Sie sind auf Seite 1von 30

School of Social Sciences

Psychology PS 5424
Spring 2008

Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in Lithuanian and


Swedish samples

Author: Simona Sudaviciute


Supervisor: Abdul H. Mohammed, Ph D
Examinor: Andrejs Ozolins, Ph D
ABSTRACT

Candidates’ attitudes towards various personnel selection methods get attention of organizational
and work psychology specialists because of various reasons. The most important reason is that
individuals’ attitudes towards personnel selection methods influence their latter behavior.
Although there is a substantial amount of studies carried out in different countries, there is no
data from Lithuanian and Swedish samples. The aim of current study was to analyze the attitudes
towards personnel selection methods among Lithuanian students, Lithuanian employees and
Swedish students. The participants (197 students and 86 employees) filled in a questionnaire,
which includes short descriptions of 10 personnel selection methods as well as items about
fairness of these methods. According to the results of the study, work-sample tests were ranked as
the fairest personnel selection method in the Lithuanian sample. The fairest personnel selection
methods in Swedish sample were work-sample tests, interview, resumes, and personal references.
Lithuanian students ranked the fairness of written ability test and honesty test more favorably
than Swedish students, but Swedish students tended to rank as more favorable interview,
resumes, personal references and personal contacts. Personal contacts and graphology were
ranked the lowest on fairness dimension in Lithuanian sample, and Swedes ranked only
graphology as the least fair personnel selection method. Lithuanian employees ranked personal
references, personal contacts and graphology more favorably than Lithuanian students. In
Lithuanian students sample, perception of personnel selection method as a scientifically proved,
logic and precise or providing an opportunity to show one’s skills, had the strongest connection
with favorability ranking of personnel selection method’s fairness. In the Lithuanian employees
and the Swedish students samples, perception of the method as logic or providing an opportunity
to show one’s skills, had the strongest link with fairness.

Key words: attitude towards personnel selection methods fairness, attitude towards personnel
selection methods fairness dimensions, attitude towards the suitability of personnel selection
methods to positions, self-efficacy.

1
INTRODUCTION

Personnel selection is one of the most important practice fields in organizations which has
received considerable attention by work and organizational psychologists. Many companies try to
do more work with fewer employees and because of this personnel selection becomes more
actual. Personnel selection – the process when the best candidate is selected and employed from a
lot of candidates to a work position, - is the application of various personnel selection methods:
interview, resumes, practical tasks, biographical information, references, written ability,
personality, honesty tests, graphology and all relevant methods.
Work and organizational psychologists are interested in candidates’ attitudes towards
personnel selection methods for some reasons. One reason is that the first personal contact
between an employer and a prospective employee (candidate) is usually established through the
selection process and it is very important because not only companies select employees, but
applicants also select the organizations to which they will apply and where they are willing to
work (Rynes, 1993), i.e. a two-way decision is proceeding. The first contact might affect an
applicant’s attitudes towards the organization and his or her decision to accept a job offer
(Anderson, 2004; Chapman, et al., 2005; Macan, Avedon, Paese & Smith, 1994), to recommend
or not other potential employees to go to that organization (Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman &
Stoffey, 1996) or even to use or not to use services and products of that organization (Anderson,
2004; Hausknecht, Day & Thomas, 2004). Another reason is the danger that employees can retire
from selection and in this way the organization will have additional charges (the organization can
loose potential high level employees) (Anderson, 2004; Chambers, 2002). Also, the growing
interest of candidates in selection processes and techniques encourages the creation of a fair
selection system. Another important reason to explore candidates’ reactions to selection methods
is that selection methods can have negative psychological effects on candidates (Anderson,
2004). In addition, understanding candidates’ reactions gives a conceptual background to develop
better selection systems and this would cause desirable reactions and would affect organization
attractiveness and commitment would increase (Chan & Schmitt, 2004).
Although this field of organizational and work psychology has received attention by
researchers, there is not so much research carried out especially compared with research about
selection methods from organizational perspective: less than 5 percent of the studies give
attention to the candidates’ perspective (Anderson, Lievens, Dam & Ryan, 2004).

2
To date, whereas studies on fairness in selection have been conducted in a number of
countries, no literature exists for Lithuanian and Swedish samples. Most of the research
concerning applicants’ fairness perceptions towards selection has been conducted in the United
States (Steiner & Gilliland, 1996). In Europe, some data have been collected in Belgium, Spain,
Portugal, Germany, Italy, Greece and Netherlands and a good deal of data is available for France
(Steiner & Gilliland, 2001).

Theoretical background
The term “Applicant attitudes” has been used as a synonym to such terms as: candidate/
individual reaction, perception, cognition about selection process or methods (Hausknecht, Day
& Thomas, 2004). A growing interest in candidates’ attitudes towards selection procedures was
noticed in the last decade. The main reason is the belief that attitudes may be related to
subsequent behavior. One of the theories explaining links between attitudes and behaviors is a
theory of planned behavior, which was proposed by Icek Aizen (2006). This theory is valued as
one of the most predictive persuasion theories. As seen in Figure 1, attitude toward the behavior
is one of the factors influencing people’s intentions and subsequent behavior. So, according to
this theory it becomes clear that understanding about the applicants’ attitudes towards personnel
selection methods is really important because knowledge about candidates’ attitudes could help
to improve selection process and this could cause more desirable behavior of applicants.

Figure 1: Theory of planned behavior, (Icek Aizen, 2006).

3
One of the first explanations about the importance of candidates’ reactions was made by
Schuler in 1993. He introduced the term “social validity” which means that the applicants’
attitudes depend on four factors (Moscoso & Salgado, 2004):
1. Received information about task requirements and organization characteristics;
2. Direct or representative participation that candidates have in the development and
execution of the selection process;
3. The transparency of selection process;
4. The form and content of feedback given to candidate.
Concurrently there were attempts to relate existing research with organizational justice
theory (Gilliland, 1993). According to organizational justice theory, applicants evaluate selection
procedures on the basis of four aspects of organizational justice: perceived fairness of (1)
outcome allocations, (2) rules and procedures used to make decisions, (3) sensitivity and respect
shown to candidates and (4) given explanations or accounts to individuals. Bauer et al. (2001)
developed Gilliland’s organizational justice rules into a scale that was called Selection Procedural
Justice Scale and their results showed that there were eleven factors (job-relatedness (predictive),
information known, chance to perform, reconsideration opportunity, feedback, consistency,
openness, treatment, two-way communication, propriety of questions, job-relatedness content)
that relate perceived fairness of selection and later outcomes.
One of the latest attempts to explain applicants’ reactions to selection methods was made
by Hausknecht, Day and Thomas (2004). They offered an updated theoretical model (see the
figure 1 in Appendix A) and the main premise of this model was that candidates’ perception
about the selection process can help to predict later outcomes. The model consists of four parts:
applicant perceptions, antecedents, moderators and outcomes, - and we focus most on the links
between applicant reactions and outcomes. According to their results the applicants’ perceptions,
except test anxiety, were positively related to self-assessed procedure performance,
organizational attractiveness, recommendation intentions and offer acceptance intentions
(average correlations were generally moderate to large). Test anxiety was negatively related to
actual procedure performance. These results support the belief that attitudes can predict later
behavior but there is need to do more research to find out if the relations are robust or not
(Hausknecht, Day & Thomas, 2004).

4
Personality traits relations to attitudes towards personnel selection procedures
As Ryan and Ployhart (2000) notice among other determinants of fairness reactions, scientists
should also explore the role of individual differences, noting that only a few studies have
explored candidates’ reactions across multiple types of procedures, and even fewer have studied
them longitudinally. Hausknecht et al. (2004), in their recent meta-analysis, also identified a very
small number of studies exploring the relationship between personality dimensions and applicant
perceptions. According to their meta-analysis, conscientiousness and neuroticism had a small
average correlation with procedural justice, and conscientiousness was also moderately related to
test motivation.
In one of few studies on this subject, Viswesvaran and Ones (2004) found that individuals
who have high emotional stability and extroversion place greater value on selection system
development process variables, such as adequacy of job analysis, validity evidence, and
involvement of professionals. Extroversion was also positively related to the process of
administration, e.g., consistency across applicants, opportunity to review scoring, and
confidentiality. Importance placed on selection context (e.g., selection ratio and company history
of discrimination) was moderately negatively correlated with both conscientiousness and
emotional stability. Individuals with high conscientiousness, cognitive ability and emotional
stability place less importance on these factors in inferring selection system fairness.
Nevertheless, the results of this study should be interpreted cautiously because of the small
number of individuals (N = ) completing the personality measure (Nikolaou & Judge, 2007).
Self-efficacy and self-esteem have also been shown to correlate with applicant reactions.
Gilliland (1993) explored the potential impact of the selection process on applicants’ self-efficacy
and self-esteem. He found that self-efficacy was related to ‘the interaction of the job relevance of
the test and the hire-reject decision such that rejection using job relevant procedures has the
greatest negative impact on self-efficacy’ (Chan & Schmitt, 2004, p. 17).
Nikolaou and Judge (2007) tried to explore the role of individual differences on fairness
reactions. The results showed that CSE (a broad personality construct indicated by four specific
traits: self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control and neuroticism) is weakly correlated with the
process favorability of interviews and resumes only for the employee sample, but no statistically
significant correlations were identified in the student sample. The fairness dimensions of
interviews and personal contacts for employees and students respectively were also weakly
correlated with CSE.

5
Owing to the paucity of research, the importance of future research on the relationship
between personality and fairness reactions should be emphasized (Chan & Schmitt, 2004;
Hausknecht, et al., 2004).

Attitudes towards personnel selection procedures in different countries


A growing interest in applicants’ reactions to personnel selection methods was noticed after
Steiner and Gilliland (1996) research which had a purpose to explore candidates’ attitudes
towards ten personnel selection methods: interview, resumes, work-sample tests, biographical
information blank, written ability tests, personal preferences, personality tests, honesty tests,
personal contacts, graphology. This research that has been done in United States and France
(1996) were replicated later in other countries: Singapore (2002), Germany (2003), Spain and
Portugal (2004), Greece and Italy (2007), Netherlands (2008). The purpose of these studies was
to determine what applicants’ reactions to personnel selection methods are in various countries.
In these cases, the applicants’ reactions to personnel selection procedures indicated a
general attitude toward fairness of the personnel selection method, i.e. how exactly the method
helps to select an appropriate candidate to a job position, and attitudes toward fairness
dimensions of personnel selection methods, which means why/or by what reasons, the applicant
assesses the personnel selection method as fair.
General attitudes towards personnel selection methods
Analyzing results in general about attitudes towards the personnel selection methods, the
interview receives the highest favorability ratings from all ten personnel selection procedures,
and the interview is valued as the fairest personnel selection method (Anderson & Witvliet, 2008;
Bertolino & Steiner, 2007; Hausknecht, Day & Thomas, 2004; Marcus, 2003; Moscoso&
Salgado, 2004; Nikolaou & Judge, 2007; Phillips & Gully, 2002; Steiner & Gilliland, 1996).
Work-sample tests usually receive similar favorability ratings as the interview (Anderson &
Witvliet, 2008; Marcus, 2003; Moscoso& Salgado, 2004; Nikolaou & Judge, 2007; Phillips&
Gully, 2002; Steiner & Gilliland, 1996;) but there are some results indicating that work-sample
tests is a less favorable method than interviews (Hausknecht, Day & Thomas, 2004; Nikolaou &
Judge, 2007) or more favorable than interviews (Bertolino & Steiner, 2007). The fairness of
resumes is assessed moderately favorable but favorability rating is smaller not statistically
significant than interview and work-sample tests (Anderson & Witvliet, 2008; Bertolino &
Steiner, 2007; Marcus, 2003; Moscoso & Salgado, 2004; Nikolaou & Judge, 2007). The fairness
of written ability tests, personality tests, honesty tests, personal preferences and biographical

6
information blank receive average favorability ratings (Moscoso & Salgado, 2004; Phillips &
Gully, 2002). The worst favorability ratings appear when individuals assess the fairness of
personal contacts and graphology (Moscoso & Salgado, 2004), however graphology gets the
lowest ratings (Anderson & Witvliet, 2008; Bertolino & Steiner, 2007; Marcus, 2003; Moscoso
& Salgado, 2004; Nikolaou & Judge, 2007; Phillips & Gully, 2002).
While there is a notable similarity between the nine countries, there are some differences
too. Comparing Singapore and United States one may see that Singaporeans perceive personality
tests to have more process favorability than Americans did. Portuguese individuals rated the
interview, personal references, honesty tests, personal contacts and graphology more favorably
than the Spanish sample. However, in terms of the effect size, these differences are quite small (d
range from .27 to .54). Even graphology got the lowest favorability ratings in all countries;
however the French sample rated this method more favorably than the American, Spanish and
Portuguese samples. And some differences were found in comparisons between American and
Dutch samples: Americans favored resumes more than the Dutch did, whereas the Dutch favored
personality tests far more than Americans. Nikolaou and Judge (2007) propose that this “notable
similarity” between countries can be a result of student samples used in the investigations. In
Greece they used groups of students and employees, and found some differences between these
two samples. They found significant differences in five of the 10 selection methods. Employees
rated resumes more favorably than students, but students rated written ability, personality and
honesty tests higher as well as graphology. In most cases, the differences, in terms of the effect
size, were small to moderate (.26 ≤ d ≤ .67) with honesty tests demonstrating the largest
differences between employees and students.
Attitudes towards fairness dimensions of personnel selection methods
Candidates’ attitudes towards fairness dimensions of personnel selection methods are as
important as general applicants’ reactions to personnel selection techniques. It is important to
explore why candidates rate personnel selection methods as fair. As Steiner and Gilliland (1996)
proposed, the fairness dimensions were seven: scientific evidence, employer’s right to obtain
information, opportunity to perform, interpersonal warmth, face validity (logical approach),
respect of privacy and widespread use.
In general, comparing fairness dimensions ratings, it is perceived that the fairness
dimension called face validity predicts favorable rating of the method the best (Phillips, Gully,
2002) but some results indicate that both face validity and opportunity to perform are the best
predictors of personnel selection techniques favorability (Nikolaou, Judge, 2007; Bertolino,

7
Steiner, 2007). Fairness dimensions as opportunity to perform, wide use of method and
employer’s right to obtain information are also strong predictors in the United States sample, but
in the Singaporean sample all correlations are lower (Phillips & Gully, 2002).
Comparing fairness dimensions to every personnel selection method in the Spanish and
Portuguese samples the following tendencies can be observed (Moscoso, Salgado, 2004). For the
scientific evidence dimension personal contacts, personal preferences and graphology are
perceived as the personnel selection methods with the least research evidence, whereas written
ability tests, work-sample tests are rated as selection techniques with the most scientific evidence.
In consideration of fairness dimension, called employer’s right to obtain information, interview,
work-sample tests and resumes are rated most positively, whereas personal contacts and
graphology are rated most negatively. Interview and work-sample tests are perceived as fair
methods because they give an opportunity to perform, to demonstrate their skills; personal
contacts and graphology offer very small opportunities to demonstrate skills in the applicants’
opinion. Resume is perceived as cold and impersonal method, and interview is perceived as the
warmest technique. In consideration of respect for privacy biographical information blank,
personality and honesty tests are perceived as the most invasive to one’s privacy.
Anderson and Witvliet (2008) noticed some differences between Netherlands, United
States, France, Spain and Portugal in fairness dimensions; however the effect sizes were
relatively small.

To date, whereas studies on fairness in personnel selection techniques have been


conducted in a number of countries, most of the research concerning applicants’ fairness
perceptions towards selection has been conducted in the United States (Steiner & Gilliland,
1996). In Europe, some data have been collected in Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy,
Greece and Netherlands and a good deal of data is available for France (Steiner & Gilliland,
2001); unfortunately some data are not published or are inaccessible. No literature exists in
Scandinavian and Baltic countries, so it is important to explore applicants’ reactions to personnel
selection methods in some Scandinavian and/or Baltic countries. In addition, the focus should be
the limitation of earlier studies such as the use of student samples.

Study objective – to explore students’ and employees’ attitudes towards personnel


selection methods in Lithuanian and Swedish samples.

8
Hypotheses:
1. The interview is perceived as the fairest personnel selection method in
Lithuanian and Swedish samples.
2. Graphology and personal contacts are valued as the least fair personnel
selection methods in Lithuanian and Swedish samples.
3. Students perceive personnel selection methods as having greater process
favorability than employees in Lithuanian sample.
4. Lithuanian students perceive personnel selection methods as having greater
process favorability than Swedish students.
5. Students and employees with experience in personnel selection methods
perceive these methods more favorably than those who have never gone through
personnel selection.
6. Face validity is related more strongly to attitudes towards fairness of
personnel selection methods in Lithuanian and Swedish samples.
7. The higher the individuals’ self-efficacy, the higher the ratings of
personnel selection favorability individuals give in Lithuanian and Swedish samples.
8. The suitability of personnel selection methods for certain work positions
differs depending on position category (manager, administration or worker) in the
Lithuanian and Swedish samples.

Method
Sample and procedure
The sample of current study consists of 283 participants: 107 students from Vytautas Magnus
University (Lithuania), 90 students from Växjö University and 86 employees from different
companies in Lithuania. The mean age of the Lithuanian students was 23.93 (SD = 4.15) and for
the Swedish students was 22.85 (SD = 3.29). The mean age of the Lithuanian employees was
30.19 (SD = 0.49). The biggest part of students (VMU) were majoring in social sciences (53%),
others’ majors were economics and management (19%), political sciences (8%), humanities
sciences (7%), natural sciences (5%), computer sciences (3%), social work (3%) and religion
sciences (1%) and arts (1%). Students from Växjö university were majoring in: social sciences
(29%), education (28%), economics and management (18%), humanities (15%), technology and
design (3%), mathematics and system engineering (3%), health sciences and social work (2%),
and police studies (1%). Other social – demographic information is shown in table 1.

9
Table 1. Participants’ social – demographic information.
Lithuania Sweden
Students Employees Students
(N=107) (N=86) (N=90)
Female 89 49 62
Gender
Male 18 37 28
Married 20 45 8
Family
Single 86 36 76
status
Divorced 1 5 0
Primary 1 0 0
Secondary 16 2 14
Further education 1 0 0
Education
Not finished university
34 13 70
education
University education 55 71 6

The students and employees received the questionnaire either electronically or as a paper
copy. In Lithuania the questionnaire was translated into Lithuanian and in Sweden to Swedish.
Participants were asked to answer the social – demographical and self-efficacy questions.
Afterwards they were asked to read the description of each method and to indicate how strongly
they agreed or disagreed with the statements about the fairness and suitability of ten personnel
selection methods.

Measures
In this study the Steiner and Gilliland questionnaire (1996) was used to evaluate students’ and
employees’ attitudes towards personnel selection methods (see the extract in Appendix B). This
questionnaire covered 10 different personnel selection methods: interview, resumes, work-sample
tests, biographical information blank, written ability tests, personal preferences, personality tests,
honesty tests, personal contacts, graphology. Each personnel selection method was briefly
described regarding its content and purpose. There were two questions designed to assess the
fairness of each method using a 7–point Likert scale (1 indicated strongly disagree and 7
indicated strongly agree). The two questions were: 1) The method is effective for selecting qualified
people; 2) Even if I did not get the job based on this selection method, I would think the procedure is fair.
Also participants answered seven questions about possible justice dimensions of each method. They used
a 7-point Likert scale to answer (1 indicated strongly disagree and 7 indicated strongly agree).
These assessed dimensions were: a) The method is based on solid scientific research; b) The approach
is a logical one for identifying qualified candidates for the job (face valid); c) The method will detect
10
important qualities of the individual that differentiate them from others (opportunity to perform); d) The
selection instrument is impersonal and cold; e) Employers have the right to obtain information using this
method; f) The method invades personal privacy; g) The method is good because it is widely used. The
coefficient alpha for the scale was 0.82 for the Lithuanian students sample, 0.85 for the Lithuanian
employees sample and 0.77 for the Swedish students sample.
Three statements about the method’s suitability were added to the questionnaire. Participants
indicated if each selection method is suitable for selecting candidates to such work position categories:
managers, administration and workers. They used a 7-point Likert scale (1 indicated strongly disagree
and 7 indicated strongly agree) for each statement (for example: The method is effective to select
managers).
Also the participants were asked if they had ever been evaluated by each personnel selection
method and also to evaluate two statements about self-efficacy (I can achieve my goals; I can perform
a majority of the tasks effectively) where they used a 4-point Likert scale (1 indicated strongly
disagree and 4 indicated strongly agree). Social – demographic questions were given too.

RESULTS

The results will be presented in this way:


 Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in the Lithuanian sample:
o Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in the students sample;
o Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in the employees sample;
o Students’ and employees’ attitudes comparisons;
 Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in the Swedish sample;
 Lithuanian and Swedish samples comparisons.

Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in the Lithuanian sample


Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in the students sample
One of the main tasks in this study was to explore which personnel selection methods are
perceived as fair and which as unfair. Figure 3 shows means of personnel selection methods
fairness ratings in the Lithuanian students group.
As shown in figure 3 Lithuanian students perceive work sample tests most favorably. In
this group the method was evaluated as the fairest method, the mean of work-sample tests rating
differs statistically significantly from all other selection methods ratings (p < 0.001). The rating

11
means of personal contacts and graphology are the lowest and differ statistically significantly
from the rating means of the other eight selection methods (p < 0.001).

6.00
5.31 Interview
5.00 Resumes
4.50 4.47
4.14 Work-sample tests
4.06
4.00 3.85 Biographical information blank
3.603.64
Ratings

Written ability tests


3.00 2.66 2.52 Personal preferences
Personality tests
2.00
Honesty tests
1.00 Personal contacts
Graphology
0.00

Figure 3. The means of personnel selection methods fairness ratings in the Lithuanian
students group.
The next important task was to identify which fairness dimensions were related with
favorability rating of selection methods, i.e. why/by what reasons individuals assess personnel
selection method as fair. Table 2 shows correlations between the selection methods fairness
ratings and fairness dimensions ratings.

Table 2. Spearman correlations between the selection methods fairness ratings and fairness
dimensions ratings in Lithuanian students group (N=107).
right to obtain
Interpersonal
Face validity

Opportunity

Widespread
information
Employer‘s

Respect of
to perform
approach)
Scientific
evidence

warmth
(logical

privacy

use
Personnel selection
method

Interview 0.28** 0.37** 0.27** 0.25** 0.21** 0.10 0.17


Resumes 0.46** 0.45** 0.43** 0.30** 0.35** -0.03 0.35**
Work-sample tests 0.37** 0.60** 0.47** 0.19 0.40** 0.35** 0.21*
Biographical
0.55** 0.55** 0.40** 0.03 0.32** 0.19 0.38**
information blank
Written ability tests 0.43** 0.63** 0.44** 0.05 0.41** 0.11 0.35**
Personal preferences 0.53** 0.67** 0.61** 0.03 0.28** 0.09 0.44**
Personality tests 0.29** 0.62** 0.39** -0.05 0.43** 0.24** 0.48**
Honesty tests 0.45** 0.59** 0.45** 0.03 0.48** 0.27** 0.14
Personal contacts 0.50** 0.65** 0.50** -0.01 0.37** 0.06 0.40**
Graphology 0.60** 0.75** 0.73** 0.11 0.38** -0.09 0.56**
** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

12
Three fairness dimensions correlate strongly with selection methods fairness: scientific
evidence (correlations from 0.28 to 0.60), face validity (correlations from 0.37 to 0.75) and
opportunity to perform (correlations from 0.27 to 0.73). If a selection method has scientific
evidence, face validity and gives opportunity to perform then it is perceived as a fair method in
the Lithuanian students group.
Identifying if experience influences the selection methods favorability ratings it was
noticed that experience in personnel selection is related with three selection methods favorability
ratings: students who have been evaluated by work-sample tests, personality tests or personal
contacts rated these selection methods more favorably than those who have never gone through
these methods (see table 3).

Table 3. Differences between experienced in personnel selection methods vs. inexperienced


groups in the Lithuanian students group.
Selection method Experienced Inexperienced
t value df p value
Mean Mean
Interview 4.47 (N=78) 4.57 (N=27) -0.398 103 0.692
Resumes 4.04 (N=83) 4.57 (N=21) -1.516 102 0.133
Work-sample tests 5.91 (N=29) 5.08 (N=76) 4.005 67.262 0.000
Biographical 4.20 (N=25) 4.02 (N=77) 0.626 100 0.532
information blank
Written ability tests 4.71 (N=17) 4.40 (N=81) 0.869 96 0.387
Personal preferences 4.00 (N=23) 3.50 (N=76) 1.430 97 0.156
Personality tests 5.20 (N=5) 3.55 (N=86) 2.800 89 0.012
Honesty tests 3.50 (N=5) 3.86 (N=90) -0.630 93 0.530
Personal contacts 3.03 (N=38) 2.43 (N=61) 2.075 97 0.041
Graphology 4.00 (N=1) 2.50 (N=95) 1.208 94 0.230

Comparing the suitability of selection methods to positions (managers, administration


and workers) it was noticed that in this group written ability tests, interview and work-sample
tests were perceived as the most suitable to select manager positions (see figure 4). Interview and
work-sample tests were also suitable to select administration positions. The most suitable
selection methods to select workers were the following: work-sample tests, resumes and
interview.

13
Managers
6.00
5.50 Administration
5.00 Workers
Ratings 4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50

Work-sample
Resumes

Personal
Personality

Honesty

Graphology
Biographical

ability tests

contacts
Interview

preferences
information

Personal

tests
Written

tests
blank
tests
Figure 4. The suitability of selection methods to positions (the Lithuanian students)

Although interview and work-sample tests were perceived as suitable to all positions
categories, dispersion analysis with repeated measures showed that the suitability mean of
interview to select administration positions differs statistically significantly from the suitability
mean of interview to select manager or worker positions (see table 4). Work-sample tests suit to
select administration and worker positions more than manager positions, because suitability
means differs statistically significantly comparing manager with administration positions, and
manager with worker positions.

Table 4. The suitability means of interview and work-sample tests to select manager,
administration and worker positions in the Lithuanian students group (repeated measures).
Personnel Manager Administration Workers
p value
selection method Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
5.07 (1.50) 5.52 (0.98) 0.000
Interview 5.07 (1.50) 4.96 (1.70) 0.656
5.52 (0.98) 4.96 (1.70) 0.001
4.92 (1.71) 5.25 (1.39) 0.013
Work-sample tests 4.92 (1.71) 5.34 (1.55) 0.049
5.25 (1.39) 5.34 (1.55) 0.526

Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in employees sample


Analyzing how selection methods fairness ratings differ in the Lithuanian employees group,
similar tendencies emerged as in the Lithuanian students group. Work-sample tests received the
highest fairness ratings (M = 5.13; SD = 1.370), personal contacts and graphology – the lowest
ratings (M = 3.05; SD = 1.265 and M = 2.95; SD = 1.297); the means of methods fairness ratings
differ statistically significantly from other selection methods ratings (p < 0.001).
14
With regard to social – demographical variables we noticed some weak but statistically
significant correlations between age and selection methods fairness ratings. For Lithuanian
employees group age correlated with honesty test fairness ratings (r = 0.272, p = 0.013), i.e. the
higher the age, the higher the rating of honesty tests fairness was noticed. So the elder people
perceive honesty tests fairness more favorably than young people.
Also correlations between the selection methods fairness ratings and fairness dimensions
ratings were calculated in the Lithuanian employees sample (see table 5). For this group the
strongest correlations emerged between the fairness ratings and two fairness dimensions: face
validity (logical approach) (r from 0.37 to 0.78) and opportunity to perform (r from 0.16 to 0.64).
Examining the relationship of experience in personnel selection methods with selection
methods fairness ratings, only one significant relationship emerged: employees who have been
evaluated by personal contacts in personnel selection perceive this methods more favorably than
those who have no experience in this method (t = 1.998; df = 82; p = 0.049).

Table 5. Spearman correlations between the selection methods fairness ratings and fairness
dimensions ratings in the Lithuanian employees sample (N=86).
Scientific evidence

Respect of privacy
(logical approach)

Employer‘s right

Widespread use
Opportunity to

Interpersonal
Face validity

information
to obtain
perform

warmth

Personnel selection
method
Interview 0.17* 0.42** 0.33** 0.15 0.10 -0.16 0.44**
Resumes 0.26** 0.37** 0.16 0.01 0.04 -0.04 0.38**
Work-sample tests 0.47** 0.76** 0.58** 0.27* 0.41** -0.01 0.34**
Biographical
0.48** 0.78** 0.64** -0.01 0.49** -0.11 0.51**
information blank
Written ability tests 0.50** 0.45** 0.54** -0.30** 0.18 -0.34** 0.36**
Personal preferences 0.39** 0.62** 0.47** -0.11 0.22* -0.17 0.55**
Personality tests 0.62** 0.65** 0.46** -0.22* 0.23* 0.06 0.18
Honesty tests 0.68** 0.59** 0.45** 0.03** 0.48** 0.27** 0.14**
Personal contacts 0.66** 0.65** 0.45** 0.03 0.27* -0.18 0.59**
Graphology 0.56** 0.72** 0.58** 0.24* 0.29** 0.02 0.52**
** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Earlier it was hypothesized that self-efficacy is related to perception of selection method


fairness but for the employees sample only few significant correlations occurred. Self-efficacy
correlated significantly with the interview (r = 0.246; p = 0.023) and resumes (r = 0.260; p =
15
0.016) fairness ratings. In both cases correlations were positive: the higher the self-efficacy value,
the higher the ratings of interview and resumes fairness.
For the Lithuanian employees sample, written ability tests, personal preferences and
interview were perceived as the most suitable to select managers positions, interview, resumes
and work-sample tests –administration positions, and work-sample tests, resumes and interview –
workers positions (see figure 5).

6.00 Managers
5.50 Administration

5.00 Workers
Ratings

4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
Work-sample
Resumes

Personal
Personality

Honesty

Graphology
Biographical

ability tests

contacts
Interview

preferences
information

Personal

tests
Written

tests
blank
tests

Figure 5. The suitability of personnel selection methods to positions (the Lithuanian


employees group).

As interview was perceived suitable for all positions categories, extra dispersion analysis
with repeated measures was done. It showed that employees perceive the interview as more
suitable to select administration positions than manager or worker positions because the mean of
interview suitability to select administration positions was significantly higher than the means of
interview suitability to select manager (p = 0.009) and worker (p = 0.002) positions.

Students’ and employees’ attitudes comparisons


Usually researchers emphasize that students’ and employees’ attitudes differ and therefore it is
important to explore if these differences exist. Examining students’ and employees’ attitudes
towards personnel selection methods we found significant differences in three of the ten
personnel selection methods (see table 6). Employees rated personal preferences, personal
contacts and graphology more favorably than students. So the hypothesis that students’ ratings of
personnel selection methods fairness are higher than employees’ ratings was not supported.

16
Table 6. The means and standard deviations of personnel selection methods ratings in
students and employees groups (Lithuania) (One-way ANOVA).
Lithuania Students (N=107) Employees (N=86)
p value
Mean SD Mean SD
Interview 4.47 1.22 4.63 1.21 0.346
Resumes 4.14 1.45 4.01 1.37 0.503
Work-sample tests 5.31 1.14 5.13 1.37 0.314
Biographical information
4.06 1.25 3.97 1.37 0.628
blank
Written ability tests 4.47 1.31 4.55 1.16 0.651
Personal preferences 3.60 1.48 4.12 1.31 0.012
Personality tests 3.64 1.32 3.77 1.17 0.487
Honesty tests 3.85 1.22 4.05 1.36 0.303
Personal contacts 2.66 1.40 3.05 1.27 0.050
Graphology 2.52 1.24 2.95 1.30 0.022

Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in the Swedish sample

For the Swedish students sample four selection methods received highest ratings: work-sample
tests (M = 5.09; SD = 1.239), interview (M = 5.08; SD = 1.121), resumes (M = 5.00; SD = 0.969)
and personal preferences (M = 4.74; SD = 1.126) (table 6). Swedish students perceive these
selection methods as the fairest procedures (the means of these methods fairness ratings differ
significantly from other methods ratings; p < 0,05). Graphology received the lowest rating (M =
2,61; SD = 1.402) and it differs from the other nine selection methods ratings (p < 0,01).

6
Interview
5.08 5 5.09
5 4.74 Resumes
4.23 Work-sample tests
4.02
4 3.76 3.62 Biographical information blank
Ratings

3.2 Written ability tests


3 2.62 Personal preferences
Personality tests
2
Honesty tests

1 Personal contacts
Graphology
0

Figure 6. The means of personnel selection methods fairness ratings in the Swedish students
group.

Analyzing correlations between selection methods fairness ratings and fairness


dimensions ratings in Swedish students sample, the selection methods fairness ratings correlate
17
the most with two fairness dimensions: face validity (logical approach) (r from 0.57 to 0.88) and
opportunity to perform (r from 0.41 to 0.83) (see table 7).

Table 7. Spearman correlations between selection methods fairness ratings and fairness
dimensions ratings in Swedish students sample (N=90).

right to obtain
Interpersonal
Face validity

Opportunity

Widespread
information
Employer‘s

Respect of
to perform
approach)
Scientific
evidence

warmth
(logical

privacy

use
Personnel selection
method

Interview 0.21 0.61** 0.68** 0.41** 0.21* 0.27* 0.47**


Resumes 0.12 0.57** 0.42** 0.24* 0.22* 0.00 0.33**
Work-sample tests 0.18 0.59** 0.41** 0.26* 0.30** 0.31** 0.27*
Biographical
0.42** 0.74** 0.49** 0.36** 0.36** 0.16 0.21
information blank
Written ability tests 0.53** 0.63** 0.68** 0.45** 0.19 0.19 0.23*
Personal preferences 0.08 0.58** 0.45** 0,34** 0.29** 0.31** 0.37**
Personality tests 0.42** 0.76** 0.53** 0.31** 0.57** 0.16 0.51**
Honesty tests 0.46** 0.81** 0.71** 0.04 0.53** 0.09 0.53**
Personal contacts 0.36** 0.64** 0.67** 0.19 0.44** 0.08 0.58**
Graphology 0.63** 0.88** 0.83** 0.28** 0.52** -0.09 0.62**
** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

With regard to experience in personnel selection methods six differences emerged in the
Swedish students sample. Individuals who have been evaluated by interview, work-sample tests,
written ability tests, personal preferences, honesty tests and personal contacts perceived these
selection methods more favorably than those who have never been evaluated by them (see table
8).
For the Swedish students group self-efficacy relationships with attitudes towards
selection methods were not so strong, but significant. Self-efficacy correlated significantly with
interview (r = 0.226; p = 0.033) and graphology (r = - 0.222; p = 0.002) fairness ratings. The
higher the self-efficacy value is, the higher the rating of interview fairness and the lower rating of
graphology fairness emerge in the Swedish students sample.

18
Table 8. Differences between experienced in personnel selection methods vs. inexperienced
groups in the Swedish students group.
Personnel selection Experienced Inexperienced
t value df p value
method Mean Mean
Interview 5.27 (N=62) 4.56 (N=27) 2.853 87 0.005
Resumes 5.10 (N=57) 4.76 (N=31) 1.615 86 0.110
Work-sample tests 5.61 (N=22) 4.90 (N=64) 2.361 84 0.021
Biographical 4.32 (N=17) 4.16 (N=70) 0.507 85 0.614
information blank
Written ability tests 5.36 (N=7) 3.98 (N=81) 2.771 86 0.007
Personal preferences 5.06 (N=57) 4.18 (N=30) 3.726 85 0.000
Personality tests 3.50 (N=6) 3.75 (N=80) -0.437 84 0.663
Honesty tests 4.50 (N=4) 3.09 (N=81) 2.516 83 0.014
Personal contacts 4.00 (N=51) 3.07 (N=37) 2.992 86 0.004
Graphology 5.00 (N=1) 2.55 (N=85) 1.897 84 0.061

Examining social – demographical variables relationships with attitudes in the Swedish


students group, only age correlated with attitudes towards three methods: personality tests (r =
0.313; p = 0.003), honesty tests (r = 0.293; p = 0.006) and personal contacts (r = 0.217; p =
0.043). It may be assumed that elder Swedish students rate personality tests, honesty tests and
personal contacts more favorably than younger.
Analyzing the suitability of methods to positions, it was noticed that some ratings of
suitability do difeer (see figure 7).

6.00

5.50

5.00 Managers
Ratings

4.50 Administration

4.00 Workers

3.50

3.00
Work-sample
Resumes

Personal
Personality

Honesty

Graphology
Biographical

ability tests

contacts
Interview

preferences
information

Personal

tests
Written

tests
blank
tests

Figure 7. The suitability of personnel selection methods to positions (the Swedish students
group).

The Swedish students perceive interview, resumes and personal preferences as suitable
to select managers positions. As suitable for administration positions they rate interview,
19
resumes, work-sample tests and personal contacts, and for workers positions – work-sample tests,
resumes and personal preferences. As in the Lithuanian sample the means of resumes suitability
to all positions were compared and it did not show any difference. The Swedish students perceive
resumes as suitable for all positions: managers, administration and workers.

Lithuanian and Swedish samples comparisons

At first it was analyzed which selection methods Lithuanian and Swedish students perceive as the
fairest and the least fair procedures separately. Table 9 shows comparisons between these two
groups.

Table 9. The means and standard deviations of personnel selection methods ratings in
students groups in Lithuania and Sweden (one-way ANOVA).
Students Lithuania (N=107) Sweden (N=90)
p value
Mean SD Mean SD
Interview 4.47 1.22 5.07 1.13 0.000
Resumes 4.14 1.46 5.01 0.98 0.000
Work-sample tests 5.31 1.14 5.07 1.24 0.175
Biographical information
4.06 1.25 4.19 1.20 0.489
blank
Written ability tests 4.47 1.31 4.06 1.34 0.033
Personal preferences 3.60 1.48 4.76 1,11 0.000
Personality tests 3.64 1.32 3.74 1.22 0.601
Honesty tests 3.85 1.22 3.20 1.59 0.000
Personal contacts 2.66 1.40 3.62 1.50 0.000
Graphology 2.52 1.24 2.65 1.39 0.496

As can be seen in the table 9, there are differences in six of ten personnel selection
methods ratings. Lithuanian students rate written ability tests and honesty students more
favorably than Swedish students, while Swedish students perceive interview, resumes, personal
preferences and personal contacts more favorably than Lithuanian students. With reference to
this, the fourth hypothesis was supported partly.
When analyzing fairness dimensions ratings for each method (see table 10), the
following tendencies emerge:
With regard to the scientific evidence of the method in both samples written ability tests
were perceived as the method with the best research evidence. For the dimension of face validity
both samples consider that work-sample tests were rated most positively. The Lithuanian students

20
perceived work-sample tests as giving the biggest opportunity to perform (to show your skills and
abilities), but the Swedish students in this case rated interview the best. With regard to
interpersonal warmth of the method interview was perceived as the warmest method in the
Lithuanian students group, while for the Swedish students it was the work-sample tests. The next
dimension analyzed was the employer’s right to obtain information. For this dimension, the
Lithuanian students rated the interview most favorably, while the Swedish students rated resumes
most favorably. Moreover both samples perceived resumes as the least invasive of privacy and
the most extensively used selection method.

Table 10. The means of fairness dimensions ratings in the Lithuanian and Swedish students
samples.

Employer‘s right to
Scientific evidence

Respect of privacy
obtain information
(logical approach)

Widespread use
Opportunity to

Interpersonal
Face validity

perform

warmth
Personnel
selection method

Interview Students (LT) 4.10 4.79 5.09 4.85 5.90 4.90 4.47
Students (SW) 3.81 4.79 5.30 4.74 4.81 4.54 4.22
Resumes Students (LT) 3.95 4.68 4.45 3.04 6.04 5.86 4.82
Students (SW) 3.94 4.52 4.56 3.69 5.18 5.15 4.51
Work-sample tests Students (LT) 4.62 5.60 5.56 4.60 5.68 5.26 4.18
Students (SW) 3.90 5.07 5.00 4.92 4.95 5.23 4.01
Biographical Students (LT) 4.05 4.21 4.12 3.69 5.22 4.53 3.98
information blank Students (SW) 3.94 4.04 4.16 4.37 4.37 4.36 3.90
Written ability Students (LT) 4.99 4.71 4.85 3.72 5.04 4.68 4.01
tests Students (SW) 4.15 3.92 4.08 3.51 4.16 4.38 3.72
Personal Students (LT) 3.14 3.65 3.57 3.98 5.19 4.43 3.87
preferences Students (SW) 3.60 4.44 4.32 4.79 4.90 4.44 4.34
Personality tests Students (LT) 4.07 3.65 4.06 4.59 4.32 3.72 3.61
Students (SW) 3.84 3.60 4.03 4.14 4.08 4.02 3.58
Honesty tests Students (LT) 4.07 3.72 3.78 4.10 4.61 3.85 3.75
Students (SW) 3.72 3.26 3.44 3.94 3.67 3.76 3.41
Personal contacts Students (LT) 2.36 2.60 2.41 4.77 3.71 4.11 3.05
Students (SW) 3.25 3.18 3.21 4.00 4.04 4.65 3.74
Graphology Students (LT) 3.18 2.32 2.60 4.03 3.76 4.57 2.65
Students (SW) 3.42 2.56 2.68 3.18 3.48 4.05 3.16

21
In summary we can conclude that there are some differences in attitudes towards
personnel selection methods fairness in different cultures samples (six of ten personnel selection
methods fairness ratings differ significantly).

DISCUSSION

Although attitudes towards personnel selection received considerable attention by researchers,


there are not so many studies from the candidates perspective. To date, studies on fairness in
selection have been conducted in the USA, France, South Africa, Belgium, Singapore, Spain,
Portugal, Germany, Italy, Greece, and Netherlands. No study was found in Lithuania and
Sweden, so the objective of the current study was to explore the attitudes towards personnel
selection methods in Lithuanian and Swedish samples.
Analyzing personnel selection fairness ratings in the Lithuanian sample (both students
and employees together) work-sample tests were perceived as the fairest selection technique. The
results confirm the results of studies that work-sample tests are perceived most favorably
(Bertolino & Steiner, 2007), but partly this contradicts other results when interview and work-
sample tests are rated equally (Hausknecht, Day & Thomas, 2004) or the interview is rated the
best and work-sample tests receive next best ratings (Steiner & Gilliland, 1996; Phillips & Gully,
2002; Marcus, 2003; Moscoso & Salgado, 2004; Hausknecht, Day & Thomas, 2004). Maybe in
Lithuania this selection method is perceived more favorably because it shows the highest
relatedness with job, e.g. it is clear for candidates that the method evaluates your knowledge,
skills and abilities necessary for work performance.
In the Swedish sample four selection methods are perceived as the fairest procedures:
work-sample tests, interview, resumes and personal preferences. Many studies confirm that
individuals rate a few selection techniques favorably, for example: interview, work-sample tests
and resumes (Marcus, 2003; Moscoso & Salgado, 2004; Nikolaou & Judge, 2007; Anderson &
Witvliet, 2008). One possible explanation is that individuals are not prone to prefer only one
method, because the combination of a few selection methods gives more opportunities to perform
(to show your knowledge, skills and abilities), so they are assessed similarly in terms of fairness.
The lowest fairness ratings go to graphology and personal contacts in the Lithuanian
sample, and in the Swedish sample – only to graphology. Studies in other countries showed
similar results: usually both methods receive low fairness ratings, but graphology gets the lowest
22
(Phillips & Gully, 2002; Marcus, 2003; Moscoso & Salgado, 2004; Bertolino & Steiner, 2007;
Nikolaou & Judge, 2007; Anderson & Witvliet, 2008). So, in this case the results were very
similar to other studies. Probably it is influenced by the perception that these methods are not so
scientific evident and face valid. Another explanation why graphology is perceived the least
favorably may be ignorance of this selection method because in both countries this selection
method is not used widely (only 3 participants from 283 answered that they had been evaluated
by this method).
The hypothesis that experience in personnel selection methods is related to the ratings of
selection methods fairness was supported only in three (work-sample tests, personality test and
personal contacts) out of ten cases in the Lithuanian sample, and in six (interview, work-sample
tests, written ability tests, personal preferences, honesty tests and personal contacts) out of ten
cases in the Swedish sample. In all cases individuals who had experienced personnel selection
methods perceived them more favorably than those who had never been evaluated by them. It
confirms results which show that information about selection techniques influence higher ratings
of selection method fairness (De Jong & Visser, 2000): persons who had got information about
selection methods rated them (interview, written ability tests, personality tests, personal
preferences) more favorably than those who had no additional information about methods.
Comparing fairness dimensions ratings of selection methods it was noticed that face
validity (logical approach) and opportunity to perform were the most related with perception of
selection methods fairness in all three groups. Also the Lithuanian students group considered
scientific evidence to be as important as the first two dimensions mentioned earlier. It supports
conclusions made by other researchers (Phillips & Gully, 2002; Bertolino & Steiner, 2007;
Nikolaou & Judge, 2007) that face validity and opportunity to perform are marked as the most
predictive dimensions. Obviously it is very important to candidates to feel that selection and
methods are logical, related to testing of skills, knowledge necessary at work, and to get the
opportunity to present their advantages and differences from other individuals.
Examining self-efficacy and selection methods fairness perception relationships few
significant correlations emerged in the Lithuanian employees and the Swedish students samples.
Although positive correlations between self-efficacy and interview and resumes fairness
perception in Lithuanian employees sample, these correlations replicate results conducted in
Greece when researchers found weak, significant correlations between CSE personality (self-
esteem, self-efficacy and locus of control) construct and interview, resumes fairness ratings in
employees sample (Nikolaou & Judge, 2007). In the Swedish students sample relationships

23
between self-efficacy and interview, graphology fairness perceptions emerged. Self-efficacy
relationship with the perception of interview fairness shows a similar tendency as was seen in the
Lithuanian employees sample. But self-efficacy relationship with rating of graphology fairness
was not noticed in earlier studies.
The suitability of personnel selection methods to positions is a new aspect in studies
from candidates’ perspective. There are not so many differences when comparing suitability of
methods of selection to manager, administration and worker positions. Nevertheless it was
noticed that the Lithuanian students and employees perceived the interview as a suitable
technique to select all positions categories. After further analysis it emerged that interview was
the most suitable method to select administration positions. In the Swedish sample resumes were
perceived as the most suitable technique to select all position categories. In terms of the method
suitability to select employees both countries’ participants indicated selection methods which are
widely used in personnel selection. Maybe this is the reason why individuals perceived these
methods as the most suitable to select all positions categories.
Comparing the perceptions of personnel selection methods fairness between students
and employees samples there were differences in three out of ten personnel selection methods
ratings – employees rate three selection procedures (personal preferences, personal contacts,
graphology) more favorably than students. Earlier studies emphasized some limitations in student
samples, because it seems likely that students may overestimate the fairness of selection
techniques (Hausknecht, Day & Thomas, 2004). But the results of the current study did not
support this. It could be due to a fact that a big part of the students (60% of the group) in this
study had work experience. But why employees perceived these methods more favorably than
students may be due to the fact that selection techniques as personal preferences and personal
contacts were used widely in organizations earlier when employees started their work. Also the
perception of graphology fairness may be influenced by the lack of reliable information about it.
Comparing the Lithuanian and Swedish students answers differences emerged in six out
of ten personnel selection methods ratings. Lithuanian students evaluated written ability tests and
honesty tests more favorably than Swedish students, while the latter evaluated interview,
resumes, personal preferences and personal contacts more favorably than Lithuanian students.
Many researchers found a lot of similarities between countries, but in the current study six
significant differences emerged. A possible explanation may be that these two countries have
more different human resource systems. So, a notably similarity between countries may be a
result of widely used American human resource systems in European countries (and usually all

24
results are compared with American samples). Because of this, it is worth continuing studies in
other countries (for example: Asian, South America countries) because in today’s world the
number of international companies is growing and these companies could use knowledge about
candidates’ attitudes towards personnel selection methods in practice.

25
References:
1. Aizen, I. Theory of planned behavior
http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/index.html
2. Anderson, N. (2004). Editorial – The Dark Side of the Moon: Applicant Perspectives,
Negative Psychological Effects (NPEs), and Candidate Decision Making in Selection.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 1/2, 1- 8.
3. Anderson, N., Lievens, F., van Dam, K., Ryan, A.M. (2004). Future Perspectives on
Employee Selection: Key Directions for Future Research and Practise. Applied
Psychology: an international review, 53, 487 – 501.
4. Anderson, N., Witvliet, C. (2008). Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Methods:
An international comparison between the Netherlands, the United States, France, Spain,
Portugal, and Singapore. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 1, 1 – 13.
5. Bauer, T.N., Truxillo, D.M., Sanchez, R., Craig, J., Ferrara, P., Campion, M.A. (2001).
Development of the Selection Procedural Justice Scale (SPJS). Personnel Psychology, 54,
387 – 419.
6. Bertolino, M., Steiner, D. D. (2007). Fairness Reactions to Selection Methods: An Italian
study. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 2, 197 – 205.
7. Chamber, B.A. (2002). Applicant reactions and their consequences: review, advice, and
recommendations for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4, 4,
317 – 333.
8. 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 – 22.
9. Chapman, D.S., Uggerslev, K.L., Carroll, S.A., Piasentin, K.A., Jones, D.A. (2005).
Applicant Attraction to Organizations and Job Choice: A Meta-Analytic Review of the
Correlates of Recruiting Outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 5, 928 – 944.
10. Gilliland, S.W. (1993). The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational
Justice Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694 – 734.
11. Hausknecht, J.P., Day, D.V., Thomas, S.C. (2004). Applicant Reactions to Selection
Procedures: an Updated Model and Meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57, 639 – 683.
12. 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,
715 – 738.

26
13. Marcus, B. (2003). Attitudes Towards Personnel Selection Methods: A Partial Replication
and Extension in a German Sample. Applied Psychology: an international review, 52, 515
– 532.
14. Moscoso, S., Salgado, J.F. (2004). Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Techniques
in Spain and Portugal. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 1/2, 187 –
196.
15. Nikolaou, I., Judge, T.A. (2007). Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Techniques in
Greece: The role of core self-evaluations. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 15, 2, 206 – 219.
16. Phillips, J.M., Gully, S.M. (2002). Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in
Singapore and the United States. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
13, 8, 1186 – 1205.
17. 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.
18. Rynes, S.L., Connerley, M.L. (1993). Applicant Reactions to Alternative Selection
Procedures. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 3, 261 – 277.
19. Smither, J.W., Millsap, R.E., Stoffey, R.W., Reilly, R.R., Pearlman, K. An Experimental
Test of the Influence of Selection Procedures on Fairness Perceptions, Attitudes about the
Organization, and Job Pursuit Intentions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 297 –
318.
20. Steiner, D.D., Gilliland, S.W. (1996). Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection
Techniques in France and the United States. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 134 –
141.
21. Steiner, D.D., Gilliland, S.W. (2001). Procedural Justice in Personnel Selection:
International and Cross-cultural Perspectives. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 9, 1/2, 124 – 136.
22. Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D.S. (2004). Importance of Perceived Personnel Selection System
Fairness Determinants: Relations with Demographic, Personality, and Job characteristics.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 1/2, 172 – 186.

27
Appendix A

Person Characteristics
 Work experience
Outcomes
 Test experience
 Personality Selection Procedure Performance
 Demographics  Actual procedure performance
Applicant Perceptions  Self-assessed procedure performance
 Procedural justice
 Distributive justice Self-Perceptions
Perceived Procedure Characteristics  Test anxiety  Self-efficacy
 Procedural justice rules  Test motivation  Self-esteem
 Interpersonal justice rules  Attitudes towards test
 Informational justice rules  Attitudes towards selection Attitudes and Behaviors toward Organization
 Length of process  Organizational attractiveness
 Outcome (actual or perceived)  Offer acceptance intentions/behaviors
 Intrusion of privacy  Recommendations intentions/behaviors
 Perceived test ease  Application intentions/behaviors
 Transparency  Reapplication intentions/behaviors
 Retesting intentions/behaviors
 Product purchase intentions/behaviors
 Litigation intentions/behaviors
Job Characteristics  Applicant withdrawal
 KSA requirements
Moderators
 Job stereotypes Work Attitudes and Behaviors
 Stage in selection process
 Job attractiveness  Job satisfaction
 Selection context
 Industry norms for selection  Organizational commitment
 Hiring expectations
 Job desirability  Job performance
 Available alternatives  Organizational citizenship behaviors
 Subjective norms  Turnover intentions/ turnover
Organizational Context
 Selection ratio
 History
 Resources

Figure 2: Updated Theoretical Model of Applicant Reactions to Selection; Hausknecht, Day and Thomas, 2004

28
Appendix B

Läs nedanstående beskrivningar av olika metoder för personalrekrytering och välj svarsalternativ som du tycker
passar bäst. Ringa in numret.

Intervjuer: Personlig interaktion där arbetsgivaren fråga bl a om din backgrund och dina kvalifikationer.

1. Har du någon gång blivit utvald med hjälp av denna metod? Ja Nej
Instämmer Instämmer Instämmer Vet Instämmer Instämmer Instämmer
inte alls inte delvis inte ej delvis helt
2. Metoden är effektiv för att hitta kvalificerade personer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Jag tycker att metoden är rättvis, även om jag inte fick
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
jobbet p g a denna metod.
4. Metoden grundar på vetenskaplig forskning. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Tillvägagångssättet är logiskt och mest lämpligt för att
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
identifiera kvalificerade kandidater för jobbet.
6. Metoden är lämplig för att hitta viktiga egenskaper av
en person som urskilja individuen från andra personer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Urvalsinstrumentet är opersonlig, kall och okänslig. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Arbetsgivare har rättigheten att samla in information
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
genom denna metod.
9. Metoden strider emot individuens personlig integritet
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
och privatsfären.
10. Metoden är bra eftersom den användas ofta. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Metoden är effektiv för att välja ut: Manager 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Förvaltningspersonal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Arbetare 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29