Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 24042415

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

New technology in personnel selection: How recruiter characteristics

affect the adoption of new selection technology
Janneke K. Oostrom a,b,, Dimitri van der Linden b, Marise Ph. Born b, Henk T. van der Molen b
a
VU University Amsterdam, Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
b
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Institute of Psychology, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The aim of the present eld study is to expand the understanding of how characteristics of recruiters
Available online 14 June 2013 relate to their adoption of new selection technology. In two studies, among 198 recruiters, we used
the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), together with two measures of personality (i.e., openness to
Keywords: experience and neuroticism), two information technology specic individual differences (i.e., personal
Recruiter reactions innovativeness in information technology and computer self-efcacy), and reactions to and actual usage
New technology of new technology. Both studies showed that all recruiter characteristics (except openness to experience)
Technology Acceptance Model
relate to perceptions of usefulness and ease of use, and that these perceptions relate to intentions to use
Personality
Personal innovativeness in information
new selection technologies. Study 2 showed that recruiter characteristics predict perceptions of useful-
technology ness and ease of use over and above established predictors of the TAM. Perceptions of usefulness and ease
Computer self-efcacy of use were better predictors of intentions to use new technology than perceptions of face validity, pre-
dictive validity, and fairness. Thus, when it comes to the adoption of new selection technology, recruiter
characteristics, and perceptions of usefulness and ease of use play an important role.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
There has been a rapid growth in the use of new technology in
personnel selection practice. New technologies, like computer-
based testing, internet-based testing, telephone-based interviews,
video-conference job interviews, and multimedia simulation tests,
allow organizations to test large numbers of applicants at the
same time and help saving time and money (Anderson, 2003).
This has prompted the interest of researchers regarding the ef-
fects of new technology upon testing-related issues such as valid-
ity, applicant reactions, and subgroup differences (e.g., Lievens &
Sackett, 2006; Richman-Hirsch, Olson-Buchanan, & Drasgow,
2000). Thus far, research has shown that organizations not only
benet from using new technology in terms of efciency, but also
in terms of validity (Lievens & Sackett, 2006) and acceptance by
candidates (Chan & Schmitt, 1997). Yet, there is scant research
on how the recruiters themselves perceive these new technolo-
gies. In 2003, Anderson already noted that we currently know
next to nothing about recruiter reactions to, expectations of,
and willingness to adopt new technology for selection (p. 133).
Corresponding author. Address: VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Psychol-
ogy and Education, Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Room
1B-25, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
E-mail addresses: j.k.oostrom@vu.nl (J.K. Oostrom), vanderlinden@fsw.eur.nl (D.
van der Linden), born@fsw.eur.nl (M.Ph. Born), vandermolen@fsw.eur.nl (H.T. van
der Molen).
Not much has changed since then. In fact, the extant research
on the adoption of new selection technology has focused entirely
on the candidate (Hausknecht, Day, & Thomas, 2004; Wiechmann
& Ryan, 2003) and almost completely has ignored the recruiter.
This is surprising as recruiters are the ones responsible for the
adoption of new technologies into the personnel selection prac-
tice. The absence of research on recruiter reactions evidently lim-
its the current understanding of the effects of new technology in
personnel selection.
Therefore, the aim of the present study is to expand the under-
standing of the effects of new technology in personnel selection,
by examining how recruiter characteristics relate to the adoption
of new selection technology. Because individual characteristics
such as personality factors play an important role in human cog-
nition and behavior, it is reasonable to expect that these variables
will inuence the adoption of new technology as well. Yet, for
many years, the issue of individual characteristics has received
little attention in the technology adoption literature in general
(Devaraj, Easley, & Crant, 2008). By using the Technology Accep-
tance Model (TAM; Davis, 1989), the effects of personality (i.e.,
openness to experience and neuroticism) and information tech-
nology (IT) specic individual differences (i.e., personal innova-
tiveness in IT and computer self-efcacy) on reactions to and
actual usage of new technology in the personnel selection prac-
tice will be examined in two eld studies. Furthermore, the pres-
ent study will examine to what extent ndings from the applicant

0747-5632/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.025
 J.K. Oostrom et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 24042415
reaction literature could be generalized to recruiter reactions.
More specically, in selection research it is known that selec-
tion-specic characteristics of an instrument play a role in appli-
cant reactions (Hausknecht et al., 2004). When it comes to
adopting new selection technology in selection and assessment,
it is a relevant question to test whether technology-based percep-
tions (e.g., is the software easy to use) have an effect over and
above selection-specic characteristics (i.e., face validity, predic-
tive validity, fairness). This will be tested in Study 2. Below we
will rst provide more details about the TAM.
1.1. The Technology Acceptance Model
Davis (1989) introduced the TAM to explain the process of tech-
nology adoption by individuals. The TAM is inuenced by the The-
ory of Reasoned Action developed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975),
which states that individuals intention for a certain behavior is
inuenced by their attitude toward that behavior and their subjec-
tive norms. TAM posits that the intention to use technology is
mainly inuenced by two specic attitudes or reactions, i.e., the
perceived usefulness and ease of use. Perceived usefulness is de-
ned as the degree to which a person believes that using a partic-
ular system will enhance his or her job performance. Perceived
ease of use is dened as the degree to which a person believes that
using a particular system would be free of effort (Davis, 1989). We
choose the TAM to examine the relationships of recruiter charac-
teristics and the adoption of new technology for several reasons.
First, the TAM is well-accepted and validated, with a history of
extensions that have been well-summarized by Venkatesh, Morris,
Davis, and Davis (2003). Second, the basic concept underlying the
model places signicant focus on individual reactions to technol-
ogy, in which factors such as personality and computer self-ef-
cacy can be expected to play a role (Devaraj et al., 2008). Finally,
the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), which is
the basis for the TAM, explicitly incorporates individual character-
istics as an external variable affecting an individuals beliefs.
1.2. Recruiter characteristics
According to Rogers (1995), adopting an innovation can be pre-
dicted by the perceived attributes of that innovation plus the com-
patibility with individual characteristics. Yet, only a few studies on
technology adoption have actually incorporated individual charac-
teristics. The vast majority of these studies have used student sam-
ples (e.g., Devaraj et al., 2008; McElroy, Hendrickson, Townsend, &
DeMarie, 2007; Nov & Ye, 2008), limiting their ecological validity.
For example, McElroy et al. (2007) found that the Big Five person-
ality traits explained a signicant part of the variance in students
use of internet. In their review, Nov and Ye (2008) concluded that
openness to experience was positively and neuroticism was nega-
tively related to students technology adoption. Although several
studies examined openness to experience and neuroticism in rela-
tion to adopting technology in various elds (Devaraj et al., 2008;
Guadagno, Okdie, & Eno, 2008), there are no studies that have
tested these relationships in the eld of personnel selection. Thus,
if we want to know what factors drive the adoption of new tech-
nology in this eld, studies incorporating recruiter characteristics
into the TAM are important. There are several recruiter character-
istics, including personality and IT-specic individual differences
that we expect to affect the adoption of new selection technology.
We elaborate on these expected relationships between recruiter
characteristics and the adoption of new selection technology in
Sections 1.2.1-1.2.4.
2405
1.2.1. Openness to experience
Openness to experience represents an individuals curiosity,
open-mindedness, and their willingness to experiment. Individuals
scoring high on openness to experience are imaginative, curious,
original, artistic, sensitive, open-minded, and experimental (Bar-
rick & Mount, 1991). Previous studies indicated that individuals
scoring high on this personality trait like change and diversity,
and adjust quickly to dynamic environments (Devaraj et al.,
2008). McElroy et al. (2007) showed that openness is a signicant
predictor of internet use. Guadagno et al. (2008) proved openness
to predict blogging, dened as a relatively new online tool for self-
expression. However, Devaraj et al. (2008) showed that openness
was not positively associated with beliefs about the perceived use-
fulness of technology. Yet, they found a direct relationship be-
tween this concept and the intention to use technology. In the
eld of personnel selection, Wiechmann and Ryan (2003) found
that candidates who were more open to experience reacted more
positively to the use of a computer-based in-basket exercise. Con-
sidering the above ndings, we expect recruiters openness to play
a relevant role in their adoption of new selection technology.
Hypothesis 1. Openness to experience is positively related to the
perceived usefulness (H1a) and the perceived ease of use (H1b) of
new selection technologies.
1.2.2. Neuroticism
Neuroticism refers to an individuals tendency to be worried,
temperamental and prone to stress, anger, and hostility. Neuroti-
cism is associated with anxiety, depression, anger, worry, and inse-
curity (Costa & McCrae, 1992). As neuroticism implies negative
reactions to work and life situations in general, it is expected to
also yield negative beliefs about technology. Compared to individ-
uals scoring low on neuroticism, neurotic people are on average
more stressed by the idea of having to use a new technology and
are more afraid to try out something new (Devaraj et al., 2008).
Devaraj et al. (2008) conrmed this notion by showing that neurot-
icism is indeed negatively associated with beliefs about the per-
ceived usefulness of technology.
In their research on technophobia and personality subtypes,
Anthony, Clarke, and Anderson (2000) found neuroticism to be
positively correlated with computer anxiety and negatively corre-
lated with computer cognitions, thus indicating that technophobia
is related to neuroticism. In the study conducted by Anthony et al.
(2000), technophobia referred to anxiety about computer-related
technology, negative attitudes towards computers and negative
cognitions concerning computer interactions. Moore and McElroy
(2012) found neuroticism to be positively related to time spent
on Facebook and the frequency of using Facebook to keep up with
others. Based on the above-mentioned ndings and taking into
account the TAM model and the role of beliefs in adopting new
technology, it can be inferred that there is a relationship between
neuroticism and technology use.
Hypothesis 2. Neuroticism is negatively related to the perceived
usefulness (H2a) and the perceived ease of use (H2b) of new
selection technologies.
1.2.3. Personal innovativeness in IT
Personal innovativeness in IT can be dened as the willingness
of an individual to try out any new information technology and it is
conceptualized as a stable personality trait (Agarwal & Prasad,
1998). According to Rogers (1995), individuals scoring high on
innovativeness always search for new information and ideas, man-
age to tolerate higher levels of uncertainty, and have more positive
2406 J.K. Oostrom et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 24042415
intentions to adopt new technology. Agarwal, Sambamurthy, and
Stair (2000) suggested that individuals who score high on personal
innovativeness in IT demonstrate more condence in their ability
to use new technologies. Personal innovativeness in IT has been
demonstrated to be a reliable predictor of individuals attitudes
about the effectiveness of new technologies (Ghobakhloo, Hong,
Sabouri, & Zulkii, 2012).
Lin (2004) showed that user innovativeness is a signicant pre-
dictor of an individuals intention to adopt webcasting. Wang, Lin,
and Liao (2012) found personal innovativeness in IT to inuence
the perceived enjoyment of blogging, which in turn inuenced
blogging intentions. Walczuch, Lemmink, and Streukens (2007)
showed that people who score high on personal innovativeness
are prone to experiment with new technology; otherwise they
might feel they miss out on potential benets. They reported a po-
sitive relationship between personal innovativeness and perceived
ease of use of new technology. However, the relationship between
personal innovativeness and perceived usefulness turned out to be
negative. According to the authors, this negative relationship could
be explained by the fact that innovative people may be more crit-
ical of technology as they keep up with the latest developments
and have high standards for technology. Lu, Yao, and Yu (2005)
found that there is a strong relationship between personal innova-
tiveness in IT and perceived usefulness and ease of use. As people
scoring high on innovativeness in IT tend to think that they might
miss certain benets when not trying out a new technology, it is
expected that personal innovativeness in IT would also have a po-
sitive impact on the adoption of selection technology. Therefore we
formulated the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3. Personal innovativeness in IT is positively related to
the perceived usefulness (H3a) and the perceived ease of use (H3b)
of new selection technologies.
1.2.4. Computer self-efcacy
Computer self-efcacy is dened as a judgment of ones capabil-
ity to use a computer (Compeau & Higgins, 1995). This concept is
built on Banduras (1997) theory of personal self-efcacy beliefs
and behavior. Compeau and Higgins (1995) showed that individu-
als who scored high on computer self-efcacy were using comput-
ers more often and enjoyed computer use. They also found
computer self-efcacy to be a strong and signicant predictor of
computer use a year later. Venkatesh and Davis (1996) and Lewis,
Agarwal, and Sambamurthy (2003) found that computer self-ef-
cacy is a determinant of perceived ease of use and Yi and Hwang
(2003) showed that application-specic self-efcacy had a signi-
cant effect on perceived ease of use.
Chau (2001) reported ndings that were in contrast to the majority
of studies on this topic and showed that computer self-efcacy was
negatively associated with perceived usefulness and had no signicant
relationship with perceived ease of use. One possible explanation pro-
vided for these contrasting results was that users with high computer
self-efcacy may also more clearly see the limitations of an information
technology apart from its usefulness. In addition, Chaus study referred
to a particular software package and not to new technology in general,
which might explain the contradictory results. So, drawing on the
above studies the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 4. Computer self-efcacy is positively related to the
perceived usefulness (H4a) and the perceived ease of use (H4b) of
new selection technologies.
Fig. 1 presents the general research model of Study 1. According
to the TAM model, both perceived ease of use and perceived useful-
ness inuence behavioral intentions (Davis, 1989). Hence, we for-
mulated Hypothesis 5 as described below.
Hypothesis 5. Perceived usefulness (H5a) and perceived ease of
use (H5b) of new selection technologies are positively related to
intentions to use.
Note that the relationships as described in Hypothesis 5 were
validated in several previous studies (e.g., Davis, 1989, 1993;
Venkatesh & Davis, 1996; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). The present
study, however, goes beyond these studies by aiming to re-vali-
date these relationships in the context of personnel selection and
by including several individual characteristics. In this way
the present studies can contribute to insight into what recr-
uiter characteristics play a role in their acceptance of new
technology.
2. Method Study 1
2.1. Sample and procedure
Recruiters at multinational companies, recruitment agencies,
governmental institutions, and non-governmental organizations
based in the Netherlands were contacted via email, via profes-
sional networks (e.g., Linkedin), and via online groups. An email
with instructions and a web-link to the survey was sent to the
recruiters. In total, 89 recruiters who work for various
companies and organizations in the Netherlands lled out the
questionnaire. Fifty recruiters were female (56.2%) and 39 were
male (43.8%). Their age varied from 25 years to 62 years, with
an average of 36.00 years (SD = 8.11). Respondents had various
educational backgrounds, ranging from high school to post-grad-
uate degrees. The group of respondents was also heterogeneous
regarding their job roles: 34% were recruiters, 10% were
HR managers, 21% were HR consultants, 16% were involved in
HR administration and 18% were working in other HR-related
jobs.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Personality traits
The Big Five personality dimensions of conscientiousness,
extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness and openness/
intellect were measured with the Dutch version of the 50 item rep-
resentation of the Goldberg (1992) Big Five markers in the Interna-
tional Personality Item Pool (IPIP). Respondents answered the
statements on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very inaccurate and
5 = very accurate). Only the scores on openness to experience and
neuroticism were used in the present study. The alpha for open-
ness was .73. An example of an item is I have a vivid imagination.
The alpha for the items measuring neuroticism was .73. An exam-
ple of an item is I rarely get irritated.
2.2.2. Personal innovativeness in IT
Personal innovativeness in IT was measured with the adapted
scale developed by Agarwal and Prasad (1998) which contained
four items reecting an individuals tendency of trying out new
information technology. One of the items was I like to experiment
with new selection technologies. Respondents scored themselves on
a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).
The alpha coefcient for the scale was .87.
2.2.3. Computer self-efcacy
Computer self-efcacy was measured with the eight-item scale
developed by Levine and Donitsa-Schmidt (1998) and adapted by
Wiechmann and Ryan (2003). An example of an item is I nd using
the computer easy. Respondents scored themselves on a 5-point
Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The alpha
coefcient for this scale was .88.
 J.K. Oostrom et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 24042415
Openness to
experience H1a
H1b
H2a
Neuroticism
H2b
H3a
Personal
innovativeness
in IT H3b
H4a
Computer
self-efficacy H4b
Fig. 1. Model for Hypotheses 15.
2.2.4. Perceptions about new technology
Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use were measured
with adapted scales developed by Davis (1989). Each construct was
measured with six items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly dis-
agree and 5 = strongly agree). The alpha coefcient for the perceived
usefulness scale was .95. An example of an item is Using new selec-
tion technologies in my job would increase my productivity. The al-
phas for the perceived ease of use scale was .92. An example of
an item is Learning to operate new selection technologies would be
easy for me.
2.2.5. Intentions to use new technology
Intentions to use new technology were measured with two
statements adapted from the work of Agarwal and Prasad (1998).
The items were: I intend to increase my use of new selection technol-
ogies for work in the future and For future work, I would use new
selection technologies. Respondents were asked to rate themselves
on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly
agree). The alpha coefcient was .78.
2.2.6. Voluntariness in using new technology
The extent to which potential adopters of new selection tech-
nologies perceive the adoption decision to be non-mandatory is
likely to affect the hypothesized relationships. For this reason, vol-
untariness was included as a control variable in the present study.
This variable was measured with one item on a 5-point Likert scale
(1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree), namely In my work, I
am allowed to choose the tools for the selection of new personnel.
3. Results Study 1
3.1. Preliminary analysis
Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities (internal consis-
tencies), and correlations between all variables are presented in
Table 1. As all hypotheses were tested with regression analyses,
we rst checked whether the assumptions of these analyses tech-
niques were met. All variables were adjudged to be normally dis-
tributed. Furthermore, residual plots showed that residuals were
randomly scattered and that all relationships between the inde-
pendent and dependent variables were linear. Before testing the
2407
Perceived
usefulness
H5a
Intention to
adopt
Perceived ease H5b
of use
hypotheses, we rst looked at signicant correlations between
demographic characteristics and the study variables. Age was sig-
nicantly and negatively related to perceived ease of use
(r = .30, p < .01) and intentions to use (r = .24, p < .05). Gender
was signicantly and negatively related to personal innovativeness
in IT (r = .40, p < .01). Male respondents (M = 3.38, SD = 0.78)
scored signicantly higher on this trait than female respondents
(M = 2.74, SD = 0.71; t = 3.94, p < .01). Educational level had a posi-
tive and signicant correlation with openness to experience
(r = .22, p < .05) and perceived ease of use (r = .30, p < .01), and a
negative signicant correlation with neuroticism (r = .22,
p < .05). Because of these signicant correlations we controlled
for age, gender (coded as 0 = male and 1 = female), and educational
level (dummy coded so that holding a high school or intermediate
vocational diploma was the excluded category) in the regression
analyses.
3.2. Hypotheses testing
Hypotheses 14 were tested with correlational analyses. Table 1
shows that openness to experience was not signicantly related to
the perceived usefulness (r = .10, p = .34). The relationship between
openness and perceived ease of use also did not reach the signi-
cance level of .05, although it was marginally signicant (r = .20,
p = .07). Thus, our rst hypothesis, stating that openness is posi-
tively related to the perceived usefulness and the perceived ease
of use, was not supported.
Hypothesis 2, stating that neuroticism is negatively related to
the perceived usefulness and the perceived ease of use was partly
supported, as neuroticism was signicantly and negatively corre-
lated with the perceived ease of use (r = .32, p < .01) but not with
the perceived usefulness (r = .16, p = .15).
Hypothesis 3 was conrmed as personal innovativeness was
signicantly and positively correlated with both the perceived use-
fulness (r = .30, p < .01) and the perceived ease of use (r = .37,
p < .01). In addition, personal innovativeness was signicantly
and positively related to the intentions to use new technology
(r = .38, p < .01).
Hypothesis 4, was partly supported because computer self-ef-
cacy was signicantly correlated with the perceived ease of use
2408 J.K. Oostrom et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 24042415

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and correlations between all study variables (Study 1).

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Age 36.00 8.11 ()
2. Gender 0.60 .49 .24* ()
3. Educational level 2.93 1.04 .44** .06 ()
4. Voluntariness 3.30 1.21 .04 .06 .17 ()
5. Openness to experience 3.70 0.45 .09 .08 .22* .10 (.73)
6. Neuroticism 2.21 0.42 .14 .14 .22* .05 .09 (.73)
7. Personal innovativeness in IT 2.99 0.78 .05 .40** .11 .10 .31** .20 (.87)
8. Computer self-efcacy 4.28 0.48 .15 .00 .20 .15 .24* .52** .32** (.88)
9. Perceived usefulness 3.60 0.69 .19 .05 .17 .21 .10 .16 .30** .04 (.95)
10. Perceived ease of use 3.78 0.49 .30** .07 .30** .09 .20 .32** .37** .31** .39** (.92)
11. Intentions 3.51 0.68 .24* .03 .21 .22* .11 .12 .38** .17 .55** .42** (.78)

Note: Scale reliabilities (internal consistencies) are presented on the diagonal, between parentheses. Gender is coded as follows: 0 = male and 1 = female. Educational level is
coded as follows: 1 = intermediate vocational education or lower, 2 = higher vocational education, 3 = bachelor degree, 4 = master degree or higher. All study variables are
measured on a scale from 1 to 5. N = 89.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

(r = .31, p < .01) but not with the perceived usefulness (r = .04,
p = .70).
In addition to the correlational analyses, two hierarchical
regression analyses were conducted, with perceived usefulness or
ease of use as the dependent variables. Step 1 included the control
variables age, gender, educational level, and voluntariness. Step 2
included the individual-level predictors openness, neuroticism,
personal innovativeness and computer self-efcacy. The results
of these analyses are presented in Table 2. Together, the four pre-
dictors explained 10% (DF = 2.18, p = .04) of the variance in per-
ceived usefulness and 16% (DF = 4.23, p < .01) of the variance in
perceived ease of use over and above age, gender, educational le-
vel, and voluntariness. Specically, personal innovativeness seems
to be an important predictor of the perceived usefulness and the
perceived ease of use, as a signicant beta weight was found for
personal innovativeness in IT in both regression analyses (b = .36,
p < .01 and b = .29, p = .01, respectively). In addition, neuroticism
had a signicant beta weight in the prediction of perceived ease
of use (b = .24, p = .03).
Hypothesis 5 was conrmed by our data, as perceptions of ease
of use and usefulness were both signicantly and positively related
to intentions to use new technology (r = .55, p < .01 and r = .42,
p < .01, respectively). Controlled for age, gender, educational level,
and voluntariness perceived usefulness (b = .42, p < .01) and ease of
use (b = .20, p = .04) explained 23% of the variance (DF = 13.62,
p < .01, R2 = .39, F = 5.76, p < .01) in the intentions to use new selec-
tion technologies.
4. Discussion Study 1 and introduction Study 2
As the rst study on recruiter reactions to new technology,
Study 1 showed that recruiters intentions to use new selection
technologies can be partly explained by perceptions of usefulness
and ease of use. These perceptions are in turn partly explained
by individual characteristics such as neuroticism, personal innova-
tiveness in IT, and computer self-efcacy. As such, the present
study provides support for using the TAM (Davis, 1989) in explain-
ing recruiters intentions to use new selection technologies. Never-
theless, in order to establish the value of the TAM in explaining the
adoption of new technology in personnel selection, several remain-
ing questions need to be addressed.
First, Study 1 did not include a measure of actual usage of new
technology. To more fully test whether TAM is applicable in
studying the actual adoption of new selection technology by
recruiters, it is important to examine the link between recruiters
intention to use new technologies and their actual usage of these
technologies. Previous studies on the TAM have demonstrated that
TAM consistently explains a substantial proportion of the variance

Table 2
Summary of hierarchical regression analyses of predictors on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Study 1).

Perceived usefulness Perceived ease of use

b R2 DR2 b R2 DR2
Step 1 .13 .13 .19 .19**
Age .09 .22
Gender .13 .10
Educational level
Higher vocational .16 .22
Bachelor .30 .02
Master or higher .19 .01
Voluntariness .16 .04
Step 2 .23 .10* .35 .16**
Openness to experience .03 .07
Neuroticism .07 .24*
Personal innovativeness in IT .36** .29*
Computer self-efcacy .10 .02
F(8, 81) = 2.08* F(8, 81) = 3.73**

Note: Standardized regression weights are for nal step. Gender is coded as follows: 0 = male and 1 = female. Educational level is dummy coded so that holding a high school
or intermediate vocational diploma was the excluded category. N = 89.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
 J.K. Oostrom et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 24042415
(typically about 40%) in actual usage (e.g., Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu,
2012; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Therefore, we expect intentions to
use new selection technology to also explain a substantial part of
the variance in actual usage of new selection technology:
Hypothesis 6. Intentions to use new selection technologies are
positively related to the actual usage of new selection technologies.
Second, the extant research on the adoption of new selection
technology has focused on applicant reactions instead of recruiter
reactions (e.g., Hausknecht et al., 2004; Wiechmann & Ryan, 2003).
The three most commonly studied applicant reactions are face
validity perceptions, predictive validity perceptions, and fairness
perceptions (Chan & Schmitt, 2004). Face validity refers to the ex-
tent to which the content of the selection procedure seems to be
related to the job (Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, & Stoffey,
1993). Perceived predictive validity refers to the perception of
how well the selection instrument predicts future job performance
(Smither et al., 1993). Perceived fairness refers to the extent to
which a test seems to rule out biases and provide applicants with
the same opportunity to perform well (Gilliland, 1993). These
applicant reactions have been found to be relevant for many selec-
tion-related outcomes, such as intentions to accept the job, inten-
tions to recommend the organization to others, the likelihood of
litigation against the outcome of the selection procedure, and per-
ceived organizational attractiveness (Chan & Schmitt, 2004;
Gilliland, 1993; Ryan & Ployhart, 2000). Possibly, recruiter percep-
tions of face validity, predictive validity, and fairness also play a
role in their decision about whether or not to use new selection
technology. Thus, for TAM to be a valuable model for explaining
the adoption of new technology in personnel selection, it should
be able to explain more variance in the intention to adopt new
technology than commonly used perceptions in the applicant reac-
tion literature. As TAM has been established as a robust model for
predicting user acceptance (Venkatesh et al., 2003), we expect TAM
to be a better predictor of recruiter intentions than specic selec-
tion-related reactions.
Hypothesis 7. Perceived usefulness and perceived ease use explain
morevarianceintheintentionstousenewselectiontechnologiesthan
perceptions of face validity, predictive validity, and fairness.
The third question refers to the role of other established predic-
tors in the TAM, such as subjective norm, image, job relevance, out-
put quality, and result demonstrability. Knig, Klehe, Berchtold,
and Kleinmann (2010) operationalized the concept subjective
norm as what other organizations think of certain selection proce-
dures and whether selection procedures are perceived to be useful
for organizational self-promotion. They conrmed that subjective
norm affected the adoption of instruments in personnel selection
practice. Venkatesh and Davis (2000) showed that subjective norm,
image, job relevance, output quality, and result demonstrability to-
gether explain between 40% and 60% of the variance in usefulness
perceptions. Based on these ndings, it is important to examine
whether recruiter characteristics are able to explain additional var-
iance in perceptions of usefulness and ease of use over and above
already established TAM predictors. Thus far, no previous studies
have looked at the incremental validity of individual characteris-
tics over the established TAM predictors. Based on the ndings of
Study 1, we expect the following:
Hypothesis 8. Openness to experience, neuroticism, personal
innovativeness in IT, and computer self-efcacy have incremental
validity in the prediction of perceived usefulness and ease of use
over and above established predictors of the TAM.
2409
5. Method Study 2
5.1. Sample and procedure
Similar to Study 1, recruiters at multinational companies,
recruitment agencies, governmental institutions, and non-govern-
mental organizations based in the Netherlands were contacted via
email, via professional networks (e.g., Linkedin), and via online
groups. An email with instructions and a web-link to the survey
was sent to the recruiters. The survey contained the same mea-
sures as in Study 1 plus measures of subjective norm, image, job
relevance, output quality, results demonstrability, face validity,
perceived predictive validity, fairness, and actual usage. In total,
109 recruiters (57.6% female) working for various companies and
organizations in the Netherlands lled out the questionnaire. The
age of the respondents varied from 20 years to 65 years, with an
average of 35.90 years (SD = 10.19). Respondents had various HR
related jobs and educational backgrounds, ranging from high
school to post-graduate degrees.
5.2. Measures
Openness to experience, neuroticism, personal innovativeness
in IT, computer self-efcacy, TAM perceptions, intentions to use,
and voluntariness were measured with the same scales as de-
scribed in Study 1. All coefcient alphas were adequate (see Ta-
ble 3). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale with
1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree, except for actual usage,
which was rated on a 5-point scale with 1 = never and 5 = daily.
5.2.1. Perceptions of face validity, predictive validity, and fairness
Perceptions of face validity were measured with a 3-item
adapted scale from Smither et al. (1993) with an alpha of .65. An
example item is: I can see a clear connection between new selec-
tion technologies and what I think is required by the job. Percep-
tions of predictive validity were also measured with a 3-item
adapted scale from Smither et al. (1993). The alpha for this scale
was .69. An example item is: I am condent that new selection
technologies can predict how well an applicant will perform on
the job. Perceptions of fairness were measured with a 5-item
adapted scale from Tonidandel and Quiones (2000) with an alpha
of .70. An example item is: I think that new selection technologies
are fair.
5.2.2. Subjective norm
Subjective norm was measured with four items, adapted from
the two-item scale developed by Taylor and Todd (1995) and the
two item-item scale developed by Knig et al. (2010). An example
of an item is: Many companies that work in the same eld use new
selection technologies. The alpha of this four-item scale was .84.
5.2.3. Image
Image was measured with the three-item adapted scale devel-
oped by Moore and Benbasat (1991) and Venkatesh and Davis
(2000). An example of an item is: Having new selection technologies
is a status symbol. The alpha of this scale was .91.
5.2.4. Job relevance
Job relevance was measured with the two-item adapted scale
developed by Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw (1992). An example
of an item is: In my job, usage of new selection technologies is impor-
tant. The alpha of this scale was .87.
2410 J.K. Oostrom et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 24042415

5.2.5. Output quality

Note: Scale reliabilities (internal consistencies) are presented on the diagonal, between parentheses. Gender is coded as follows: 0 = male and 1 = female. Educational level is coded as follows: 1 = intermediate vocational education
()
20

The judgment of how new selection technologies perform was

measured with the two-item adapted scale developed by Davis

.26**
(.87)
et al. (1992). An example of an item is: The quality of the output
19

I get from new selection technologies is high. The alpha of this scale

.28**
(.70)
was .74.

.14
18

.50**
(.69)
5.2.6. Results demonstrability

.12
.10
17

The tangibility of the results of new selection technologies was

.33**
.27**
.36**
(.65)
.22*
measured with the four-item adapted scale developed by Moore
16

and Benbasat (1991). An example of an item is: I have no difculty

.30**
(.92) telling others about the results of using new selection technologies.

.25*

.22*
.12
.06
15

The alpha of this scale was .75.

.26**

.42**
(.92)

.21*
.20*
.18

.12
14

5.2.7. Actual usage

.25**

Actual usage was measured with the following statement In

.25*
.23*
(.75)
.18

.14
.13

.08
13

my work, I have used the following tools to select personnel:

computer-based testing, internet-based testing, telephone-based
.33**
.51**

.32**
.32**
.22*

.24*

.31*
(.85)

.16

interview, video-conference job interview, and multimedia simula-

12

or lower, 2 = higher vocational education, 3 = bachelor degree, 4 = master degree or higher. All study variables are measured on a scale from 1 to 5. N = 109.

tion tests. This measure is based on and adapted from another

.23*
(.82)

scale used to measure actual usage of internet (McElroy et al.,

.15
.14

.12
.02
.03

.03
.08

.05
11

2007).
.26**
(.61)

.13

.16
.12
.01

.10
.08
.03

.06
.07
10

6. Results Study 2
.39**
.47**

.27**
.23*

.23*

.21*
.20*
(.75)
.11
.16

.19

.07

6.1. Preliminary analysis

9

Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities (internal consis-

.32**

.31**

.36**
.29**
.29**
.30**
.25*
.21*

.24*
(.74)

.18
.04
.02

tencies), and correlations between all variables are presented in

8

Table 3. All variables were adjudged to be normally distributed.

.36**
.41**

.29**
.27**
.32**
.34**

.30**
.30**

Furthermore, residual plots showed that residuals were randomly

(.87)

.18
.08
.07

.03
.09

scattered and that all relationships between the independent and

7

dependent variables were linear. We rst looked at signicant

.44**
.26*
.22*

.25*
.23*
(.91)

.15

.19
.07
.05

.07

.20
.02
.05
.07

correlations between demographic characteristics and the study

6

variables. Age was signicantly related to computer self-efcacy

.49**
.43**
.28**
.33**

.26**
.27**

.30**

(r = .34, p < .01). Gender was negatively and signicantly related

Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and correlations between all study variables (Study 2).

.24*

.23*
(.84)

.13
.16
.14

.19
.19
.02

to actual usage (r = .20, p < .05). Male respondents (M = 2.66,

5

SD = 0.77) used new selection technologies more often than fe-

.22*
.14

.13

.11

.19

.15
.07

.08
.06
.07

.03
.04
.02

.06

.02

male respondents (M = 2.35, SD = 0.70; t = 2.04, p = .04). Because

()

06

of these signicant correlations we controlled for age and gender

4

(coded as 0 = male and 1 = female) in the regression analyses.

.11

.16
.16

.11
.09

.08
.01

.08
.10
.01
.02
.05
.10

.02

.06
.00

.00
()
3

6.2. Replication of Hypotheses 15

.20*
.07
.08
.01
.03
.03
.02
.07

.20
.08
.06
.02
.07
.04
.07
.08
.05
.00
()

Table 3 shows that openness to experience was not signi-

2

cantly related to the perceived usefulness (r = .08, p = .41), nor

.34**
.25*

.18

.19

.18

.18

.12
.02
.09
.02
.02
.02

.01

.09

.03

.02

.09
.04
.01

to perceived ease of use (r = .03, p = .80). Thus, our rst hypothe-

()
1

sis, stating that openness is positively related to the perceived

usefulness and the perceived ease of use, was again not
10.19

0.77
0.67
0.74
0.74
0.56
0.54

0.49
0.74
0.43
0.56

0.59
0.57
0.48
0.71
0.74
0.50
1.00

0.40

0.50
SD

supported.
Hypothesis 2, stating that neuroticism is negatively related to
35.90

2.76
3.37
3.16
2.83
3.65
3.18
3.61
3.68
2.21
3.47
4.23
3.54
3.79
3.49

3.29
3.57
2.51
0.58

3.01

the perceived usefulness and the perceived ease of use was not
M

supported, as neuroticism was not signicantly correlated with

12. Personal innovativeness in IT

the perceived usefulness (r = .15, p = .13) and perceived ease of

use (r = .14, p = .16).
10. Openness to experience

13. Computer self-efcacy

9. Results demonstrability

Hypothesis 3 was conrmed as personal innovativeness was

15. Perceived ease of use
14. Perceived usefulness

signicantly and positively correlated with both the perceived

17. Predictive validity
3. Educational level

usefulness (r = .33, p < .01) and the perceived ease of use (r = .51,
5. Subjective norm

8. Output quality

20. Actual usage

16. Face validity
4. Voluntariness

11. Neuroticism
7. Job relevance

p < .01). In addition, personal innovativeness was signicantly

19. Intentions

and positively related to the intentions to use new selection tech-

18. Fairness
2. Gender

nology (r = .32, p < .01), and the actual usage of new selection
6. Image

p < .01.
1. Age

p < .05.

technology (r = .31, p = .02).

Table 3

Hypothesis 4, was partly supported because computer self-

**

efcacy was signicantly correlated with the perceived ease of

*
 J.K. Oostrom et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 24042415 2411

Table 4
Summary of hierarchical regression analyses of predictors on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Study 2).

Perceived usefulness Perceived ease of use

2 2
b R DR b R2 DR2
Step 1 .01 .01 .04 .04
Age .10 .07
Gender .06 .07
Voluntariness .11 .00
Step 2 .12 .11 .25 .21**
Subjective norm .03 .05
Image .03 .10
Job relevance .08 .17
Output quality .08 .07
Results demonstrability .10 .23*
Step 3 .25 .13* .41 .16**
Openness to experience .06 .06
Neuroticism .28** .15
Personal innovativeness in IT .24* .41**
Computer self-efcacy .08 .08
F(12, 95) = 2.27* F(12, 95) = 4.80**

Note: Standardized regression weights are for nal step. DR2 may appear inconsistent due to rounding. Gender is coded as follows: 0 = male and 1 = female. N = 109.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

use (r = .25, p < .01), but not with the perceived usefulness (r = .18,
p = .06).
Hypothesis 5 was conrmed as perceptions of ease of use and
usefulness were both signicantly and positively related to inten-
tions to use new technology (r = .42, p < .01 and r = .30, p < .01,
respectively). Controlled for age, gender, and voluntariness, per-
ceived usefulness (b = .34, p < .01) and ease of use (b = .18,
p = .06) explained 17% of the variance (DF = 9.76, p < .01, R2 = .21,
F = 4.66, p < .01) in the intentions to use new selection
technologies.
6.3. Testing of Hypotheses 68
Controlled for age, gender, and voluntariness intentions to use
new selection technologies (b = .26, p = .01) explained 7% of the
variance (DF = 6.71, p = .01, R2 = .11, F = 2.67, p = .04) in the actual
usage of new selection technologies. These ndings support
Hypothesis 6, stating that intentions to use new selection technol-
ogies would be positively related to the actual usage of new selec-
tion technologies.
Perceived usefulness and ease of use were signicantly and pos-
itively related to intentions of technology use (r = .42, p < .01 and
r = .30, p < .01, respectively). After controlling for age, gender, and
voluntariness, perceived usefulness (b = .34, p < .01) and perceived
ease of use (b = .18, p = .07) explained 17% of the variance
(DF = 9.76, p < .01, R2 = .21, F = 4.66, p < .01) in the intentions to
use new selection technologies. Controlled for age, gender, and vol-
untariness, face validity (b = .23, p = .03), perceived predictive
validity (b = .02, p = .84), and perceived fairness (b = .20, p = .10)
explained 11% of the variance (DF = 3.98, p = .01, R2 = .15,
F = 2.56, p = .03) in the intentions of technology use. Perceived use-
fulness and perceived ease of use displayed incremental validity
over and above face validity, perceived predictive validity, and per-
ceived fairness in the prediction of the intentions to use new tech-
nologies (DR2 = .11, DF = 6.63, p = .02, R2 = .26, F = 3.82, p < .01).
However, face validity, perceived predictive validity, and perceived
fairness did not show incremental validity over and above per-
ceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in the prediction of
the intentions to use new technologies (DR2 = .06, DF = 2.14,
p = .10, R2 = .26, F = 3.82, p < .01). These ndings support Hypothe-
sis 7, which stated that perceived usefulness and perceived ease
use would explain more variance in the intentions to use new
selection technologies than perceptions of face validity, predictive
validity, and fairness.
Two hierarchical regression analyses were conducted, with per-
ceived usefulness or perceived ease of use as the dependent vari-
ables. Step 1 included the control variables age, gender, and
voluntariness. Step 2 included the TAM predictors subjective norm,
image, job relevance, output quality, and results demonstrability.
Step 3 included the openness, neuroticism, personal innovative-
ness, and computer self-efcacy. The results of the regression anal-
yses are presented in Table 4. Together, openness, neuroticism,
personal innovativeness, and computer self-efcacy explained
13% of the variance in the perceived usefulness and 16% of the var-
iance in the perceived ease of use over and above age, gender, vol-
untariness, and the established TAM predictors. Therefore,
Hypothesis 8 was supported, which stated that openness to expe-
rience, neuroticism, personal innovativeness in IT, and computer
self-efcacy would have incremental validity in the prediction of
perceived usefulness and ease of use over and above established
predictors. Specically, neuroticism and personal innovativeness
were relevant predictors of the perceived usefulness and the per-
ceived ease of use, as signicant beta weights were found for neu-
roticism in the prediction of perceived usefulness (b = .28, p < .01)
and for personal innovativeness in IT (b = .24, p = .03 and b = .41,
p < .01, respectively) in both regression analyses.
7. Conclusion and general discussion
The present set of studies provides insight into recruiters inten-
tions and their actual use of new selection technologies and under-
lines the usefulness of TAM in this type of research (Davis, 1989).
Studies 1 and 2 both showed that recruiters intentions to use
new selection technologies in their jobs are related to the extent
to which they believe that the new technology is useful and can
be used with relatively low effort. In this sense, the perceptions
of recruiters play a similar role in technological innovation as in
many other professional areas (Davis, 1989, 1993; Venkatesh & Da-
vis, 1996, 2000).
However, a specic asset of the present studies is that we incor-
porated recruiter characteristics into the TAM. In doing so we
showed that several of such characteristics predicted perceptions
of usefulness and ease of use beyond the well-established predic-
tors of the TAM. Prior studies on individual characteristics and
2412 J.K. Oostrom et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 24042415
the TAM mainly used student samples (Devaraj et al., 2008; McEl-
roy et al., 2007; Nov & Ye, 2008), limiting their ecological validity.
In addition, no previous studies looked at the incremental validity
of individual characteristics beyond the established TAM predic-
tors such as subjective norm and job relevance. Another nding
that was particularly relevant regarding recruiters was that the
general technology perceptions included in the TAM (i.e., useful-
ness and ease of use) were better predictors of intentions to use
new technologies than the selection-related reactions to new tech-
nology. In other words, recruiters intention to use new technology
in their jobs was, for example, more strongly related to whether a
particular technology seemed to be relatively easy to use than
whether it was perceived to be a valid or fair selection instrument.
We elaborate on the different ndings below.
Studies 1 and 2 showed that, in contrast to our expectations,
openness to experience did not show any signicant positive rela-
tionships with perceptions of usefulness and ease of use. These re-
sults were not in line with previous studies (Guadagno et al., 2008;
McElroy et al., 2007). A possible explanation could be the relatively
small variance in openness to experience in our two samples. The
relatively high scores and small standard deviation on openness
could indicate that a selection effect has occurred. As study partic-
ipation was voluntary, it is possible that mainly recruiters volun-
teered that were interested in new selection technologies as well
as in participating in a study on this topic. Further research is
needed to understand in which way openness may contribute to
explaining the adoption of new selection technologies.
We did nd support for a role of neuroticism in adopting new
selection technologies. Recruiters with higher levels of neuroticism
had more negative cognitions about and attitudes toward such
new technology. These ndings are in accordance with the major-
ity of previous studies in this area (e.g., Anthony et al., 2000; Dev-
araj et al., 2008), thus further establishing the role of neuroticism
in this context. Knowing the role of neuroticism is useful when
companies wish to implement new technology in their selection
practice. When doing so, they may want to provide additional
attention to their employers who score relatively high on neuroti-
cism. Such employees may need some additional guidance or
encouragements to actually start using the new technologies.
The results of the current study support the notion that per-
sonal innovativeness in IT is positively related to both perceived
usefulness and ease of use of new selection technologies. In fact,
the regression analyses in Studies 1 and 2 showed that of the indi-
vidual differences measures we used, personal innovativeness was
the most important predictor of the perceptions of new technol-
ogy. Personal innovativeness in IT also turned out to be strongly
and directly related to intentions as well as to actual usage of
new technology in Study 2. Overall, personal innovativeness in
IT, thus, plays a key role in the acceptance of new technology by
recruiters. Organizations could benet from this knowledge, for
example by measuring this trait in the selection and training pro-
cess for recruiters.
The results of Studies 1 and 2 conrm that computer self-ef-
cacy is related to the ease of use perceptions of new technology
(Venkatesh & Davis, 1996). Individuals with a high computer
self-efcacy are likely to perceive new technology as less complex
because they believe more in their technical abilities, and therefore
have more positive perceptions regarding its usage (Nov & Ye,
2008). In contrast to our expectations, in both studies, computer
self-efcacy was not related to the perceived usefulness of new
selection technologies. As computer self-efcacy refers to ones
judgment of capability to use a computer (Compeau & Higgins,
1995), it might seem logical that computer self-efcacy is more
strongly related to perceived ease of use than to perceived useful-
ness. Besides, Hasan (2006) found that only system-specic self-
efcacy affects perceived usefulness perceptions.
It can be concluded that recruiters who develop positive per-
ceptions of usefulness and ease of use with regard to a specic
selection technology will in turn express the intentions to use that
technology and will therefore be more likely to actually use that
technology. In total, perceptions of usefulness and ease of use ex-
plained about 20% of the variance in the intentions to use the tech-
nology. Interestingly, when it comes to intentions to use new
technology, Study 2 showed that the typical perceptions included
in the TAM, namely about usefulness and ease of use, had incre-
mental validity over commonly used perceptions in the applicant
reaction literature (i.e., face validity, predictive validity, fairness).
Yet, these perceptions did not have incremental validity over per-
ceived usefulness and ease of use in predicting intentions to adopt
new selection technology. This shows that different variables play
a role in the use and acceptance of new technology by recruiters
than by applicants. Findings from the applicant reactions literature
thus cannot be generalized to recruiter reactions.
Intentions to use the technology explained only 7% of the vari-
ance in actual usage, while previous studies typically nd an ex-
plained variance of about 40% (e.g., Venkatesh et al., 2003;
Venkatesh et al., 2012). This nding could be explained by the
low overall use of new selection technologies in our sample.
Apparently, despite the advantages, recruiters dont use new selec-
tion technologies that often yet. It is also possible that organiza-
tional level variables have a large impact on actual usage of new
selection technology. For example, Anderson (2003) suggested that
organizational level variables such as culture and climate for tech-
nological innovations, budget funds and resources, and leadership
style play an important role in recruiters technology adoption.
The present study has several limitations that should be men-
tioned. Given that measures of all constructs were collected at
the same point in time, causality could not be directly assessed. Fu-
ture research should use longitudinal designs. The ndings and
implications are based on two studies that examined a specic
technology involving a specic user group. It might be interesting
to compare various groups of HR professionals (e.g., recruiters, HR
managers, HR consultants). In this study, the different groups were
too small to make a valid comparison. In addition, various types of
organizations (e.g., governmental, multinational, consultancy)
could be compared to determine if organizational type inuences
the adoption of new selection technologies.
8. Implications and suggestions for future research
Overall, the results obtained in this study emphasize the role of
individual characteristics in the adoption of new selection technol-
ogy. The ndings of this study have several theoretical and practi-
cal implications. The present study constitutes the rst step in
untangling the predictors of the adoption of new technology in
the personnel selection practice. Thus far, research on the adoption
of new selection technology has focused entirely on the candidate
(Hausknecht et al., 2004; Wiechmann & Ryan, 2003) and almost ig-
nored the recruiter, while recruiters are the ones actually utilizing
these new selection technologies. Additional studies are necessary
in order to discern individual characteristics overlooked by the cur-
rent study. For instance, locus of control (Rotter, 1982) and risk
taking (Levenson, 1990) may impact the use of new selection tech-
nology. Based on the present ndings managers would be well-ad-
vised to be aware of the technology readiness of their recruiters
and adjust the training schedule and management strategies
accordingly. For example, employees who score low on computer
self-efcacy could benet from computer skills training. Another
option would be to implement a reward system that could encour-
age the recruiters to explore more and get used to new selection
technologies (Devaraj et al., 2008). We believe that the
 J.K. Oostrom et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 24042415 2413

individual-level variables could have positive effects on the use my productivity

and adoption of IT in an organization. It is the task of the manager Using new selection technologies would enhance my
to use these differences between people to the organizations effectiveness on the job
advantage. Using new selection technologies would make it easier to do
my job
Acknowledgements I would nd new selection technologies useful in my job

We wish to thank Irina Bocan, Stephanie Bisambher, and Leslie Perceived ease of use
MacLennan for their valuable help with the data collection. Learning to operate new selection technologies would be easy
for me
I would nd it easy to get the new selection technologies to do
Appendix A
what I want them to do
My interaction with new selection technologies would be
Overview of questions clear and understandable
Openness to experience I would nd new selection technologies to be exible to
Am not interested in abstract ideas () interact with
Tend to vote for liberal political candidates It would be easy for me to become skillful at using new
Do not like art () selection technologies
Believe in the importance of art I would nd new selection technologies easy to use
Have a vivid imagination Intentions to use
Avoid philosophical discussions () I intend to increase my use of new selection technologies in
Tend to vote for conservative political candidates () the future
Carry the conversation to a higher level For future work, I would use new selection technologies
Do not enjoy going to art museums ()
Enjoy hearing new ideas Voluntariness
In my work, I am allowed to choose the tools for the selection
Neuroticism of new personnel
Feel comfortable with myself ()
Rarely get irritated () Subjective norm
Panic easily People who inuence my behavior think that I should use the
Dislike myself system
Am not easily bothered by things () People who are important to me think that I should use the
Often feel blue system
Have frequent mood swings Many companies that work in the same eld use new
Seldom feel blue () selection technologies
Am very pleased with myself () New selection technologies are generally often used to select
Am often down in the dumps people

Personal innovativeness in IT Image

If I heard about a new selection technology, I would look for
ways to experiment with it
Among my peers I am usually the rst to try out new selection
technologies
In general, I am hesitant to try out new selection technologies
()
I like to experiment with new selection technologies
Computer self-efcacy
I nd using the computer easy
It would be hard for me to learn to use a computer ()
I learn new computer programs easily
I hope I never have a job which requires me to use a computer
()
I get confused with all the different keys and computer
commands ()
I feel uneasy when people talk about computers ()
I feel comfortable working with computers
I get anxious each time I need to learn something new about
computers ()
Perceived usefulness
Using new selection technologies in my job would enable me
to accomplish tasks more quickly
Using new selection technologies would improve my job
performance
Using new selection technologies in my job would increase
People in my organization who use new selection
technologies have more prestige than those who do not
People in my organization who use new selection
technologies have a high prole
Having new selection technologies is a status symbol in my
organization
Job relevance
In my job, usage of new selection technologies is important
In my job, usage of new selection technologies is relevant
Output quality
The quality of the output I get from new selection
technologies is high
I have no problem with the quality of new selection
technologies output
Results demonstrability
I have no difculty telling others about the results of using
new selection technologies
I believe I could communicate to others the consequences of
using new selection technologies
The results of using new selection technologies are apparent
to me
I would have difculty explaining why using new selection
technologies may or may not be benecial ()
Face validity

(continued on next page)

2414 J.K. Oostrom et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 24042415
I can see a clear connection between new selection
technologies and what I think is required by the job
The actual content of new selection technologies is related to
the job tasks
I do not understand what new selection technologies have to
do with the job
Predictive validity
I am condent that new selection technologies can predict
how well an applicant will perform on the job
The employer can tell a lot about the applicants ability to do
the job based on the results of new selection technologies
Failing to perform well on new selection technologies
indicates that the applicant cannot perform well on the job
Fairness
Using new selection technologies to make selection decisions
is unfair ()
New selection technologies are unfair tests of a persons true
ability ()
New selection technologies obtain accurate information about
each persons abilities
I think that new selection technologies are fair
I have a strong doubt that new selection technologies really
measure a persons ability ()
Actual usage
In my work, I have used computer-based testing to select
personnel
In my work, I have used Internet-based testing to select
personnel
In my work, I have used telephone-based interview to select
personnel
In my work, I have used video-conference job interview to
select personnel
In my work, I have used multimedia simulation tests to select
personnel
References
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational denition of personal
innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information System
Research, 9, 204215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.9.2.204.
Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V., & Stair, R. M. (2000). Research report: The evolving
relationship between general and specic computer self-efcacy An empirical
assessment. Information Systems Research, 11, 418430. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1287/isre.11.4.418.11876.
Anderson, N. (2003). Applicant and recruiter reactions to new technology in
selection: A critical review and agenda for future research. International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 11, 121136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-
2389.00235.
Anthony, L. M., Clarke, M. C., & Anderson, S. J. (2000). Technophobia and personality
subtypes in a sample of South African university students. Computers in Human
Behavior, 16, 3144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(99)00050-3.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efcacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H.
Freeman and Company.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 126. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x.
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (1997). Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of
assessment in situational judgment tests: Subgroup differences in test
performance and face validity perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
143159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.143.
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, 923. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-
075X.2004.00260.x.
Chau, P. Y. K. (2001). Inuence of computer attitude and self-efcacy on IT usage
behavior. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 13, 2633. http://
dx.doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2001010103.
Compeau, D., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efcacy: Development of a
measure and initial test. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 19,
189211. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/249688>.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and
NEO ve-factory inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance
of information technology. Management Information Systems Research Center, 13,
319340. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/249008>.
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System
characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal
of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 475487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/
imms.1993.1022.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 22, 11111132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.1992.tb00945.x.
Devaraj, S., Easley, R. F., & Crant, J. M. (2008). How does personality matter? Relating
the Five-Factor Model to technology acceptance and use. Information Systems
Research, 19, 93105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0153.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ghobakhloo, M., Hong, T. S., Sabouri, M. S., & Zulkii, N. (2012). Strategies for
successful information technology adoption in small and medium-sized
enterprises. Information, 3, 3667. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/info3010036.
Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An
organizational justice perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 18,
694734. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258595.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-ve factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 2642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//1040-
3590.4.1.26.
Guadagno, R. E., Okdie, B. M., & Eno, C. A. (2008). Who blogs? Personality predictors
of blogging. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 19932004. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2007.09.001.
Hasan, B. (2006). Delineating the effects of general and system-specic computer
self-efcacy beliefs on IS acceptance. Information & Management, 43, 565571.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.11.005.
Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Application reactions to
selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 57, 639683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00003.x.
Knig, C. J., Klehe, U., Berchtold, M., & Kleinmann, M. (2010). Reasons for being
selective when choosing personnel selection procedures. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 18, 1727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2389.2010.00485.x.
Levenson, M. R. (1990). Risk taking and personality. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 10731080. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1073.
Levine, T., & Donitsa-Schmidt, S. (1998). Computer use, condence, attitudes, and
knowledge: A causal analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 125146.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(97)00036-8.
Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2003). Sources of inuence on beliefs
about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers.
Management Information Systems Research Center, 27, 657678. <http://
www.jstor.org/stable/30036552>.
Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2006). Video-based versus written situational judgment
tests: A comparison in terms of predictive validity. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 11811188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1181.
Lin, C. A. (2004). Webcasting adoption: Technology uidity, user innovativeness,
and media substitution. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48, 157178.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4803_6.
Lu, J., Yao, J. E., & Yu, C. (2005). Personal innovativeness, social inuences and
adoption of wireless Internet services via mobile technology. Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 14, 245268.
McElroy, J. C., Hendrickson, A. R., Townsend, A. M., & DeMarie, S. M. (2007).
Disposition factors in Internet use: Personality versus cognitive style.
Management Information Systems Research Center, 31, 809820. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2005.07.003.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the
perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information
Systems Research, 2, 192222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192.
Moore, K., & McElroy, J. C. (2012). The inuence of personality on Facebook usage,
wall postings, and regret. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 267274. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.009.
Nov, O., & Ye, C. (2008). Users personality and perceived ease of use of digital
libraries: The case for resistance to change. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 59, 845851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
asi.20800.
Richman-Hirsch, W. L., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Drasgow, F. (2000). Examining the
impact of administration medium on examinee perceptions and attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 880887. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.85.6.880.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Rotter, J. B. (1982). The development and application of social learning theory. New
York, NY: Praeger.
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, 565606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600308.
Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey, R. W. (1993).
Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 4976.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00867.x.
 J.K. Oostrom et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 24042415
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test
of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6, 144176. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.144.
Tonidandel, S., & Quiones, M. A. (2000). Psychological reactions to adaptive testing.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 715. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/1468-2389.00126.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of
use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27, 451481. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb00860.x.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology
acceptance model: Four longitudinal eld studies. Management Science, 46,
186204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unied view. Management Information
Systems Quarterly, 27, 425478. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
Venkatesh, V., Thong & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: Extending the unied theory of acceptance and use of technology.
2415
Management Information Systems Quarterly, 36, 157178. <http://ssrn.com/
abstract=2002388>.
Walczuch, R., Lemmink, J., & Streukens, S. (2007). The effect of service employees
technology readiness on technology acceptance. Information & Management, 44,
206215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.12.005.
Wang, Y. S., Lin, H. H., & Liao, Y. W. (2012). Investigating the individual difference
antecedents of perceived enjoyment in students use of blogging. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 43, 139153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2010.01151.x.
Wiechmann, D., & Ryan, A. M. (2003). Reactions to computerized testing in selection
contexts. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 215229. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00245.
Yi, M. Y., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems:
Self-efcacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology
acceptance model. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 59,
431449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00114-9.