The Employment Interview: A Review of Current Studies and Directions for Future Research

1. The Employment Interview: A Review of Current Studies and Directions for Future Research Taylor Howard

2. Overview of Article • Overview of important aspects regarding: • Interview and interviewer factors at play during an interview • Structured vs. unstructured • How applicant factors and characteristics affect the interview • Demographics • Directions for future studies • Limitations

3. Basic Interview Types Structured Unstructured Fly by the seat of your pants No guidance Every interview is different • Calculated, rigid, formulaic • Treat all applicants equally • Also known as: • Situational, Behavioral, Conventional structured, or Structured situational

4. PART 1 Interview and Interviewer Factors

5. Interview and Interviewer Factors • Factors that moderate the reliability and validity of interviewer judgments • Judgments based on structured interviews are more predictive of job performance than unstructured interviews • Adding structure to interview process can enhance reliability and validity (criterion-related) of interviewer evaluations • Huffcutt et al.’s (2006) meta-analysis indicated that the type of validation study design moderated the criterion-related validity of structured interviews • That is, concurrent studies showed higher overall validity vs. predictive studies across both interview formats (unstructured/structured)

6. Interview and Interviewer Factors • Factors that moderate the reliability and validity of interviewer judgments • Job complexity has been examined as a moderator with mixed results • Taylor and Small (2002) – Meta-analysis indicated no support from job complexity as a moderator of reliability or validity • Huffcutt et al. (2004) – Meta-analysis showed job complexity to be a moderator of the validity for situational interviews with less predictive ability for more complex jobs

7. Interview and Interviewer Factors • Recent research findings regarding interview structure components • Behaviorally-anchored rating scales (BARS) • Very similar to a Likert-type question • Maurer (2002) enlisted job experts and students as interviewers, in a structured interview • Both job experts and students rated video recordings of interviews with greater accuracy when using BARS vs. not using BARS

8. Example of a BARS

9. Interview and Interviewer Factors • Recent research findings regarding interview structure components • Note-taking • It is unknown how often interviewers take notes, or how often they are instructed to do so • Middendorf and Macan (2002) – Note taking may be important from a legal perspective or for memory purposes • However, taking notes takes attention away from the interviewee and what they have to say

10. Interview and Interviewer Factors • Recent research findings regarding interview structure components • Panel interviews • When 2+ interviewers together perform an interview with an applicant and afterward combine their ratings to get an overall score • Previous research has mixed results • HR professionals who have performed them in the past look favorably upon them • Studies have shown that the race of the interviewer and interviewee can affect the outcome of the interview

11. Interview and Interviewer Factors • Do interviews measure cognitive ability • Berry et al. (2007) – Meta-analysis that • included recent results, • excluded samples where interviewers had access to cognitive ability test results, and • addressed range restriction issues • Found correlations between interviews and cognitive ability scores, but of lower magnitude vs. prior meta-analyses • Concluded that the interview may be a useful supplement to cognitive tests for some employers

12. Interview and Interviewer Factors • Do interviews measure personality • Huffcutt et al. (2001) found that personality traits and social skills were the most frequently measured constructs • Van Dam (2003) indicated that across a variety of jobs, interviewers referred to all Big Five personality dimensions • Specifically: Agreeableness (25%) and Extraversion (23%) • Van Iddekinge (2005) showed that an interview can be specifically tailored to examine and measure the personality of an applicant

13. PART 2 Applicant Factors and Characteristics

14. Applicant Factors and Characteristics • Race • Frazer et al. (2001) found that African-American applicants were scored lower due to their responses seeming less intelligent vs. White applicants • Purkiss et al. (2006) indicated that applicants with ethnic-sounding names were scored more poorly than applicants with more traditional names

15. Applicant Factors and Characteristics • Gender • Two studies, same results • 1 – The effects of sexual questions in job interviews (Woodzicka et al., 2005) • 2 - Male interviewer’s beliefs that female applicants are attracted to them (Ridge et al., 2002) • Both studies found female applicant’s interview performance was affected by male interviewer behavior (as evaluated by outside raters)

16. Applicant Factors and Characteristics • Disabilities • Generally it is advantageous for people with physical disabilities to talk about them early in the interview rather than later or not at all • Applicants who speak freely (e.g., don’t try to hide their disability) are seen as more favorable vs. applicants who do not mention their disability • This finding is true for disabilities that are both visible and non-visible (Hebl et al., 2005; Roberts et al., 2006)

17. Applicant Factors and Characteristics • Obesity • Selection bias has been shown in previous studies (Kutcher & Bragger, 2004) • Overweight and obese applicants cannot hide their condition like some disabled applicants can hide their disability (Hebl et al., 2002) • Perceived controllability of the applicant’s condition was a key factor regarding the course of the interview • In regards to perception, the more controllable the condition, the less favorably the interviewee appeared to the interviewer

18. Conclusion • Limitations: • A common model of interview structure to provide clarity on the role of all aspects of interview structure • Common metrics to help measure various constructs • A revised focus on what constructs could be measured or are best measured in employment interviews • Start investigating how you can investigate what specific construct you want to examine, rather than asking what has already been done (e.g., meta-analysis) • Consistency in definitions, labeling and measurement of all applicant factors and characteristics • Common definitions to aid in the observation of interviews