions and Organizational Attractiveness

According to Ryan and Ployhart (2000), applicant’s perceptions of the interview impact

their overall impressions of the organization. One impression of particular interest is applicants’

perceptions of organizational attractiveness. Attraction of quality applicants is one of the most

important attributes of a successful organization and is considered a “major source of

competitive advantage” (Rynes & Barber, 1990; Ehrhart & Ziegert, 2005, p. 901). Organizations

face fierce competition for top applicants; those who maintain a high level of attractiveness from

recruitment through the selection process will have an advantage over other organizations

(Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, & Stoffey, 1993).

One significant factor predicting organizational attractiveness is perceptions of justice in

interviews (Bauer et al., 1998). A vast amount of research demonstrates that applicants who

perceive the selection proctess as more fair also view the organization as more attractive (Macan

et al., 2004; Bauer, Dolan, Maertz, & Campion, 1998; Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, & Stoffey,
 25

1993; Truxillo & Bauer, 1999). For example, meta-analytic results show that applicants who felt

their interview was procdurally fair also report being highly attracted to the organization

(Hausknetch, Day, & Thomas, 2005). Similar to positive applicant reactions, perceptions of

organizational attractiveness is also related to job acceptance intentions (Spitzmuller, Neumann,

Spitzmuller, Rubino, Keeton, Sutton, & Manzey, 2008) and recommendation intentions (Bauer,

Dolan, Maertz, & Campion, 1998) which relates to organizational costs and the size of future

applicant pools (Murphy, 1986; Rynes, 1993).

Current research does not distinguish whether perceptions of justice related to the

interview process is a function of procedural justice or informational justice. It is important to

distinguish between the two because procedural and informational justice predict different

outcomes (Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt, Wesson, Conlon, & Ng, 2001). Thus, researchers call for a

focus on disentangling the separate effects of procedural and informational justice (Barling &

Phillips, 1993). Understanding how both the interview procedure and the information provided

during the interview impact organizational attractiveness is likely to help organizations create a

better overall selection process. Thus, I propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4: Procedural justice is positively related to organizational

attractiveness.

Hypothesis 5: Informational justice is positively related to organizational

attractiveness.

New Directions in Selection Interview Research

Researchers note that “one of the largest gaps in literature is an understanding of practical

steps organizations can take to influence applicant reactions” (Truxillo, Bauer, Campion, and

Paronto, 2002, p. 1020). Findings and implications suggest that organizations make their
 26

processes more face-valid to improve applicant reactions, however, these practices may be

expensive and impractical (Truxillo, Bauer, Campion, & Paronto, 2002). It is probable that

making interview questions transparent acts as both a practical technique for enhancing

applicants’ perceptions of the interview and organization but also an inexpensive method for

organizations to employ.

The process by which this technique enhances perceptions of justice and organizational

attractiveness is in line with the four steps of signaling theory (Spence, 1973). First, the

interviewer utilizes question transparency (a procedural technique) during the interview. Second,

the use of the procedural technique sends a signal to the applicant (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, &

Reutzel, 2011). This step is consistent with Ryan and Ployhart’s (2000) heuristic model in which

transparency acts as a procedural characteristic which influences perceptions. Third, applicants

observe and interpret the interviewer’s use of question transparency. Because transparency is

functionally similar to procedural and informational justice components, applicants are likely to

interpret the use of transparency as a signal of a just interview process. This step is consistent

with Ryan and Ployhart’s (2000) notion that procedural techniques influence applicants’

perceptions about the “selection process and procedures in general” (p. 599). Fourth, applicants

use their perceptions of procedural and informational justice gained during the interview to form

opinions about the organization (i.e. relative level of attraction to the organization). This step is

consistent with Ryan and Ployhart’s (2000) suggestion that perceptions of the interview

influence “perceptions of the…organization” (p. 599). Feelings of attraction to the organization

can be considered the feedback recorded as a by-product of the information gained during the

selection interview. The feedback does not necessarily have to be shared with the organization
 27

directly, but, it is likely to manifest in other ways such as applicants’ acceptance or denial of a

job offer. Accordingly, I propose the following relationships:

Hypothesis 6: The effect of transparency on organizational attractiveness is both

direct and indirect through perceptions of procedural justice.

Hypothesis 7: The effect of transparency on organizational attractiveness is both

direct and indirect through perceptions of informational justice.

Faking Behaviors

Though it is important to consider applicants’ perceptions of the organization, it should

also be noted that reactions impact applicants’ behaviors as well (Gilliland, 1993; Ryan &

Ployhart, 2000). Transparency may improve perceptions of procedural and informational justice

but it may also provide applicants with the capacity and opportunity to fake question responses.

Faking is a deceptive form of impression management that is likely to hinder the validity of

selection interviews and lead organizations to hire less qualified applicants (Levashina &

Campion, 2007). Yet, no previous research explains the relationship between interview

transparency and faking behaviors. Thereby, this study aims to determine whether the use of

transparent interview questions increases applicants’ likelihood of deceptive impression

management during selection interviews.

Impression management is defined as the conscious or unconscious attempt to portray

one’s self favorably in social settings (Schlenker, 1980; Ellis, West, Ryan, & Deshon, 2002). In a

selection interview, impression management surfaces as the applicant’s attempt to convince the

interviewer that he or she is warm, competent, and high potential (Weis & Feldman, 2006; Ellis,

West, Ryan, & Deshon, 2002; Levashina & Campion, 2006). Research on impression

management behaviors during selection interviews is critical because impression management

 28

tactics affect how interviewers rate applicants (Kacmar et al., 1992; Levashina & Campion,

2006). For example, interviewers rated applicants who used impression management tactics

higher than applicants that did not use impression management tactics (Ellis, West, Ryan, &

Deshon, 2002).

Tactics used to manage impressions can be grouped into two categories –assertive and

defensive tactics. Applicants use assertive tactics, such as ingratiation and self-promotion, to

bolster favorable impressions from interviewers (Tedeschi & Norman, 1985). Ingratiation

behaviors promote “interpersonal liking and attraction” and self-promotion behaviors “evoke

attributions of competence” (Ellis et al., 2002, p. 1201). For example, an applicant may express a

shared opinion thought to be held by the interviewer (ingratiation) or claim a project he or she

worked on was more valuable than it actually was (self-promotion). Defensive tactics, such as

excuses or apologies, are intended to protect or repair an applicant’s image (Higgins, Snyder, &

Berglas, 1990; Ellis et al., 2002; Levashina & Campion 2006). An applicant may use excuses to

divert responsibility of a failed task or offer an apology for failure acknowledging his or her role

in an unsuccessful task (Ellis et al., 2002).

Applicants use impression management tactics for two major reasons. First, applicants

use impression management tactics because they work (Ferris & Judge, 1991; Weis & Feldman,

2006). Research suggests that the use of self-promotion and ingratiation tactics is related to

better evaluations and higher perceived competence and job fit (e.g. Kacmar & Carlson, 1999;

Ellis, West, Ryan, & Deshon, 2002; Weis & Feldman, 2006; Kleinmann & Klehe, 2001).

Second, applicants use impression management tactics because the reward for successful use is

high (McGregor, 1989). A successful interview and subsequent job offer grants potential income
 29

stability, security, and increased self-esteem for applicants (McGregor, 1989). Thus, applicants

are likely to take advantage of interview transparency as opportunity to manage impressions.

Most applicants use impression management tactics during interviews (Baron, 1983;

Fletcher, 1990; Ellis, West, Ryan, & Deshon, 2002). Consequently, organizations build structure

into their interviews in an attempt to control the impact of impression management tactics on

performance scores (Campion et al., 1997). Different types of structural techniques have the

potential to reduce this impact such as using the same question set for each applicant and

creating behavioral anchored rating scales to score responses (Campion, Palmer, & Campion,

1997; Dipboye & Gaugler, 1993). However, the literature does not specify whether increasing

interview structure reduces honest or deceptive impression management.

Whereas some applicants may use impression management tactics to highlight or bolster

true information and characteristics, others fabricate information and create an untrue self-image

(Leary, 1995; Weiss et al., 2006). Thus, impression management can be conceptualized as either

honest or deceptive. Honest impression management tactics may be assertive or defensive; they

are intended to enhance true information or evoke interpersonal liking (Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley,

& Gilstra, 2008; Roulin, Bangerter, & Levashina, 2014). Examples include smiling, eye contact,

or “demonstrating responsibility for positive results in the past” (Roulin, Bangerter, &

Levashina, 2014, p. 4).

Deceptive impression management, also known as faking, is intentional falsification of

question responses in an interview with the intent of obtaining a better performance score than is

deserved by the applicant (Comrey & Backer, 1975; Furnham, 1986; Levashina & Campion,

2007). Levashina and Campion (2007) organize faking into three main categories –image

creation, image protection, and ingratiation. Image creation involves either slight or extensive
 30

faking intended to “create an image of a good candidate” (p. 1640). Examples include tailoring

experiences to fit job requirements or claiming the accomplishments of other people (Levashina

& Campion, 2007). Image protection refers to faking intended to safeguard the applicant’s

image, for example, omitting pertinent information that may make the applicant unqualified for

the position (Levashina & Campion, 2007). Last, ingratiation is faking used to enhance the

interviewer’s opinion of the applicant by insincerely complimenting the interviewer or

dishonestly claiming to uphold values thought to be held by the organization (Levashina &

Campion, 2007).

Interview faking is highly prevalent among job applicants (Weiss & Feldman, 2006). In a

study on interview behavior, 81% of applicants admitted to telling a lie during their interview;

the lies told manifested both in face-to-face interviews and on written applications (Weiss &

Feldman, 2006). Unfortunately for organizations, interviewers are rarely able to detect any form

of impression management and interviewers are worse at detecting faking behaviors than honest

impression management (Roulin, Bangerter, & Levashina, 2014). Further, the authors note that

interviewers’ experience does not improve their ability to accurately detect honest or deceptive

impression management tactics (Roulin, Bangerter, & Levashina, 2014). Understanding

interview faking behaviors is important because, first, it increases the probability that

organizations will hire less qualified applicants and overlook highly capable individuals (Roulin,

Bangerter, & Levashina, 2014). Second, the prevalence of faking undermines the validity of the

interview (Stevens & Kristof, 1995; Gilmore & Ferris, 1989; Levashina & Campion, 2006). For

example, all applicants do not fake equally, therefore, deceptive impression management does

not add a constant value to every performance score (Furnman, 1986; Ones & Viswesvaran,

1998). Accordingly, organizations are unable to accurately predict the constructs they intend to
 31

measure. That said, incorporating a structural element, like transparency, that has the potential to

increase faking can have a detrimental impact on selection interviews.

Due to the prevalence and potential significant impact of interview faking, it is important

to consider why applicants are motivated to fake question responses. According to Levashina and

Campion (2006), applicants fabricate and tailor information because they want to appear to have

the competencies required for the job they desire. In order for interview faking to occur,

applicants must have the capacity, willingness, and opportunity to fake (Levashina & Campion,

2006). Levashina and Campion (2006) propose the following model to explain the motivation to

fake in an interview:

Faking = f(Capacity x Willingness x Opportunity)

The model has theoretical underpinnings in Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory of

motivation. According to the theory of expectancy, motivation is a function of the belief that one

is able to perform the behavior (expectancy), the behavior will lead to a desired outcome

(instrumentality), and the outcome has value to the person (valence; Jex, 2002). Implicitly, the

motivation to engage in faking in an interview relies on the applicants’ belief about their ability

to fake, opportunity to use faking tactics to improve performance scores, and whether the job is

worth the perceived risk of being caught telling untruths (Levashina & Campion, 2006; Marcus,

2009).

Transparency may increase faking because of its potential to influence faking capacity

and opportunity. Capacity refers to “attributes that enable job candidates to fake effectively”

such as the knowledge of the construct measured (Levashina & Campion, 2006, p. 302).

Research suggests that knowledge of the construct measured or the ability to identify question

criteria increased applicants’ interview performance score (Braun, 1962; Klehe, Konig, Richter,
 32

Kleinmann, & Melchers 2008). This suggests that by making the constructs known to applicants,

as is the case in highly transparent interviews, applicants will be able to fake question responses

if they choose. Opportunity refers to “environmental factors beyond the applicants’ direct control

that enable or constrain faking” such as level of interview structure or question type (Levashina

& Campion, 2006, p. 302). In reference to question type, research suggests that people are better

able to fake overt questions than subtle questions because subtle questions obscure the right

answer (Alliger & Dwight, 2002). This suggests that transparent questions, which are similar to

overt questions, will provide more opportunity for applicants to fake responses than non-

transparent questions. Accordingly, based on the motivational model of faking (Levashina &

Campion, 2006), I propose the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 8: Transparency will be positively related to faking behaviors.

Specifically, applicants who receive questions and dimension before the interview

demonstrate more faking behaviors than applicants from the questions only,

dimensions only, and non-transparent interview groups respectively.

Perceived Interview Difficulty

Applicants who perceive the interview as difficult may be less likely to judge the

interview as fair. Research suggests that perceptions of interview difficulty are negatively related

to perceptions of justice (Chapman & Zweig, 2005; Kluger & Rothstein, 1991). It may be the

case that more challenging interview questions make it difficult for applicants to control their

impressions, accurately showcase their knowledge, skills, and abilities, and gather key question

information. Accordingly, interview difficulty is likely to diminish perceptions of procedural and

informational justice. Perceived interview difficulty, therefore, is included as a control variable

in this study.
 33

Perceived Performance

An applicant’s opinion of how well he or she performed in the interview is likely to affect

his or her perceptions of the interview process and organization (Rynes & Connerley, 1993).

Findings suggest that applicants who believed they performed well in the interview were more

likely to consider the interview fair and view the organization as attractive (Van Vianen, Taris,

Scholten, & Schinkel, 2004; Chan, Schmitt, Jennings, Clause, & Delbridge, 1998; Macan,

Avedon, Paese, & Smith, 1994). It is likely that applicants exaggerate favorable aspects of the

interview (procedural and informational justice) and, in doing so, inflate perceptions of

organizational attractiveness. Perceived performance, therefore, is included as a control variable

in this study.

Method

Sample

The sample contained 83 students from a large, public university. Participants were

primarily female (80.5%) and racially diverse (White 19.3%, African American 22.9%, Hispanic

25.3%, Asian 20.5%, Other 12.2%). The majority of participants were currently employed part-

time or full-time (67.5%) and planned to interview for a job in the next year (63.9%). On

average, participants were 23.43 years of age (SD=7.42) and had 5.94 years of work experience

(SD= 6.16).

Procedure

Similar to past research, this study was conducted as a mock interview for university

students planning to apply for a job in the near future (Konig, Melchers, Kleinmann, Ritcher &

Klehe, 2007; Melchers, Klehe, Richter, Kleinmann, Konig, & Lievens, 2009). Participants

interviewed for an entry level management role at a fictitious organization in the technology
 34

industry. This position was chosen because it is likely to appeal to many job seekers and the

industry encompasses various academic fields (Konig, Melchers, Kleinmann, Ritcher & Klehe,

2007; Melchers, Klehe, Richter, Kleinmann, Konig, & Lievens, 2009). To increase the realism of

the situation and ensure participants were motivated to behave like actual applicants, participants

were required to register for the mock interview online and they were informed that the top four

applicants with the highest performance scores would receive a $50 VISA gift card (Day &

Carrol, 2003; Jansen, Melchers, Lievens, Kleinmann, Brandli, Fraefel, & Konig 2013).

Question Construction. Interview questions were created using a job analytic technique.

First, I researched the entry level management position on O*Net and conducted interviews with

subject matter experts (SMEs; current managers and individuals who excelled as managers) to

identify effective and ineffective behaviors of an entry level manager. Using information

collected, I created a list of critical incidents. The SMEs rated each incident in terms of

importance on a scale from 1 (Not at all Important) to 5 (Very Important). The top 10 incidents

that received the highest rating for importance were translated into a list of competencies for a

successful entry level manager. SMEs reviewed the competencies to ensure they accurately

captured the job requirements.

Past-behavior, situational, and motivational interview questions were written to reflect

three of the most important competencies (effective communication, leadership, and

building/maintaining relationships). The questions were reviewed and rated by SMEs on a 1

(Does not Capture the Competency) to 10 (Clearly Captures the Competency) scale. Questions

that clearly measure the intended dimension with a minimum average rating of M=8 were chosen

for a final set of past-behavior, situational, and motivational questions (Appendix A; Melchers,

Klehe, Richter, Kleinmann, Konig, & Lievens, 2009).

 35

Interviews. Participants were asked to imagine they are interviewing for a desirable

position as an entry level management at a fictitious organization. Participants read a job

description for the entry level management position (Bauer, Truxillo, Tucker, Weathers,

Bertolino, Erdogan, & Campion, 2006) and reviewed a description of the organization including

its purpose, achievements, and values (Appendix B). The job description provided for the entry

level management position was created using O*Net and current job postings. Participants then

completed a survey to measure their initial reactions to the fictitious organization. The use of a

fictitious organization prevents any prior knowledge or experience applicants may have about a

known organization from confounding the study’s results (Klehe, Konig, Richter, Kleinmann, &

Melchers, 2008). Next, participants participated in an asynchronous interview also known as a

one-way interview.

An asynchronous interview is an “efficient and effective selection tool” in which

applicants are guided through a structured interview via an online platform (Guchait, Ruetzler,

Taylor, & Toldi, 2013, p. 90). During an asynchronous interview, applicants use a webcam to

record responses to a set of predetermined questions on their own time and without the presence

of an interviewer (Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014). Decision makers later

watch the recordings on-demand and evaluate the responses (Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson, &

Campion, 2014). Online and virtual interview methods are increasingly popular because they

allow organizations to evaluate large applicant pools, accurately record data, and reach a

geographically diverse population while spending less time and money on the selection process

(Bauer, Truxillo, Tucker, Weathers, Bertolino, Erdogan, & Campion, 2006; Hanna, 2012;

Anderson, 2003; Stone, Lukaszewski, Stone-Romero, & Johnson, 2013).

 36

There are three reasons as to why an asynchronous interview method was chosen for this

study as opposed to a synchronous method (e.g. face-to-face, phone interview). First, the

asynchronous interview method may allow for a more structured interview process by

standardizing three content components—asking the same questions in the same order, limiting

prompting and follow-up questions, and preventing questions from applicants until after the

interview (Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 2007). In an asynchronous interview, I can ensure that

each applicant receives the same questions in the same order. Interviewers using synchronous

methods may divert from the pre-determined questions making information gathered less reliable

and valid (Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 1997; Dipboye, 1994). Further, in an asynchronous

interview, I can prevent interviewer prompting and follow-up questioning. Prompting and

follow-up questions from a present interviewer is likely to bias information collected during the

interview (Dipboye, 1994). Last, an asynchronous interview prevents applicants from asking

questions during the interview. Questions from applicants during the interview reduce

standardization by changing the interview content (Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 2007).

The second reason an asynchronous interview method was chosen is to prevent

characteristics of the interviewer from impacting applicants’ reactions. Research suggests that

interviewer characteristics (e.g. use of humor, warmth, friendliness, and general competence)

effect applicant reactions both directly and indirectly through perceptions of the organization

(Carless & Imber, 2007). By using an asynchronous interview method, I can certify that

interviewer characteristics are not interfering with the study’s findings.

The third reason I chose to use an asynchronous interview as opposed to a synchronous

interview method is because few studies incorporate online selection technology despite the fact

that its use has markedly increased across organizations (Times Business Solutions, 2014;
 37

Lievens & Harris, 2003; Bauer, Truxillo, Tucker, Weathers, Bertolino, Erdogan, & Campion,

2006). Selection technology research greatly lags behind its actual presence in the selection

process (Bauer, Truxillo, Tucker, Weathers, Bertolino, Erdogan, & Campion, 2006); therefore,

my use of an asynchronous interview adds further insight to an emerging body of research.

Accordingly, participants of this study were invited to participate in an asynchronous

interview after reviewing the organization’s description. As in the case of an actual asynchronous

interview, participants were asked to follow a link directing them to the interviewing platform

where they read each question and record a response. Once the interview was completed,

participants were asked to answer a series of post-interview questions to evaluate their reactions.

Transparency Manipulation. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four

conditions—non-transparent, dimensions only, questions only, or questions and dimensions

(Appendix C). Transparency was manipulated similarly to past studies (e.g. Kleinmann, 1997;

Klehe, Konig, Richter, & Melchers, 2008). Participants in the non-transparent condition received

general information related to the selection process (e.g. how to format a resume with example

image). Participants completed the interview without any information explaining the questions or

dimensions assessed. Participants in the dimensions only condition received a list of dimensions

to be evaluated in the interview including a short description of each dimension (e.g. Time

management: allocates time to planning, thinking, and mapping out tasks while focusing on key

priorities). Participants in the questions only condition received the exact interview questions

prior to the interview. Participants in the questions and dimensions condition received a short

description of each dimension along with the interview questions prior to the interview. All

participants were asked to spend 15 minutes reviewing the information they received before the
 38

one-way interview. Once participants recorded and submitted their responses, they were directed

to immediately complete a post-interview questionnaire to measure their reactions.

Measures

Organizational Justice. Colquitt’s (2001) procedural justice (6-itmes) and informational

justice items (4-items) were used to evaluate applicants’ reactions (α = .80; α = .88). The items

were reworded to fit within the context of an interview (e.g. “The interviewer explained the

procedures thoroughly”). The scale asked respondents to specify their level of agreement with

the justice statements on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly

Agree (5).

Organizational Attraction. 10-items from the Organization Attraction Scale

(Highhouse, Lievens, & Sinar, 2003) were used to measure applicants’ perceptions of the

organization (α = .93). Applicants were asked to indicate the degree to which they agree with

each statement on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree.

Example items include “For me, this company would be a good place to work” and “I am

interested in learning more about this company.”

Interview Faking Behavior. The 19-item Extensive Image Creation and 10-item Slight

Image Creation portions of Levashina and Campion’s (2007) measure were used to determine

applicants’ use of faking behaviors during the employment interview (29 items total, α = .97).

Respondents were instructed to indicate their level of agreement with the statements on a 5-point

Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). Sample items include “I

constructed fictional stories to explain the gaps in my work experiences” and “I stretched the

truth to give a good answer”.

 39

Perceived Performance. Interview performance was measured using 3 items from the

Perceived Performance Scale (Hoyt & Blascovich, 2010; α = .92). The items were adapted to

reflect the interview context. An example item includes “I performed well in the interview.” The

items will be assessed on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly

Agree (5).

Perceived Difficulty. Four items from Chapman, Uggerslev, and Webster’s (2003)

Interview Rating Scale were employed to measure applicants’ perception of interview difficulty

(α = .78). The items are assessed on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to

Strongly Agree (5). Sample items include “I found the interview difficult” and “I did not perform

well in the interview.”

Demographics. Applicants were asked to specify their gender, age, ethnicity, academic

program. They were also asked to specify their level of interview experience, job experience, and

plans for future interviews.

Manipulation Check. Applicants were required to indicate the condition they were

assigned to ensure accurate assessment of data. Items include “I did not receive the interview

questions or a list of interview topics before the interview”, “I read a list of topics evaluated in

the interview before the interview”, “I read the interview questions before the interview” and “I

read the a list of topics evaluated and interview questions before the interview”.

Results

Manipulation Check

Participants had to meet two standards in order to be included in the analysis—

completion of the asynchronous interview and accurate identification of their manipulation

group. A total of 261 people filled out the questionnaire; of the total, 135 completed the
 40

asynchronous interview. Considering only those applicants who completed the interview, 83

people accurately identified their manipulation group. Thus, the final sample size included 83

participants.

The study included a manipulation check to ensure participants were aware of the

information they received before the interview (i.e. transparency condition). Using helmert

contrast coding, the analysis revealed that the transparency manipulation did not have the

intended effect of participants (Table 1). Though the non-transparent, control group significantly

differed from the three transparency conditions, t(131) = 3.50, p < .001, the transparency

conditions did not significantly differ from one another, t(131) = -.83, p = .41; t(131) = .13, p =

.88. Thus, participants were able to accurately identify their condition when assigned to the non-

transparent group but less likely to identify their transparency condition when assigned to the

dimensions only, questions only, or questions and dimensions groups. The non-significant results

in the study are likely “due to a problem manipulating the independent variable” (Cozby &

Bates, 2011, p.159). The transparency manipulation may have not been strong or clear enough to

successfully impact applicants’ reactions. A more effective manipulation technique is needed to

test the hypotheses. Given these findings, the following results should be viewed with caution.

Statistical Analyses

Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities are reported in Table 2.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions increasing in degree of

transparency—non-transparent (n = 33), dimensions only (n = 20), questions only (n =13), and

dimensions and questions (n = 17). A single-factor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to

determine differences between the transparency groups and the respective outcomes (Table 3).

Hayes’s (2016) PROCESS model 4 for multicategorical independent variables was used to
 41

evaluate the proposed model—perceived difficulty and performance were included as controls in

all analyses (Table 4). Hypothesis 1 stated that transparency is positively related to

organizational attractiveness. The results revealed no significant differences between the

conditions (F(3,79) = 0.49, p = .69). Results indicated organizational attractiveness could not be

predicted by any transparency condition (dimensions only, β = 0.07, t(76) = .35, p = .73;

questions only, β = -0.09, t(76) = -.39, p = .70; dimensions and questions, β = 0.13, t(76) = .63, p

= .53). Thus, hypothesis 1 was not supported.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that transparency positively related to applicants’ perceptions of

procedural justice. Hypothesis 2 was not supported, there is no discernable difference between

the transparency conditions and applicants’ perceptions of procedural justice (F(3,79) = 1.32, p

= .28). Additionally, no level of transparency predicted perceptions of procedural justice

(dimensions only, β = 0.06, t(76) = .41, p = .67; questions only β = -0.23, t(76) = -1.41, p = .16;

dimensions and questions, β = -0.05, t(76) = -2.83, p = .35).

Likewise, hypothesis 3—interview transparency is positively related to applicants’

perceptions of informational justice—was not supported. Applicants’ from all four conditions

perceived the interview’s informational justice similarly (F(3,79) = 0.51, p = 68.). No level of

transparency positively related to informational justice (dimensions only, β = 0.08, t(76) = .43, p

= .67; questions only β = -0.10, t(76) = -.49, p = .63; dimensions and questions, β = 0.02, t(76) =

.13, p = .89).

Next, I predicted procedural and informational justice would positively relate to

organizational attractiveness (hypothesis 4 and 5). In line with previous research, a significant

correlation existed between procedural justice and organizational attractiveness (r = .26, p < .05)

as well as informational justice and organizational attractiveness (r = .36, p < .01). Hence, people
 42

who perceived the interview as procedurally and informationally just also found the organization

more attractive. The correlation results include all participants, regardless of transparency

condition.

Yet, inconsistent with existing research, analyses from this study revealed procedural

justice does not significantly predict organizational attractiveness (β = 0.07, t(76) = .35, p = .73),

thus, hypothesis 4 was not supported. The inconsistent findings may be due to the

operationalization of procedural justice, control variables, the interview style, and/or sample size

later explored in the discussion section. However, informational justice significantly predicted

organizational attractiveness (β = 0.33, t(76) = 1.98, p = .05). Applicants who perceived fair

treatment regarding the communication of explanations and interview information were more

attracted to the organization.

Hypothesis 6 and 7 predicted the effect of transparency on organizational attractiveness is

indirect through perceptions of procedural and informational justice. Unsurprisingly, neither

relationship was significant. At a 95% confidence interval, no indirect effect was statistically

significant. The bootstrapped unstandardized indirect effect through procedural justice was 0.004

[-0.04, 0.11] for dimensions, -0.02 [-0.18, 0.05] for questions, and -0.004 [-0.12, 0.04] for

questions and dimensions. The indirect effect through informational justice was 0.02 [-0.09,

0.17] for dimensions, -0.03 [-0.20, 0.09] for questions, and 0.01 [-0.10, 0.17] for questions and

dimensions.

Hypothesis 8 predicted that transparency will be positively related to faking behaviors.

The ANOVA results revealed there is not a significant difference between groups in regards to

applicants’ faking behaviors, F(3,79) = 0.23, p = .88. Thus, there was no difference in

participants’ admission of faking behaviors depending on the transparency manipulation group.

 43

Discussion

Test of Hypotheses

The purpose of this study was to determine whether varying degrees of transparency

impacted applicants’ reactions and faking behaviors during an interview. Drawing from

organizational justice theory (Gilliland, 1993) and signaling theory (Spence, 1973), I predicted

transparency would increase applicants’ attraction to the organization, perceptions of procedural

justice, and perceptions of informational justice. Further, I anticipated that transparency would

have an indirect relationship with organizational attraction through the perceptions of justice.

Applying Levashina and Campion’s (2006) faking behavior model, I predicted higher degrees of

transparency to increase applicants’ tendency to fabricate question responses in their interview.

The manipulation check revealed that the transparency manipulation was not strong or clear

enough to successfully impact applicants’ reactions. In light of this conclusion, it is probable that

the lack of significant findings is the result of an unsuccessful operationalization of transparency.

However, the main findings are discussed below.

Contrary to hypothesis 1, 2, and 3 increasing levels of transparency did not predict higher

levels of organizational attraction, perceptions of procedural justice, or perceptions of

informational justice in this study. In fact, no amount of transparency (i.e. dimensions, questions,

dimensions and questions) significantly impacted applicants’ reactions compared to more

traditional, non-transparent interviews. Further, the type of transparency employed prior to the

interview does not appear to make a significant impact on applicants’ perceptions of interview

fairness or faking behaviors.

Contrary to hypothesis 4, higher perceptions of procedural justice did not predict greater

attraction to the organization in this study. This finding does not support previous research (e.g.
 44

Macan et al., 2004; Bauer, Dolan, Maertz, & Campion, 1998; Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, &

Stoffey, 1993; Truxillo & Bauer, 1999). Reasons for the discrepancy may be due to various

factors. First, the sample size for each transparency condition is small. The study lacks statistical

power to reveal a significant relationship between procedural justice and organizational

attractiveness. Second, much research on applicant reactions operationalizes the reactions as

perceptions of procedural justice which pool procedural and informational items together

(Gilliand, 1993; Bauer, Truxillo, Sanchez, Ferrara, & Campion, 2001; Ryan & Ployhart, 2001).

Thus, significant results between the relationship between procedural justice and organizational

attractiveness found in other studies may be driven in part by informational justice factors.

Likewise, the measure of informational justice in this study may have diminished a true

relationship between procedural justice and organizational attractiveness. Last, this study

controls for perceptions of difficulty and performance as they are often related to justice

perceptions (Chapman & Zweig, 2005; Kluger & Rothstein, 1991; Van Vianen, Taris, Scholten,

& Schinkel, 2004; Chan, Schmitt, Jennings, Clause, & Delbridge, 1998). According to Rynes

and Ployhart (2001), many studies fail to consider applicant reactions beyond perceptions of

justice when predicting organizational outcomes. Therefore, it may be the case that past

significant relationships between procedural justice and organizational attractiveness are

confounded by unmeasured perceptions of difficulty and performance.

In support of hypothesis 5, higher perceptions of informational justice did predict greater

attraction to the organization. As noted by Colquitt (2001), attention to informational justice

separate from procedural justice provides unique information that could be used to enhance

positive organizational outcomes. Namely, the findings suggest organizational practices that

promote fairness by communicating explanations and information about the interview

 45

thoroughly, in a reasonable fashion, and in a timely manner likely engender perceptions of

organizational attractiveness among applicants. For example, interviewers may consider

providing applicants with an explanation for why the organization needs to discuss the

applicant’s leadership skills. Practically, the finding is important as applicant attraction to the

organization is a key source of competitive advantage (Rynes & Barber, 1990).

Hypothesis 6 and 7 predicted the effect of transparency on organizational attractiveness is

both direct and indirect through perceptions of procedural and informational justice. The

ANOVA results indicated no significant difference between the four transparency conditions and

the direct relationships with procedural justice, informational justice, or organizational

attractiveness. Understandably, the indirect relationship between the conditions and

organizational attractiveness was not significant.

A major disagreement regarding the use of transparency in selection processes revolves

around applicants’ ability to fake during the interview. Those in favor of transparency consider it

a “more honest and ethical” approach to the selection process (Morgeson et al., 2007, p. 693)

whereas non-supporters worry transparency promotes deception and falsification of question

responses (Comrey & Backer, 1975; Furnham, 1986; Levashina & Campion, 2007). The results

testing hypothesis 8 suggest that applicants are no more likely to fake responses in a non-

transparent interview than a transparent interview when self-reporting behaviors. According to

this study, the assumption applicants will fake more when provided clear explanations of

questions or the questions themselves before or during an interview does not appear to hold.

However, the results may also be non-significant due to the fact that applicants did not want to

admit to faking during the interview. Despite the fact that participants had no actual job offer to

lose, they may not have felt comfortable confessing to untruths.

 46

Practical Implications

A wealth of data suggests organizations should ensure interviews are fair in order to

promote positive organizational outcomes (e.g. job offer acceptance, organizational attraction;

Hausknetch, Day, & Thomas, 2004; Bauer et al., 1998). In line with justice theories,

informational justice appears to promote perceptions of organizational attractiveness. Though not

clearly signaled by transparency, the findings suggest organizations should consider promoting

informational justice to encourage applicants’ attraction to the organization. Organizations

should investigate different methods and techniques for clearly and honestly communicating and

explaining pertinent selection process information. Methods for improving perceptions of

informational justice include increasing the amount and richness of information shared with

applicants (Greenberg & Cropanzano, 1993).

The varying levels of transparency do not appear to make a difference is applicants’

faking behaviors, at the very least, whether they admit to faking during an interview. Based on

this preliminary finding, organizations may consider incorporating transparency for

psychometric benefits without great fear of promoting opportunities for applicants to blatantly

fake question responses. However, more research is needed on the link between transparency and

faking behaviors before interview transparency can be recommended to organizations.

Limitations

The study addresses an interesting area for future research. Yet, limitations prevent

conclusive interpretation of the results. First, the bulk of data was obtained from university

students interviewing for a hypothetical job at a fictitious organization; not from actual job

applicants. However, most participants were actively looking for a job and attended at least one

interview over the past year. The use of university students, fictional jobs, and organizations has
 47

been the common method among researchers conducting transparency related studies (e.g.

Melchers et al., 2009; Kleinmann, 1993; Kolk, Born, Van Der Flier, 2003; Melchers, Bosser,

Hartstein, & Kleinmann, 2012). Fabricating a job and organization prevents participants’ past

experiences and preconceived notions about a respective job and organization from confounding

results (Klehe, Konig, Richter, & Melchers, 2008).

Second, the strength of the manipulation may have been too subtle to detect differences

between interview groups. Research regarding transparency and interview performance noted

weak transparency manipulations were a potential cause of non-significant results (Kleinmann et

al., 2011). For example, Klehe et al. (2008) found a significant relationship between transparency

and performance when interviewers directly stated the targeted dimension before the question

but no difference when applicants received general dimension definitions. However, this study

intended to fill a research gap by evaluating differences among the assumed four levels of

increasing transparency as requested in the literature (Ingold, Kleinmann, Konig, & Melchers, in

press; Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014). Thus, including four conditions

instead of two was integral to the study. Future studies should establish stronger manipulations

with larger sample sizes to better explain relationships between transparency and applicant

reactions.

Third, the asynchronous interviewing method reduced my ability to control participants’

adherence to the study’s directions. The directions requested participants read and review the

information provided to them prior to the interview for 15 minutes. However, I was not able to

control the actual length of time participants dedicated to the task. Further, the survey medium is

incapable of recording the length of time spent on a particular page, thus, I was unable to

determine whether participants actually followed the directions provided. However, the
 48

estimated length of time to complete the study as directed was roughly 60 minutes and the

average time participants spent on the study in its entirety was 53 minutes. Therefore, it is

unlikely that not following directions hindered the results of the study.

Future Directions

This study is one of the first of its kind. Not only did it consider applicants’ reactions to

different levels of transparency, it also utilized an online interviewing process unique from the

more common face-to-face interview. The process alone is an area for future research. Applicant

reactions may differ depending on the interview medium—whether online, face-to-face, phone,

or other process tools. Future research should consider evaluating applicant reactions to the same

manipulation by various interview channels.

Though the findings revealed little about transparency as a structural component, it is not

without hope. With the limitations in mind, future research should consider the effects of

providing dimension definitions and questions prior to the interview on applicants’ anxiety

levels. Interview anxiety findings reveal that feelings of nervousness and apprehension during

interviews lead to reduced performance (McCarthy & Goffin, 2004) subsequently affecting

invitations for a second interview and job offers (Putwain, Conners, & Symes, 2010).

Transparency may reduce applicants’ anxiety by providing them with resources to better prepare

them for the interview. Further, the link between transparency and performance may be

indirectly related through applicant anxiety. Future research should consider not only the link

between transparency and performance (Klehe et al., 2008; Kleinmann et al., 1996; Smith-

Jentsch, 2007) but also potential mediating factors driving the relationship.

Second, future research should consider the effect of transparency on job offer

recommendations and the relative rank of candidates. Particularly in the case of question
 49

leakage, privy access to interview questions may give certain applicants an unfair advantage over

others. As transparency is related to higher interview performance, the inflated performance

scores may impact which applicants receive job offers and how the applicants’ are ranked against

one another.

Third, a major concern for the use of transparency is applicants’ increased opportunity to

fake question responses (Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, & Schmitt, 2007).

In this study, the varying levels of transparency do not appear to make a difference in applicants’

faking behaviors. However, the measure of faking behaviors were based off self-reports. Thus, it

is not clear whether the level of transparency had no impact on actual faking behaviors or simply

admission of faking during the interview. Applicants may not want to admit to fabricating

responses for fear of negative consequences. Future research should consider other methods for

measuring interview faking to provide a more clear explanation of the relationship

Last, researchers should consider how transparency affects interviewers’ ability to

discriminate between applicants. Receiving dimension explanations and/or questions before the

interview is expected to help applicants improve their interview performance. Thus, interviewers

may find it difficult to pinpoint subtle differences between numerous high performers.

Interviewers may rely on outside biases, for example, similarity to the applicant or applicant’s

attractiveness, to make high stakes decisions, thus, reducing the structure of the interview.

Conclusions

This study is an early look into the utility of interview transparency in selection systems.

Though the impact of transparency cannot be explained from this study, the findings set

grounding for other important transparency questions such as how should varying degrees of

transparency be defined?; Is there a level of transparency that must be met in order to affect
 50

applicant perceptions and behaviors? Further, this study adds to the justice literature by

analyzing perceptions of procedural justice and informational justice separately. The findings

suggest procedural justice and informational justice have different relationships with

organizational attractiveness supporting the argument that they are distinct constructs (e.g.

Colquitt, Wesson, Conlon, & Ng, 2001; Barling & Phillips, 1993; Cropanzano & Prehar, 1993).

Though not central to the study, this experiment contributes to research practices by

employing an asynchronous interview method to assess the selection process. The majority of

interview research is conducted through face-to-face interactions despite the fact that more

organizations are conducting interviews over webcam. My methodology demonstrates how

researchers can better mirror actual organizational practices and, ultimately, decrease the

research gaps between scientists and practitioners. In summary, the effect of interview

transparency on applicant reactions remains unclear.

 51

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental

social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, C. A. (2007). Likert Scales and Data Analyses. Quality Progress, 40(7), 64-65.

Alliger, G. M., & Dwight, S. A. (2000). A meta-analytic investigation of the susceptibility of integrity

tests to faking and coaching. Educational And Psychological Measurement, 60(1), 59-72.

doi:10.1177/00131640021970367

Arvey, R.D., & Sackett, P.R. (1993). Fairness in selection: Current developments and perspectives. In N.

Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 171-202). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Arvey, R., Strickland, W., Drauden, G., & Martin, C. (1990). Motivational components of test

taking. Personnel Psychology, 43695-716.

Barbera, K. M., Ryan, A. M.. Desmarais. L. B., & Dyer, P. J. (1995). Multimedia employment tests:

Effects of attitudes and experiences on validity. Presented at the Tenth Annual Conference of the

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Orlando, FL

Barling, J., & Phillips, M. (1993). Interactional, formal, and distributive justice in the workplace: An

exploratory study. The Journal Of Psychology: Interdisciplinary And Applied, 127(6), 649-656.

doi:10.1080/00223980.1993.9914904

Baron, R. A. (1983). “Sweet smell of success”? The impact of pleasant artificial scents on evaluations of

job applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 709–713.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

 52

Baskin, M. E. B., Zeni, T. A. and Buckley, M. R. (2014), Understanding Applicant Withdrawal: Can

organizations prevent it and should they even try?. International Journal of Selection and

Assessment, 22, 190–198. doi: 10.1111/ijsa.12068

Bauer, T. N., Maertz, C. J., Dolen, M. R., & Campion, M. A. (1998). Longitudinal assessment of

applicant reactions to employment testing and test outcome feedback. Journal Of Applied

Psychology, 83(6), 892-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.892

Bauer, T.N., McCarthy, J., Anderson, N., Truxillo, D.M., & Salgado, J.F. (2012). What we know about

applicant reactions on attitudes and behavior: Research summary and best practices. SIOP IAC

White Paper Series, 1-36.

Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Sanchez, R. J., Craig, J. M., Ferrara, P., & Campion, M. A. (2001).

Applicant reactions to selection: Development of the selection procedural justice scale (SPJS).

Personnel Psychology, 54(2), 387-419.

Bauer, T.N., Truxillo, D.M., Tucker, J.S., Weathers, V., Bertolino, M., Erdogan, B., & Campion, M.A.

(2006). Selection in the information age: The impact of privacy concerns and computer

experience on applicant reactions. Journal of Management, 32(5), 601-621. doi:

10.1177/0149206306289829

Behling, O., Labovitz, G., & Gainer, M. (1968). College recruiting: A theoretical basis. Personnel

Journal 47, 13-19.

Beugre. C.D. (2007). A cultural perspective of organizational justice. United States: IAP-Information

Age Publishing, Inc.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J.

Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations

(Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

 53

Bolino, M.C., Kacmar, K.M., Turnley, W.H., & Gilstrap, J.B. 2008. A multi-level review of impression-

management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34, 1080-1109.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Employment Projections 2012 - 2022. Retrieved from

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecopro.pdf

Campion, M.A., Palmer, D.K. & Campion, J.E. (1997) A review of structure in the selection interview,

Personnel Psychology, 50: 655–702.

Carless, S. A., & Imber, A. (2007). The influence of perceived interviewer and job and organizational

characteristics on applicant attraction and job choice intentions: The role of applicant

anxiety. International Journal Of Selection And Assessment, 15(4), 359-371. doi:10.1111/j.1468-

2389.2007.00395.x

Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2004). An Agenda for Future Research on Applicant Reactions to Selection

Procedures: A Construct-Oriented Approach. International Journal Of Selection And

Assessment, 12(1-2), 9-23. doi:10.1111/j.0965-075X.2004.00260.x

Chan, D., Schmitt, N., Jennings, D., Clause, C., & Delbridge, K. (1998). Applicant perceptions of test

fairness: Integrating justice and self-serving bias perspectives. International Journal of Selection

and Assessment, 6(4), 232-239.

Chapman, D. S., & Zweig, D. I. (2005). Developing a nomological network for interview structure:

Antecedents and consequences of the structured selection interview. Personnel Psychology,

58(3), 673-702. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00516.x

Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., & Webster, J. (2003). Applicant reactions to face-to-face and

technology-mediated interviews: A field investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5),

944-953.
 54

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a

measure. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386

Colquitt, J. A. (2012). Organizational justice. In S. J. Kozlowski (Ed.) , The Oxford handbook of

organizational psychology, (Vol. 1, pp. 526-547). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the

millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal Of

Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

Comrey, A. L., & Backer, T. E. (1975). Detection of faking on the Comrey Personality Scales.

Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10, 311–319.

Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and

assessment. Journal Of Management, 37(1), 39-67. doi:10.1177/0149206310388419

Conway, J. M., & Peneno, G. M. (1999). Comparing structured interview question types: Construct

validity and applicant reactions. Journal Of Business And Psychology, 13(4), 485-506.

doi:10.1023/A:1022914803347

Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2003). Situational and patterned behavior description interviews: A

comparison of their validity, correlates, and perceived fairness. Human Performance, 16(1), 25-

47.

Deutsch, M. (1975) Equity, equality and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis

for distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137-149.

Dipboye, R.L. & Gaugler, B.B. (1993). Cognitive and behavioral processes in the selection interview. In

N.Schmitt & W.C. Borman (Eds.) Personnell selection in organizations (pp. 135-170). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 55

Dipboye, R. L., Macan, T. H., & Shahani-Denning, C. (2012). The selection interview from the

interviewer and applicant perspectives: Can't have one without the other. In N. Schmitt (Ed.),

The Oxford handbook of personnel assessment and selection (pp. 323-352). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Dipboye RL. (1994). Structured and unstructured selection interviews: Beyond the job-fit model. In

Ferris GR (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management: (Vol 12, pp. 79-123).

Greenwich, CTi JAI Press.

Ehrhart, K. H., & Ziegert, J. C. (2005). Why Are Individuals Attracted to Organizations?. Journal Of

Management, 31(6), 901-919. doi:10.1177/0149206305279759

Ellis, A. J., West, B. J., Ryan, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). The use of impression management

tactics in structured interviews: A function of question type?. Journal Of Applied Psychology,

87(6), 1200-1208. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1200

Farago, B., Zide, J. S., & Shahani-Denning, C. (2013). Selection interviews: Role of interviewer

warmth, interview structure, and interview outcome in applicants’ perceptions of

organizations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice And Research, 65(3), 224-239.

doi:10.1037/a0034300

Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence

perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447-488.

Fletcher, C. (1990). The relationships between candidate personality, self-presentation strategies, and

interviewer assessments in selection interviews: An empirical study. Human Relations, 43, 739–

749.

Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability, and dissimulation. Personality and Individual

Differences, 7, 385–400.
 56

Gilliland, S. W., & Hale, J. S. (2005). How Can Justice Be Used to Improve Employee Selection

Practices?. In J. Greenberg, J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 411-

438). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice

perspective. The Academy Of Management Review, 18(4), 694-734. doi:10.2307/258595

Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection

system. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 691-701. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.691

Gililand, S.W. (1995). Fairness from the applicant's perspective: Reactions to employee selection

procedures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 3, 11-19.

Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review,

12, 9–22.

Greenberg, J. (1990).Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management,

16, 399-432

Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational

classes of organizational justice. Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human

resource management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Guchait, P., Ruetzler, T., Taylor, J., & Toldi, N. (2014). Video interviewing: A potential selection tool

for hospitality managers – A study to understand applicant perspective. International Journal Of

Hospitality Management, 3690-100. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.08.004

Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An

updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 639-683. doi:10.1111/j.1744-

6570.2004.00003.x
 57

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,

moderation, and conditional process modeling. White paper series. Retrieved from

http://www.afhayes.com/ public/process2012.pdf

Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical

independent variable. British Journal Of Mathematical And Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451-

470. doi:10.1111/bmsp.12028

Higgins, R. L., Snyder, C. R., & Berglas, S. (1990). Self-handicapping: The paradox that isn’t. New

York: Plenum Press.

Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Organization Attraction Scale. Psyctests,

doi:10.1037/t08571-000

Homans, G. (1961). Social Behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Hoyt, C. L., & Blascovich, J. (2010). Perceived Performance Measure. Psyctests,

doi:10.1037/t11513000

Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-

level jobs. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 184-190. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.184

Hülsheger, U. R., & Anderson, N. (2009). Candidate perspectives in selection: Going beyond preference

reactions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 335-345.

Ingold, P. V., Kleinmann, M., König, C. J., & Melchers, K. G. (in press). Transparency of assessment

centers: Lower criterion-related validity but greater opportunity to perform? Personnel

Psychology. (PDF)

Jansen, A., Lievens, F., Melchers, K.G., Kleinmann, M., Brandli, M., Fraefel, L., & Konig, C.J. (2013).

Situation assessment as an ignored factor in the behavioral consistency paradigm underlying the
 58

validity of personnel selection procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 326-341. doi:

10.1037/a0031257

Jex, S.M. (2002). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach. New York: John Wiley

& Sons.

Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1999). Effectiveness of impression management tactics across human

resource situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(6), 1293-1315.

Kacmar, M. K., Delery, J. E., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). Differential effectiveness of applicant impression

management tactics on employment interview decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

22, 1250-1272.

Klehe, U., König, C. J., Richter, G. M., Kleinmann, M., & Melchers, K. G. (2008). Transparency in

structured interviews: Consequences for construct and criterion-related validity. Human

Performance, 21(2), 107-137. doi:10.1080/08959280801917636

Kleinmann, M., & Klehe, U. (2011). Selling oneself: Construct and criterion-related validity of

impression management in structured interviews. Human Performance, 24(1), 29-46.

doi:10.1080/08959285.2010.530634

Kleinmann, M. (1993). Are rating dimensions in assessment centers transparent for participants?

Consequences for criterion and construct validity. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 988-

993. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.988

Kluger, A. N., & Rothstein, H. R. (1993). The influence of selection test type on applicant reactions to

employment testing. Journal Of Business And Psychology, 8(1), 3-25. doi:10.1007/BF02230391

Kolk, N. J., Born, M. P., & van der Flier, H. (2003). The transparent assessment centre: The effects of

revealing dimensions to candidates. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 648-668.

doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00156
 59

König, C. J., Melchers, K. G., Kleinmann, M., Richter, G. M., & Klehe, U. (2007). Candidates' ability to

identify criteria in nontransparent selection procedures: Evidence from an assessment center and

a structured interview. International Journal Of Selection And Assessment, 15(3), 283-292.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00388.x

Kuo, C., & Chang, S. (2011). The employment interview structure: A field study of perceived

procedural justice and applicant reactions. Chinese Journal Of Psychology, 53(1), 97-114.

Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (1984). Do people do what they say? Further studies on the situational

interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 569–573.

Latham, G. P. & Finnegan, B. (1993). Perceived practicality of unstructured, patterned, and situational

interviews. In Schuler, H., Farr, J.L., & Smith, M. (Eds.) Personnel Selection and Assessment.

Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Latham, G. P.,& Sue-Chan, C. (1999). A meta-analysis of the situational interview: An enumerative

review of reasons for its validity. Canadian Psychology, 40, 56–67.

Leary, M. R. (1995). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press

Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2006). A Model of Faking Likelihood in the Employment

Interview. International Journal Of Selection & Assessment, 14(4), 299-316. doi:10.1111/j.1468-

2389.2006.00353.x

Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2007). Measuring faking in the employment interview: Development

and validation of an interview faking behavior scale. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 92(6),

1638-1656. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1638
 60

Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employment

interview: Narrative and quantitative review of the research literature. Personnel

Psychology, 67(1), 241-293. doi:10.1111/peps.12052

Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L.

Berkowitz & W. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91–

131). New York: Academic Press.

Leventhal, G. S. 1980. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of

fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange:

Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum.

Lievens, F., & Harris, M. M. 2003. Research on Internet recruitment and testing: Current status and

future directions. In I. Robertson & C. Cooper (Eds.), The international review of industrial and

organizational psychology (pp. 131-165). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Macan, T. (2009). The employment interview: A review of current studies and directions for future

research. Human Resource Management Review, 19(3), 203-218.

doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.006

Macan, T. H., Avedon, M. J., Paese, M., & Smith, D. E. (1994). The effects of applicants' reactions to

cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47(4), 715-738.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01573.x

Maertz, C. J., Bauer, T. N., Mosley, D. J., Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. (2004). Do Procedural

Justice Perceptions in a Selection Testing Context Predict Applicant Attraction and Intention

Toward the Organization?. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 34(1), 125-145.

doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02540.x
 61

Mahony, D.F., Mondello, M., Hums, M.A., & Judd, M. (2006). Recruiting and retaining sport

management faculty: Factors affecting job choice. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 414-430.

Marcus, B. (2009). 'Faking' from the applicant's perspective: A theory of self-presentation in personnel

selection settings. International Journal Of Selection And Assessment, 17(4), 417-430.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00483.x

Maurer, T. J., Solamon, J. M. and Lippstreu, M. (2008), How does coaching interviewees affect the

validity of a structured interview?. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 29, 355–371.

doi: 10.1002/job.512

McCarthy, J. & Goffin, R. (2004). Measuring job interview anxiety: Beyond weak knees and sweaty

palms. Personnel Psychology, 57, 607-637.

McCarthy, J. M., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Lievens, F., Kung, M.-C., Sinar, E. F., & Campion, M. A.

(2013). Do Candidate Reactions Relate to Job Performance or Affect Criterion-Related Validity?

A Multistudy Investigation of Relations Among Reactions, Selection Test Scores, and Job

Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0034089

McGregor, D. (1989). The human side of enterprise. In J. W. Newstrom & K. Davis (Eds.),

Organizational behavior (pp. 14-24). New York: Mc-Graw Hill.

Melchers, K.G., Bosser, D., Hartstein, T., & Kleinmann, M. (2012). Assessment of situational demans in

a selection interview: Reflective style or sensitivity? International Journal of Selection and

Assessment, 20(4), 475-485.

Melchers, K. G., Klehe, U., Richter, G. M., Kleinmann, M., Konig, C. J., & Lievens, F. (2009). I know

what you want to know: The impact of interviewees' ability to identify criteria on interview

performance and construct-related validity. Human Performance, 22(4), 355-374.

doi:10.1080/08959280903120295
 62

Murphy, K.R. (1986). When your top choice turns you down: Effects of rejected offers on utility of

selection tests. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 133-138.

O'Boyle Jr., E. & Aguinis, H. (2012). The best and the rest: Revisiting the norm of normality of

individual performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 79-119

Ones, D.S. & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects of social desirability and faking on personality and

integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance, 11, 245-270.

Ployhart, R. E., & Harold, C. M. (2004). The Applicant Attribution–Reaction Theory (AART): An

integrative theory of applicant attributional processing. International Journal of Selection and

Assessment, 12, 84–98.

Ployhart, R. E., & Ryan, A. M. (1997). Toward an explanation of applicant reactions: An examination of

organizational fairness and attribution frameworks. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 72, 308–335.

Ployhart, R.E., Ryan, A.M., & Bennet, M. (1999). Explanations for selection decisions: Applicants'

reactions to information and sensitivity features of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology,

84, 87-106.

Purdue University Online Writing Lab. (2015). Introduction and expectations for résumés. Retrieved

from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/564/1/

Putwain, D., Connors, L., & Symes, W. (2010). Do cognitive distortions mediate the test anxiety-

examination performance relationship? Educational Psychology, 30, 11-26.

Ralston, S.M. & Brady, R. (1994). The relative influence of communication satisfaction on applicant

recruitment interview decisions. Journal of Business Communications, 37(1), 61-77.

 63

Roulin, N., Bangerter, A. & Levashina, J. (2015), Honest and deceptive impression management in the

employment interview: Can it be detected and how does it impact evaluations?. Personnel

Psychology, 68: 395–444. doi: 10.1111/peps.12079

Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2000). Applicants' perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: A

critical review and agenda for the future. Journal Of Management, 26(3), 565-606.

doi:10.1177/014920630002600308

Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D., & Gerhart, B. (1991). The importance of recruitment in job choice: A

different way of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44(3), 487-521. doi:10.1111/j.1744-

6570.1991.tb02402.x

Rynes, S., & Connerley, M. (1993). Applicant reactions to alternative selection procedures. Journal of

Business and Psychology, 7, 261-277.

Rynes, S. (1993). When recruitment fails to attract: Individual expectations meet organizational realities

in recruitment. In Schuler, H., Farr, J.L., & Smith, M. (Eds.) Personnel selection and assessment.

Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rynes, S.L., Bretz, R.D., & Gerhart, B. (1990). The importance of recruitment in job choice: A different

way of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44, 487-521.

Saks, A. M., & McCarthy, J. M. (2006). Effects of discriminatory interview questions and gender on

applicant reactions. Journal Of Business And Psychology, 21(2), 175-191. doi:10.1007/s10869-

006-9024-7

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal

relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schmidt, F.L., & Zimmerman, R.D. (2004). A counterintuitive hypothesis about employment interview

validity and some supporting evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 553-561.
 64

Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1997). Applicant withdrawal: The role of test-taking attitudes and racial

differences. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 855-876. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01485.x

Scullen, S.E. (2013). What if the preferred applicant rejects a job offer? A look at smaller applicant

pools. Journal of Business Psychology, 28, 331-344. doi: 10.1007/s10869-012-9280-7

Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey, R. W. (1993). Applicant reactions

to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 49-76.

Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2007). The impact of making targeted dimensions transparent on relations with

typical performance predictors. Human Performance, 20(3), 187-203.

doi:10.1080/08959280701332992

Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355-374.

Spitzmüller, C., Neumann, E., Spitzmüller, M., Rubino, C., Keeton, K. E., Sutton, M. T., & Manzey, D.

(2008). Assessing the influence of psychosocial and career mentoring on organizational

attractiveness. International Journal Of Selection And Assessment, 16(4), 403-415.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00444.x

Stevens, C.K. & Kristof, A.L. (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of applicant

impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5), 587-606.

doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.

Stone, E. F., & Stone, D. L. (1990). Privacy in organizations: Theoretical issues, research findings, and

protection mechanisms. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 8, 349–411.

Stone, D.L., Lukaszewski, K.M., Stone-Romeron, E.F., & Johnson, T.L. (2013). Factors affecting the

effectiveness and acceptance of electronic selection systems. Human Resource Management

Review, 23, 50-70. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.06.006

 65

Stouffer, S.A., Suchman, E.A., DeVinney, L.C., Starr, S.A., & Willimans, R.M. (1949). The American

soldier: Adjustment to army life (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeston University Press.

Tedeschi, J.T. & Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation, and the self. In B.R. Schlenker

(Ed.), The self and social life. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thorsteinson, T.J. and Ryan, A.M. (1997) The Effect of Selection Ratio on Perceptions of the Fairness

of a Selection Test Battery. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5, 159–168.

Times Business Solutions. (2014). Companies get tech help from mass hiring this season. SHRM: Times

Jobs Insight Hiring and Beyond. Retrieved from www.shrm.org/india/hr-buzz/news/pages/hr-

news---18-december-2014.aspx

Truxillo, D. M., & Bauer, T. N. (1999). Applicant reactions to test score banding in entry-level and

promotional contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 322-339.

Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., Campion, M. A., & Paronto, M. E. (2002). Selection fairness information

and applicant reactions: A longitudinal field study. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1020-

1031. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1020

Turban, D. B. (2001). Organizational attractiveness as an employer on college campuses: An

examination of the applicant population. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58 293-312.

Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural

justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 77-98).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

van Vianen, A. M., Taris, R., Scholten, E., & Schinkel, S. (2004). Perceived Fairness in Personnel

Selection: Determinants and Outcomes in Different Stages of the Assessment

 66

Procedure. International Journal Of Selection And Assessment, 12(1-2), 149-159.

doi:10.1111/j.0965-075X.2004.00270.x

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Weick, K. E. (1966) The concept of equity in the perception of pay. Administrative Science Quarterly,

I1, 414-439.

Weiss, B. and Feldman, R. S. (2006), Looking good and lying to do it: Deception as an impression

management strategy in job interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36: 1070–1086.

doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00055.x

Young, I.P., Rinehart, J., & Place, A.W. (1989). Theories for teacher selection: Objective,

subjective, and critical contact. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 329-336.

 Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Accurate Identification of the Transparency Condition

Correct Manipulation

N M SD

Non-Transparent 39 .85 .37

Dimensions 42 .48 .51

Questions 23 .57 .51

Questions and Dimensions 31 .61 .49

Total 135 .61 .49

Note. N = 135. Correct Manipulation = Participant accurately identified the
transparency condition he/she was assigned. No = 0, Yes = 1.
 Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Procedural Justice 4.17 .56 (.80)

2. Informational Justice 4.31 .66 .721** (.88)

3. Organizational Attractiveness 4.00 .69 .263* .362** (.93)

4. Faking 2.02 .85 -.295* -.172 -.331** (.97)

5. Performance 3.02 .97 .362** .417** .211 -.328** (.92)

6. Difficulty 2.76 .89 -.457** -.377** -.055 .395** -.633** (.78)

Note. N = 83. **p < .01, *p < .05. Reliabilities indicated in parentheses. Correlations calculated for the complete sample
not within condition.
 Table 3

Analysis of Variance by Transparency Group

Manipulation Group

Variables Non- Questions and

Dimensions Questions
Transparent Dimensions
F ŋ2 M SD M SD M SD M SD
Organizational Attractiveness .44 .02 3.94 .65 4.11 .85 3.90 .57 4.12 .65

Procedural Justice .31 .01 4.19 .57 4.25 .70 4.05 .49 4.17 .48

Informational Justice .30 .01 4.27 .77 4.44 .58 4.27 .72 4.32 .50

Faking Behavior .18 .01 1.93 .79 2.01 .81 2.14 1.02 2.05 .94

Performance .85 .03 2.84 1.02 3.27 .97 3.10 1.07 3.02 .76

Difficulty .67 .02 2.79 .98 2.53 .94 2.90 .73 2.90 .77

Note. N= 83. Degrees of freedom between groups= 3, within groups=79.

 Table 4

Direct and Indirect Effects for Mediation Models.

Direct Effects β (SE)

Procedural Informational Org. Attractiveness
Constant 4.65 (.41)** 4.07 (.50)** 1.34 (.89)*
Dimensions .06 (.14) .08 (.18) .07 (.19)
Questions -.23 (.17) -.10 (.20) -.09 (.22)
Questions and Dimensions -.05 (.15) .02 (.19) .13 (.20)
Procedural .07 (.20)
Informational .33 (.17)*
Controls
Performance .07 (.08) .20 (.09)* .14 (.10)
Difficulty -.23 (.08)** -.13 (.10) .18 (.12)

R2 .225** .20** .17*

F 5.17** 3.85** 2.18*
Indirect Effects
through Procedural through Informational
Effect (SE) 95% CI Effect (SE) 95% CI
Dimension .00 (.03) -.04, .11 .02 (.06) -.09, .17
Questions -.02 (.06) -.18, .05 -.03 (.07) -.20, .09
Questions and Dimensions .01 (.01) -.12, .04 .01 (.07) -.10, .17
N = 83. **p < .01, *p < .05. Transparency groups are categorical in reference to non-transparent condition. CI= Confidence Interval.
 Appendix A

Entry Level Management Interview Questions

1. Imagine friends or colleagues ask you to critique an important presentation they plan to

propose tomorrow. During the presentation, you see some significant errors. How would you

provide them with feedback?

2. In the last presentation you gave, what did you do to engage your audience?

3. Imagine a person on your project team is falling behind and seems uninterested in the work.

How would you motivate this person to catch up with the rest of the group?

4. Describe a successful team project in which you held a leadership role. What strategies did

you use to lead the team and what made the team so successful?

5. In your opinion, what are the key elements to building and maintaining a positive

relationship with colleagues?

6. Tell me about a time when you went above and beyond to make someone feel welcome in a

new group. What was the situation, what did you do, and how did it turn out?

7. What are your career aspirations and how might this position fit in with your plans?

8. What values do you believe are most important for an organization to uphold?

9. What experience do you have working more than 8 hours per day and working weekends?

Are you willing to work during those times if needed?

 72

Appendix B

Organization Description

World Tech is a technology company headquartered in the US. World Tech designs

and develops advanced tools for leading organizations and hospitals. It was recently recognized

for designing environmentally friendly pipeline systems off the coast of Australia. World Tech

employees about 30,000 employees in 50 locations in North America, South America, Europe,

Africa, Asia, and Australia. World Tech is built on a foundation of core values: teamwork,

integrity, diversity, performance, and protection of people and the environment. Their core

values guide all business operations. In January 2015, World Tech was named one of the best

places to work by Forbes Leadership; employees report high satisfaction with pay, work-life

balance, and career opportunities.

Entry Level Management Job Description

Job Summary

World Tech is hiring entry level team members with the drive to succeed and motivation to learn

the fundamentals of management. Professionals will work with experienced supervisors to gain

knowledge and skills required for leadership within the company.

Primary Responsibilities

 Evaluate team members' work output

 Participate in interviewing, selection, and training processes of new employees

 Analyze reports and provide recommendations to improve business processes

 Learn staff functions in departments including marketing, sales, and customer service
 73

 Lead team meetings on select topics

Minimum Requirements

 Strong communication, critical thinking, and analytical skills

 Proficiency in Microsoft Office programs

 Experience with public speaking

 Domestic and international travel may be required

 74

Appendix C
Pre-Interview Manipulations
Non-Transparent Control
Formatting a Resume
A resume is used by applicants to summarize their past education and employment experiences.
Employers review resumes during the employee selection process.
What to Include
 Contact Information
o Name
o Address
o Phone number
o Email
 Education
o Degree field (e.g. Psychology)
o Level of degree earned (e.g. B.A., M.A.)
o Name of institution
o Date of graduation
o Level of degree earned
 Work Experience
o Name and location of organization
o Dates of employment
o Position title
o Duties performed
 Optional sections
o Skills
o Honors and awards
o Certifications
Resume Design
 Create a balanced page by using columns to format text
 Use the same, easy to read font throughout the resume
 Capitalize, italicize, bold, or underline important information
 75

Resume Example

Jane Doe

1234 Woodbridge St. • Berkeley, CA 94700

PHONE 510-555-9876 • E-MAIL JaneDoe@berkeley.edu

EDUCATION Aug 2011-May 2015

University of California, Berkeley, CA

Bachelor of Arts in Engineering

Minor in Business Management

WORK EXPERIENCE

Instructional Design Intern May 2014- Jan. 2015

Google

Palo Alto, CA

 Managed the design of training programs used for the finance community

 Reviewed technical and functional training courses for quality

 Presented project deliverables to team members and upper management

Instructional Assistant Aug. 2012- May 2013

University of California, Berkeley

Berkeley, CA
 Tutor students in research, statistics, and algebra courses

 Grade students’ homework and exams

 Collect data on student exam performance to evaluate question quality

ADDITIONAL SKILLS

 SPSS statistical analysis system

 Microsoft Word, Excel, Processor, and PowerPoint

 76

Dimensions Only Manipulation

Interview Dimensions

Effective Communication

 Presents information in a clear and succinct manner

 Adapts communication style to the audiences’ needs

 Accurately deciphers verbal and non-verbal information provided by others

 Ensures others receive and understand intended messages

Leadership

 Assigns work functions to others appropriately to maximize organizational effectiveness

 Guides peers/subordinates towards successful performance

 Encourages others to perform at the best of their ability

 Contributes to team success

 Uses sound methods and a flexible interpersonal style to help develop others' skills

 Upholds organizational values and standards

Building/Maintaining Relationships

 Considerate of the feelings and needs of others when/before taking action

 Demonstrates an appreciation for diversity

 Relates well with others

 Develops trust and credibility with others

 Finds common ground and solves problems for the common good
 77

Questions Only Manipulation

Interview Questions

1. Imagine friends or colleagues ask you to critique an important presentation they plan to

propose tomorrow. During the presentation, you see some significant errors. How would

you provide them with feedback?

2. In the last presentation you gave, what did you do to engage your audience?

3. Imagine a person on your project team is falling behind and seems uninterested in the

work. How would you motivate this person to catch up with the rest of the group?

4. Describe a successful team project in which you held a leadership role. What strategies

did you use to lead the team and what made the team so successful?

5. In your opinion, what are the key elements to building and maintaining a positive

relationship with colleagues?

6. Tell me about a time when you went above and beyond to make someone feel welcome

in a new group. What was the situation, what did you do, and how did it turn out?

7. What are your career aspirations and how might this position fit in with your plans?

8. What values do you believe are most important for an organization to uphold?

9. What experience do you have working more than 8 hours per day and working

weekends? Are you willing to work during those times if needed?

 78

Questions and Dimensions Manipulation

Interview Questions and Dimensions

Questions

1. Imagine friends or colleagues ask you to critique an important presentation they plan to

propose tomorrow. During the presentation, you see some significant errors. How would

you provide them with feedback?

2. In the last presentation you gave, what did you do to engage your audience?

3. Imagine a person on your project team is falling behind and seems uninterested in the

work. How would you motivate this person to catch up with the rest of the group?

4. Describe a successful team project in which you held a leadership role. What strategies

did you use to lead the team and what made the team so successful?

5. In your opinion, what are the key elements to building and maintaining a positive

relationship with colleagues?

6. Tell me about a time when you went above and beyond to make someone feel welcome

in a new group. What was the situation, what did you do, and how did it turn out?

7. What are your career aspirations and how might this position fit in with your plans?

8. What values do you believe are most important for an organization to uphold?

9. What experience do you have working more than 8 hours per day and working

weekends? Are you willing to work during those times if needed?

Interview Dimensions

Effective Communication

 Presents information in a clear and succinct manner

 Adapts communication style to the audiences’ needs

 79

 Accurately deciphers verbal and non-verbal information provided by others

 Ensures others receive and understand intended messages

Leadership

 Assigns work functions to others appropriately to maximize organizational effectiveness

 Guides peers/subordinates towards successful performance

 Encourages others to perform at the best of their ability

 Contributes to team success

 Uses sound methods and a flexible interpersonal style to help develop others' skills

 Upholds organizational values and standards

Building/Maintaining Relationships

 Considerate of the feelings and needs of others when/before taking action

 Demonstrates an appreciation for diversity

 Relates well with others

 Develops trust and credibility with others

 Finds common ground and solves problems for the common good
 80

Appendix D

Measures

Demographics

1. What is your email address?

2. What is your gender?

3. What is your age in years?

4. What is your race?

5. What is your major?

Interview Experience

1. How many employment interviews have you completed in the past year?

2. How many employment interviews have you completed in your lifetime?

3. Will you be looking for a job in the next year?

4. Have you ever attended an interview workshop?

Work Experience

1. Are you currently employed?

2. How many years of work experience do you have?

Organizational Justice

1. I was able to express my views and feelings during the interview.

2. I had influence over the outcome of the interview.

3. The interview procedure was applied consistently.

4. The interview procedure was free from bias.

5. The interview procedure was based on accurate information.

6. The interview procedure upheld ethical and moral standards.

 81

7. The interview information provided to me was truthful.

8. The interview procedure was explained thoroughly.

9. The explanation about the interview procedure was reasonable.

10. Interview details were provided to me in a timely manner.

Organizational Attraction Scale

1. For me, this company would be a good place to work.

2. I would not be interested in this company except as a last resort. (R)

3. This company is attractive to me as a place for employment.

4. I am interested in learning more about this company.

5. A job at this company is very appealing to me.

6. I would accept a job offer from this company.

7. If this company invited me for a job interview, I would go.

8. I would exert a great deal of effort to work for this company.

9. I would recommend this company to a friend looking for a job.

Faking Behaviors

1. I told fictional stories prepared in advance of the interview to best present my credentials.

2. I fabricated examples to show my fit with the organization.

3. I made up stories about my work experiences that were well developed and logical.

4. I constructed fictional stories to explain the gaps in my work experiences.

5. I told stories that contained both real and fictional work experiences.

6. I combined, modified and distorted my work experiences in my answers.

7. I used made-up stories for most questions.

8. I claimed that I have skills that I do not have.

 82

9. I made up measurable outcomes of performed tasks.

10. I claimed work experiences that I do not actually have.

11. I promised that I could meet all job requirements (e.g., working late or on weekends),

even though I probably could not.

12. I misrepresented the description of an event.

13. I stretched the truth to give a good answer.

14. I invented some work situations or accomplishments that did not really occur.

15. I told some “little white lies” in the interview.

16. My answers were based on examples of job performance of other employees.

17. When I did not have a good answer, I borrowed work experiences of other people and

made them sound like my own.

18. I used other people’s experiences to create answers when I did not have good experiences

of my own.

19. I described team accomplishments as primarily my own.

20. I said that I am an expert in an area even though I am only familiar with it.

21. I said that it would take less time to learn the job than I knew it would.

22. I exaggerated my future goals.

23. I exaggerated my responsibilities on my previous jobs.

24. I exaggerated the impact of my performance in my past jobs.

25. I used examples of my best performance to answer questions about my everyday

performance.

26. I enhanced my fit with the job in terms of attitudes, values, or beliefs.

27. I inflated the fit between my values and goals and values and goals of the organization.
 83

28. I inflated the fit between my credentials and needs of the organization.

29. I tried to use information about the company to make my answers sound like I was a

better fit than I actually was.

Perceived Difficulty

1. I found the interview difficult.

2. I had difficulty coming up with good answers to the questions.

3. I did not perform well in the interview.

4. The questions were easy to answer. (R)

Perceived Performance

1. I performed well in the interview.

2. I feel that I just did a good job in the interview.

3. I am content with how well I did in the interview.

Interview Transparency Manipulation Check

1. What information were you given before the interview in addition to the job and

organization description?

o Guidelines on how to format a resume.

o A list of interview descriptions.

o A list of interview questions.

o A list of interview questions and descriptions.