7/24/2019 Percepção de Igualdade Na Seleção de Pessoal - 12934483
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/percepcao-de-igualdade-na-selecao-de-pessoal-12934483 1/12
Perceived Fairness in Personnel Selection:Determinants and Outcomes in Different Stages of
the Assessment ProcedureAnnelies E. M. Van Vianen*
Department of Work and OrganizationalPsychology University of Amsterdam
Ruben TarisLTP
Amsterdam
Eveline Scholten and Sonja SchinkelDepartment of Work and Organizational Psychology
University of Amsterdam
This study addresses the determinants and outcomes of fairness perceptions in a realassessment procedure as performed by a selection agency. Fairness perceptions wereinvestigated at three points in time: before the assessment, right after the assessment butbefore assessment feedback, and after assessment feedback. Using structural equationmodeling, we tested how fairness perceptions develop throughout the assessmentprocedure. Applicants’ openness to experiences affected their test beliefs before the actualtest-taking. These beliefs remained powerful in the subsequent stages of the assessmentprocedure in that they influenced applicants’ perceptions of performance, feedback andfairness. In the context of selection by an external selection agency, post-feedback fairnessperceptions were not related to job attractiveness. Perceived feedback treatment andfeedback content directly affected job attractiveness.
Introduction
A pplicant reactions to personnel selection systems are
important, because they affect such outcomes as
applicants’ intentions to pursue employment with an
organization, organizational attractiveness, test validity,
and utility and organizational climate (Anderson, Born, &
Cunningham-Snell, 2001; Smither, Millsap, Stoffey, Reilly,
& Pearlman, 1996). Gilliland (1993) proposed a theore-
tical model using fairness perceptions as key reactions topersonnel selection and he identified several antecedents
and consequences of these fairness perceptions. The
consequences of applicants’ reactions have been exten-
sively studied, but their antecedents have received less
empirical attention. This study aims to fill this void through
examining the development of fairness perceptions
throughout the selection procedure using a longitudinal
design.
The present study extends the literature and research on
applicants’ reactions in three ways. First, we investigate
fairness perceptions longitudinally in different stages of the
selection procedure: (a) right after applicants were tested
and (b) after they have received their assessment feedback.
Second, we examine personality and attitudinal determi-
nants of fairness perceptions for each of these stages of the
selection procedure. This is critical to understanding the
role of individual factors as opposed to procedural factors
that affect justice perceptions. Third, we test a processmodel including applicants’ fairness and feedback percep-
tions and their test results predicting job attractiveness.
Most studies examining selection fairness used student
samples (Horvath, Ryan, & Stierwalt, 2000; Ployhart,
Ryan, & Bennett, 1999) and only some of them included
actual job applicants (Bauer, Maertz, Dolen, & Campion,
1998; Bauer, Truxillo, Sanchez, Craig, Ferrara, & Cam-
pion, 2001; Truxillo, Bauer, Campion, & Paronto, 2002).
Field study is, however, critical to test the ecological
validity of the determinants and outcomes of fairness
perceptions in selection procedures as established in
experimental research (Greenberg, 1990). In this study,
*Address correspondence: Annelies E.M. van Vianen, University of
Amsterdam, Department of Psychology, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT VOLUME 12 NUMBERS 1/2 MARCH/JUNE 2004
7/24/2019 Percepção de Igualdade Na Seleção de Pessoal - 12934483
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/percepcao-de-igualdade-na-selecao-de-pessoal-12934483 2/12
we tested hypotheses in real selection assessment proce-
dures.
Fairness Perceptions
The perceived fairness of selection systems has often been
conceptualized as procedural and distributive justice.
Procedural justice in the selection context refers to theperceived fairness of the selection procedure that is used to
arrive at a selection decision; distributive justice refers to
the perceived fairness of the selection decision (Gilliland,
1993). Organizational justice research suggests that
particularly perceived procedural justice of selection
systems is related to individual outcomes (Truxillo &
Bauer, 1999). Previous applicant reactions research has
shown that perceived fairness could predict job attractive-
ness and job acceptance intentions (Bauer et al., 1998;
Macan, Avedon, Paese, & Smith, 1994; Ployhart, & Ryan,
1998; Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, & Stoffey, 1993).
In this study, we expect to replicate this finding, in thatapplicants’ fairness perceptions in the final stage of the
selection will be positively related to perceptions of job
attractiveness.
Gilliland’s (1993) theoretical model includes three
domains of procedural justice rules that influence percep-
tions of overall fairness of a given selection procedure. The
formal characteristics domain includes job-relatedness,
chance to perform, reconsideration opportunity, and
consistency. The interpersonal treatment domain com-
prises treatment at the test site, two-way communication,
and propriety of questions. Under the explanation domain
is feedback, information known, and openness. The formalcharacteristics and interpersonal treatment domains both
refer to elements of the actual test-taking procedure, while
the explanation domain refers to the final stage of that
procedure when applicants receive their test feedback. In
this study, we therefore distinguished between pre-feed-
back and post-feedback fairness perceptions.
Pre-feedback fairness perceptions are based on appli-
cants’ experiences before and during the test-taking,
including the formal characteristics of the test-taking and
the interpersonal treatment during the assessment. Post-
feedback fairness perceptions also comprise these formal
and interpersonal treatment aspects. In addition, they arelinked directly to the content and treatment of the
assessment feedback. We will now further explore the
determinants of pre-feedback and post-feedback fairness
perceptions, since applicant perceptions are likely to be
influenced by different determinants at different stages in
the assessment process (Rynes, 1991).
Determinants of Pre-feedback Fairness
One of the main research streams in the applicant
perceptions literature contains studies into the character-
istics of selection methods (Anderson, 2003). The selection
method used in the current study was similar for all
applicants involved and, therefore, seems no source of
variation in applicants’ fairness perceptions. Ryan and
Greguras (1998), however, rightly noted that the fairness of
specific standardized procedures is not universally shared
(see also Chan & Schmitt, 1997). One reason for this
phenomenon is that applicants may differ in their percep-tions of the job relatedness of selection tests, depending on
the types of jobs they apply for (Elkins & Philips, 2000).
Gilliland (1993) considered job relatedness to have the
greatest impact on fairness perceptions as compared to
other formal characteristics of the selection procedure.
Indeed, several previous studies have evidenced strong
associations between job relatedness and fairness percep-
tions (Lievens, De Corte, & Brysse, 2003; Smither et al.,
1996). Chan and colleagues (Chan, Schmitt, Jennings,
Clause, & Delbridge, 1998a) particularly examined the
mediating role of job relatedness perceptions in the
relationship between perceived performance and fairnessperceptions. They demonstrated how self-serving bias
operates in the development of test reactions, i.e.
(perceived) poor test performance threatens the self and
this threat can be reduced by evaluating the test as not
relevant for the job.
In the current study, we included perceived performance
and job relatedness perceptions as predictors of pre-
feedback fairness perceptions. Furthermore, we extended
the study of Chan et al. (1998a) through distinguishing
between different tests as used in the assessment procedure
in order to get a clearer picture of the perceived job
relatedness of these tests and how each of them affectsfairness perceptions. Contrary to previous studies using
experimental (Kravitz, Stinson, & Chavez, 1996; Rynes &
Connerly, 1993; Smither et al., 1993; Steiner & Gilliland,
1996) or semi-experimental research designs (Lievens et
al., 2003), we measured the perceived job relatedness of
selection tests that applicants actually performed during
the assessment procedure. Note that the job relatedness of a
selection device is conceptually different from its perceived
fairness or favorability (Steiner & Gilliland, 2001). In this
study, we will explore how applicants evaluated the job
relatedness of the selection tests included in their assess-
ment procedure in the context of their performanceperceptions. We propose the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1. Perceived performance will be positively
related to pre-feedback fairness perceptions. This rela-
tionship will exist both directly and indirectly through
perceived job relatedness of different selection tests.
A second research stream is directed at individuals’ test-
taker attitudes as factors influencing selection outcomes
(Schmit & Ryan, 1992). Test-taking attitudes are com-
monly regarded as applicants’ global attitudes concerning
the value of testing (Arvey, Strickland, Drauden, & Martin,
1990; Chan, Schmitt, Sacco, & DeShon, 1998b). Arvey
150 ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN, RUBEN TARIS, EVELINE SCHOLTEN AND SONJA SCHINKEL
7/24/2019 Percepção de Igualdade Na Seleção de Pessoal - 12934483
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/percepcao-de-igualdade-na-selecao-de-pessoal-12934483 3/12
and colleagues (1990) developed a questionnaire to
examine test-taking attitudes (the Test Attitude Survey,
TAS), consisting of nine factors, including belief in tests.
Unlike Arvey et al. (1990), Schmit and Ryan (1997) did not
regard belief in tests as a component of test-taking
attitudes, but as a same-level construct that is related to
test-taking attitudes. In a study on the factors of applicant
withdrawal from selection processes, they assessed therelationship between applicants’ beliefs in tests and test-
taking attitudes. Beliefs in tests were found to have direct
effects on several components of test-taking attitudes
(Schmit & Ryan, 1997).
Bauer and colleagues (1998), following the study of
Lounsbury, Bobrow, and Jensen (1989), demonstrated that
applicant procedural justice perceptions were affected by
general attitudes toward employment testing. Similar
results were found in a study from Ryan and Chan
(1999). Applicants’ test beliefs particularly seem to play a
role in the prediction of pre-feedback fairness perceptions.
Overall, few studies have integrated applicants’ beliefsin tests and fairness perceptions in actual selection contexts
(Bauer et al., 1998). Very little is known about the
contribution of general beliefs about tests to perceptions
of fairness in different stages of the selection procedure.
Based on sparse empirical research as presented above, we
expect that test beliefs are particularly relevant for pre-
feedback fairness perceptions. In this study, test beliefs are
defined as perceptions about whether tests are an appro-
priate way to select employees. We propose the following
hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2. Applicants’ test beliefs will be positively
related to pre-feedback fairness perceptions.
A factor that has been demonstrated to influence test-
taking attitudes is applicant’s performance history (Ryan &
Ployhart, 2000) rather than merely their test-taking
experience (Wiechmann & Ryan, 2003). Lounsbury et al.
(1989) found that applicants who had failed a selection test
held relatively negative attitudes toward employment
testing. In the present study, we included applicants’
previous test performances and expected to replicate this
earlier finding.
Ryan and Ployhart (2000) have argued that more
research is needed on individual differences as potentialdeterminants of test attitudes. They particularly suggested
that the Big Five factor openness to experience might affect
perceptions of tests and novel procedures. Openness to
experience has been defined as curious, original and broad-
minded (Barrick & Mount, 1991). We expect this
personality dimension to be related to test beliefs because
it assesses attributes associated with positive attitudes
towards learning experiences. Individuals who score highly
on openness to experience are more likely to be motivated
to learn from tests. Indeed, previous research has shown
that openness to experience was a valid predictor for
training proficiency, which was attributed to a higher
willingness to engage in learning experiences (Barrick &
Mount, 1991; Herold, Davis, Fedor, & Parsons, 2002). We
propose the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3. Applicants’ openness to experience will be
positively related to their test beliefs.
Determinants of Post-feedbackFairness Perceptions
Previous studies have found that pre-feedback fairness
perceptions are positively related to post-feedback fairness
perceptions (Ryan & Chan, 1999). We expect a similar
relationship. Moreover, fairness perceptions in the final
stage of the selection procedure will be particularly affected
by the feedback applicants receive about their assessment
performance.
The literature describes feedback as ‘‘the provision of
timely and informative feedback’’, and usually refers toexpectations of when to receive feedback (Bauer et al.,
2001). Surprisingly, operationalizations of the selection
procedural justice rules (Gilliland, 1993) comprise the
content and process aspects of the test-taking . Recent scales
(see Bauer et al., 2001) hardly include items on applicants’
perceptions of the quality of feedback treatment when,
after the test-taking, they are informed about their test
results. In this study, we are particularly interested in the
influence of applicants’ feedback perceptions on post-
feedback fairness perceptions. We propose that in the final
stage of the assessment procedure fairness perceptions are
not only affected by previous fairness perceptions asmeasured directly after test-taking, but that they will be
even more affected by the assessment feedback received
afterwards. We consider it to be important to distinguish
the content of the feedback (i.e. the assessment results)
from the perceived treatment of the feedback. Although, in
this study, all applicants went through the same standar-
dized assessment procedure, they received their assessment
feedback from different psychological staff members.
Therefore, both the content of the feedback and perceived
treatment are important sources of variation.
Passing or failing a test or selection procedure is likely to
be related to post-feedback perceptions. Those who failwill hold more negative attitudes than those who pass.
However, many previous studies have only examined pre-
test feedback reactions, relying on individuals’ self-assessed
performance (Arvey et al., 1990; Bauer et al., 1998; Chan
et al., 1998b; Ployhart & Ryan, 1997, 1998). Kluger and
Rothstein (1993) found in their experimental study that
respondents in the failure condition felt that the selection
test was less fair than those who passed. More recently,
Ryan and Chan (1999) showed that actual passing or
failing a test affected post-feedback fairness perceptions.
Gilliland’s model (1993) includes ‘justification for a
decision’ as an influencing justice perception. Research has
PERCEIVED FAIRNESS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION 151
7/24/2019 Percepção de Igualdade Na Seleção de Pessoal - 12934483
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/percepcao-de-igualdade-na-selecao-de-pessoal-12934483 4/12
shown that individuals who receive an explanation for anegative decision react more positively than those who
receive no information (Bies & Shapiro, 1988). All the
applicants in the present study receive personal feedback
about their assessment results from a psychological staff
member. The perceived justification of the feedback
content, and the overall transparency of this feedback
may differ across applicants. We propose the following
hypothesis.
Hypothesis 4. Pre-feedback fairness perceptions, feed-
back content and perceived feedback treatment will be
positively related to post-feedback fairness perceptions.
The hypothesized model of this study is presented in
Figure 1.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 437 applicants for different jobs in
different organizations, who went through a psychological
assessment as part of their selection procedure. The
psychological assessment was done by a selection agency,
and successively comprised cognitive ability tests, person-ality tests, and a situational judgment test. The selection
method and instruments that were used are representative
for those used by other selection agencies, and cognitive
ability and personality measures were based on standard
validated tests. The content of the situational test and the
competencies that were measured were dependent on the
type of job. The assessment results were reported to the
applicants and to the company. All the participants
assessed by the selection agency were also seen by the
company personnel. The company combined the assess-
ment results and their own impressions based on the
selection interview into a final selection decision.
Questionnaires were collected at three points in time.Participants received a first questionnaire by mail several
days before the testing day together with the standard
information about the testing day (Time 15pre-testing).
They were informed about the research and their voluntary
and anonymous participation was emphasized. They were
asked to bring their questionnaire with them to the testing
day. Questionnaire T1 measured their test beliefs. At the
end of the testing day applicants filled out a second
questionnaire including questions concerning perceived
fairness of the selection (Time 25post-testing, pre-feed-
back). The third and final questionnaire was collected
several weeks after participants had received their testresults in a feedback interview with a psychological staff
member (Time 35post-feedback). This questionnaire
concerned applicants’ perception of the feedback interview,
their perceived fairness of the selection and attractiveness
of the job. A total of 437 participants completed their
surveys at Time 1 and Time 2. There was a total of 282
matched surveys across all three data collection times,
which was an overall response rate of 65%.
The final sample comprised 173 men (61%) and 109
women (39%), ages ranged from 20 to 57 years (M535,
SD58.5). Most participants (73%) had received higher
education. Participants applied for a wide variety of jobs,such as accountancy, law, consultancy, management, and
administration, in different types of organizations, such as
finance, service, logistic, and government. Most partici-
pants (N5179) had no previous experiences with psycho-
logical assessments. One hundred-and-three participants
had previous test experiences, of whom 77 had received
positive feedback and 26 had received negative feedback.
Measures
Openness to experience was measured with the Dutch
version of the NEO-PI-R (Hoekstra, Ormel, & de Fruyt,
Openness toexperience
Test beliefs Prefeedback fairness
perceptions
Post feedbackfairness
perceptions
Job attractiveness
Perceived
performance
Feedback content
Feedback
treatment
Perceived job relatedness
Cognitive
tests
Personality
tests
Situational
judgment
tests
Figure 1. Hypothesized model of determinants and outcomes of pre- and post-feedback fairness perceptions.
152 ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN, RUBEN TARIS, EVELINE SCHOLTEN AND SONJA SCHINKEL
7/24/2019 Percepção de Igualdade Na Seleção de Pessoal - 12934483
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/percepcao-de-igualdade-na-selecao-de-pessoal-12934483 5/12
1996), consisting of 48 items with a Cronbach’s alpha
of .86.
Test beliefs were measured with five items adapted from
the Belief in Test component of Arvey et al. ’s Test Attitude
Survey (1990): e.g. ‘‘Standardized paper-and-pencil tests
are a good way of assessing an individual’s capacities’’.
Cronbach’s alpha was .66.
Perceived job relatedness was measured with three itemsconcerning cognitive tests, personality tests and the
situational judgment test, e.g. ‘‘The personality tests are
relevant for the job I apply for’’. Each item was treated as a
separate variable in the analyses.
Perceived performance was measured with one item:
‘‘I think that my assessment will result in positive selection
feedback’’.
Pre- and post-feedback fairness measures were adapted
from the process fairness scale from Truxillo and Bauer
(1999), including three items referring to an overall
perception of perceived fairness (e.g.: ‘‘Overall, I have
experienced this assessment as fair to applicants’’).Cronbach’s alphas were .81 and .85, respectively.
Perceived feedback treatment was measured with four
items developed for this study. Items were: ‘‘I was given
enough opportunity to respond to the feedback I received
about my assessment results’’; ‘‘the psychological staff
member has given a clear justification about how the
overall assessment score was established’’; ‘‘the assessment
results were clearly explained to me’’; ‘‘I appreciated the
way in which the psychological staff member provided me
with the information about my assessment results’’.
Cronbach’s alpha was .87.
Feedback content involved an overall assessment score
based on the assessment tests, ranging from 1 (very
insufficient) to 7 (excellent).
Job attractiveness was measured with three itemsderived from the attractiveness scale used by Truxillo and
Bauer (1999), e.g. ‘‘I would like to work for the company
I have applied for’’. Cronbach’s alpha was .79.
Except for feedback content, a 5-point Likert scale was
used for all items ranging from 1 (5 strongly disagree) to 5
(5 strongly agree).
Results
First, we examined the effect of previous test experiences
on test beliefs. A one-way ANOVA showed a significanteffect of previous test experiences on test beliefs (F (2,
279)53.34, po.05). Participants who had received
positive feedback on a previous test scored highest on test
beliefs (M53.65, SD5 .44), followed by applicants who
had received negative feedback (M53.56, SD5 .65).
Applicants who had no previous test experiences scored
significantly lower on test beliefs than those with previous
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-order correlations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Openness to
experience
16.75 1.55 –
2. Test beliefs 3.54 .40 .13* –
3. Cognitive
tests13.55 .78 .01 .19** –
4. Personality
tests13.67 .72 .12* .19** .28** –
5. Situational
judgment
tests1
3.79 .78 .08 .07 .25** .11 –
6. Perceived
performance
3.63 .62 .04 .27** .12* .10 .10 –
7. Pre-feedback
fairness
3.73 .59 .03 .36** .30** .33** .23** .33** –
8. Post-feedback
fairness
3.87 .70 .02 .30** .08 .08 .14 .18** .31** –
9. Feedback
content
5.11 1.51 .05 .19** .05 .08 .03 .20** .04 .44** –
10. Feedback
treatment
3.99 .65 .09 .27** .00 .07 .13 .18** .13* .48** .20** –
11. Job
attractiveness
4.36 .57 .15* .14* .05 .12* .03 .16** .06 .16** .24** .26** –
Notes: n5282. 1
Job relatedness perceptions. * po.05, ** po.01.
PERCEIVED FAIRNESS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION 153
7/24/2019 Percepção de Igualdade Na Seleção de Pessoal - 12934483
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/percepcao-de-igualdade-na-selecao-de-pessoal-12934483 6/12
test experiences (M53.49, SD5 .47). In the further
analyses, we controlled for participants’ previous test
experiences through centering the variables for each group
by subtracting their mean from the raw scores. Table 1
presents means, standard deviations and zero-order corre-
lations among the variables.
Hypothesis 1 proposes that perceived performance is
positively related to pre-feedback fairness perceptions,both directly and indirectly through perceived job related-
ness. As can be seen in Table 1, job relatedness of the
situational judgment test was rated highest, while job
relatedness of the cognitive tests obtained the lowest
ratings. However, relationships between perceived perfor-
mance and the three job relatedness measures were low
and/or non-significant. We conducted a hierarchical
regression analysis, with pre-feedback fairness perceptions
as the criterion, and entering the job relatedness measures
in the first step of the equation, followed by perceived
performance in the second step (see Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Perceived job relatedness explained 18% (F (3,281)520.05, po.01) of the variance in pre-feedback
fairness perceptions. The increment in explained variance
was significant, entering perceived performance in the
equation (DR25 .07, po.01; R2
5 .25, F (4, 281)522.88,
po.01). Both perceived performance and perceived job
relatedness were independently related to pre-feedback
fairness perceptions.
We tested the full model (see Figure 1) using structural
equation modeling (LISREL 8.50, Jo ¨ reskog & So ¨ rbom,
2001). First, Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were
performed on the fairness measures, test beliefs, feedback
perceptions, and job attractiveness. We used severalindexes to judge the fit of the model to the data: the Chi-
square test, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Goodness
of Fit Index (GFI), the Normed Fit Index (NFI) and the
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The
CFA not only provides reliability estimates but also
establishes the independence of latent variables within
sets. The first CFA included measures from the first stage of
the assessment procedure: test beliefs, pre-feedback fair-
ness perceptions, perceived job relatedness and perceived
performance. The hypothesized model showed a good fit tothe data (w25125.21, df 543, p5 .00; CFI5 .88;
GFI5 .94; NFI5 .84; RMSEA5 .08). The second CFA
included measures from the final stage of the assessment
procedure: perceived feedback treatment, pre-feedback
fairness perceptions and job attractiveness. The results
indicated good model fit (w2562.91, df 532, po.001;
CFI5 .98; GFI5 .96; NFI5 .95; RMSEA5 .06).
Secondly, we estimated the fit of the structural equation
model. Given the support for the measurement model, we
examined the structural model using single indicators
(scale means). Using single indicators increases the subjects
to degrees-of-freedom ratio, which provides more power toinvestigate the structural relationships in the model. The
model did not fit well with the data (w25179.58, df 543,
p5 .00; CFI5 .72; GFI5 .90; NFI5 .66; RMSEA5 .11)
and modification indexes for gamma and theta-delta-
epsilon showed that fit of the model could be improved.
Lack of fit resulted from a relationship between test beliefs
and perceived performance, and from a relationship
between test beliefs and perceived feedback treatment.
Allowing these parameters to be estimated resulted in a
significant improvement of fit indexes (w25117.12,
df 541, p5 .00; CFI5 .82; GFI5 .93; NFI5 .75;
RMSEA5
.08). Modification indexes indicated directrelationships between feedback content and perceived
feedback treatment on the one hand and job attractiveness
Openness to
experience
Test belief Prefeedback
fairness
perceptions
Post feedback
fairness
perceptions
Job attractiveness
Perceived
performance
Feedback content
Feedback
treatment
Perceived job relatedness
Cognitive
tests
Personality
tests
Situational judgment
tests
.27
.13 .24
.14 .22 .14 .38
.22
.19
.39
.28
.27.22
Figure 2. Completely standarized parameter estimates.
154 ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN, RUBEN TARIS, EVELINE SCHOLTEN AND SONJA SCHINKEL
7/24/2019 Percepção de Igualdade Na Seleção de Pessoal - 12934483
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/percepcao-de-igualdade-na-selecao-de-pessoal-12934483 7/12
on the other hand. Allowing these parameters to be
estimated resulted in a non-significant relationship be-
tween post-feedback fairness perceptions and job attrac-
tiveness (t 5 0.04, ns). We tested a final model (see
Figure 2) that showed good fit to the data (w2588.36,
df 540, p5 .00; CFI5 .87; GFI5 .95; NFI5 .80;
RMSEA5 .07) with all estimated path coefficients being
significant. Consistent with our hypotheses concerning thedeterminants of pre-feedback perceptions, perceived per-
formance (B5 .22, po.001), test beliefs (B5 .24,
po.001), and perceived job relatedness (G ranged from
.14 to .22, po.001) had positive direct effects on pre-
feedback fairness perceptions, and openness to experience
was positively related to test beliefs (G5 .13, po.01).
These results support our Hypotheses 1 to 3.
As hypothesized (Hypothesis 4), post-feedback fairness
perceptions were positively affected by pre-feedback fair-
ness perceptions (B5 .28, po.001), feedback content
(G5 .39, po.001) and perceived feedback treatment
(B5
.39, po.001).Contrary to our expectations, there was no significant
relationship between post-feedback fairness perceptions
and job attractiveness. Instead, feedback content (G5 .19,
po.001) and feedback treatment (B5 .22, po.001)
showed to be significant predictors of job attractiveness.
Additionally, we estimated possible indirect effects in
the model. The indirect effects from openness to experience
through test beliefs to perceived performance, pre- and
post-feedback perceptions, and perceived feedback treat-
ment were significant (effect sizes (es) ranging from .02 to
.04, po.05). Test beliefs indirectly affected job attractive-
ness through perceived feedback treatment (es5
.06, po.01). Moreover, test beliefs indirectly affected pre-
feedback fairness perceptions through perceived perfor-
mance (es5 .06, po.01), and test beliefs indirectly affected
post-feedback fairness perceptions (es5 .18, po.001).
Post-feedback fairness perceptions were also indirectly
affected by perceived performance (es5 .06, po.001) and
job relatedness perceptions (effect sizes ranged from .04 to
.06, po.05).
Post-hoc, we examined the possibility that perceived
performance operates as a moderator in the relationship
between feedback content (actual performance) and post-
feedback fairness perceptions. Applicants who havepositive perceptions about their assessment performance
and unexpectedly receive negative performance feedback,
may be extremely disappointed. These applicants are
probably more negative in their fairness perceptions as
compared to those whose low performance expectations
are confirmed by a negative performance feedback. We
explored this possibility with subsequently entering per-
ceived performance and feedback content, and their
interaction term into a hierarchical regression equation
predicting post-feedback fairness perceptions. Results
showed that the interaction term did not significantly
contribute to the variance in post-feedback fairness
perceptions (DR25 .00, ns; R2
5 .20, F (3, 281)523.50,
po.001). Initial performance expectations apparently are
only indirectly relevant for post-feedback fairness percep-
tions through their relationship with pre-feedback fairness
perceptions.
ConclusionsWith this study we moved away from post-test designs to a
design that incorporated pre-test measures and pre- and
post-feedback measures (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000). We
postulated that applicants’ fairness perceptions are likely to
be influenced by different determinants at different stages
in the assessment process. The results of this study support
this view to a certain extent. Indeed, strongest relationships
were found between the determinants in the first stage of
the assessment procedure and pre-feedback fairness per-
ceptions on the one hand, and between the determinants in
the final stage of the assessment procedure and post-feedback fairness perceptions on the other hand. Pre-
feedback fairness perceptions were affected by test beliefs,
perceived performance and perceived job relatedness. Post-
feedback fairness perceptions were affected by pre-feed-
back fairness perceptions, feedback content and feedback
treatment. Additionally, we found indirect effects of the
determinants of pre-feedback fairness perceptions on post-
feedback fairness perceptions. Small but significant indir-
ect effects were found for openness to experience, perceived
job relatedness and perceived performance. Applicants
who score relatively high on openness to experience, who
perceive the assessment tests as relevant for their job, andwho have a positive impression of their test performance
after the test-taking, are more likely to perceive the
assessment procedure as fair in the final stage of the
procedure.
A substantial indirect effect on post-feedback fairness
perceptions was found for test beliefs. The beliefs about the
utility of tests that applicants hold when entering the
assessment procedure apparently are powerful in that they
affect perceived performance, pre-feedback fairness per-
ceptions and feedback treatment perceptions, and subse-
quently they influence post-feedback fairness perceptions
and job attractiveness. Test beliefs seem rather stable, sinceapplicants do not change them easily after having received
information about the reliability and validity of tests
(Lievens et al., 2003). Carson, Becker and Henderson
(2000) argued that applicants’ test beliefs could be
influenced through providing them with comprehensible
information about the utility of selection tests. There are,
however, reasons to assume that test beliefs are less
sensitive for utility information than has been suggested.
For, low belief in tests may operate as a preventive self-
serving bias, in that it may protect against threatening the
self in case of disappointing test outcomes. This will
particularly be the case if applicants do not have any
PERCEIVED FAIRNESS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION 155
7/24/2019 Percepção de Igualdade Na Seleção de Pessoal - 12934483
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/percepcao-de-igualdade-na-selecao-de-pessoal-12934483 8/12
previous experiences with these tests and therefore will feel
less confident about how well they will perform. We found
some preliminary evidence for a possible preventive self-
serving bias by showing that participants who had no
previous test experiences rated significantly lower on test
beliefs than those who had received positive or negative
feedback on an earlier selection test. Thus, as long as an
individual cannot base his or her belief in tests on earlierexperiences it is probably safer to expect that tests are less
useful in establishing their suitability for a job. Bauer et al.
(1998) found a significant relationship between test beliefs
(conceptualized as a general perception of employment
testing fairness) and test-taking self-efficacy. Applicants
that scored relatively low on test-taking self-efficacy were
also the ones that rated lower on test beliefs. This provides
indirect evidence for the existence of a preventive self-
serving bias.
Our results demonstrate that applicant test beliefs are
affected by openness to experience. Applicants who score
higher on openness to experience develop more positiveviews on the use of tests in selection procedures. This may
also explain why applicants with positive test beliefs
appreciate the feedback treatment relatively more. They
are inherently more open to feedback and they are more
willing to accept the test results as being valid. This, in turn,
leads to positive post-feedback fairness perceptions.
Consistent with previous studies on fairness perceptions
of different selection devices (Anderson et al., 2001;
Kravitz, et al., 1996; Lievens et al., 2003; Rynes &
Connerly, 1993; Steiner & Gilliland, 1996), this study
showed that selection tests differ in terms of perceived job
relatedness. Cognitive ability tests and personality inven-tories received lower ratings on job relatedness than the
situational judgment test. This supports the notion that
fairness perceptions of selection tests, as examined in
previous studies, are clearly linked to the perceived job
relatedness of these tests. Surprisingly, we found that
perceived job relatedness of personality tests was more
strongly related to pre-feedback fairness perceptions than
perceived job relatedness of the cognitive tests and the
situational judgment test. Particularly, applicants that
perceived the personality tests as relevant for their job
evaluated the assessment tests as more fair than those who
perceived the personality tests as irrelevant for their futurejob. Attribution Theory (see Ryan & Ployhart, 2000)
distinguishes between different attributions people make
about events, such as the amount of control they have over
a particular outcome. Applicants may perceive personality
tests as more ‘controllable’ as compared to cognitive tests
and the situational judgment tests. Or, as opposed to
cognitive tests and situational judgment tests, applicants
may expect that they can influence the outcome of
personality tests more easily through faking. If applicants
perceive personality tests as relevant for their job, they will
have a clear picture of what personality characteristics are
important for being successful in the job, and they will
respond to the personality inventories in a way that fits the
job profile. However, if the ideal personality characteristics
for the job are less clear it is also less easy for applicants to
decide how to respond to the personality tests and, ergo,
they will perceive the assessment procedure as less fair.
Future studies should further examine relationships be-
tween applicants’ knowledge of the job (for example, what
is the ideal applicant for this job?), attributions regardingthe outcomes of different selection tests, and job related-
ness and fairness perceptions.
Contrary to our expectations, we found no support for a
self-serving bias in the evaluation of job relatedness.
Perceived performance did not affect perceived job
relatedness, but instead, affected pre-feedback fairness
perceptions directly. Perceptions of job relatedness
mainly varied as a result of the specific selection device
that was evaluated and the context of the job (Elkins &
Philips, 2000). A self-serving bias did exist, but through
attributing perceived performance directly to the fairness
of the assessment procedure. Very little is actually knownabout the types of explanations applicants spontaneously
give for their test performances. It would be interesting to
examine in more detail what specific elements of the
assessment procedure serve as a likely base for self-serving
bias.
This study showed that feedback content and feedback
treatment were the main predictors of job attractiveness
and that they nullified the effect of post-feedback fairness
perceptions. Moreover, perceived feedback treatment and
feedback content were of equal importance for post-
feedback fairness perceptions and job attractiveness.
Research has demonstrated that explanations for negativeoutcomes can lessen negative reactions associated with
those outcomes (Bies & Shapiro, 1988). Recently, Gilliland
and colleagues (Gilliland, Groth, Baker, Dew, Polly, &
Langdon, 2001) investigated applicants’ fairness percep-
tions after they had received different types of explanations
in an employment rejection letter. They showed that
specific combinations of Would Reducing (detailing
qualifications of the person who received the job), Could
Reducing (detailing external conditions that led to a hiring
freeze) and Should Reducing (detailing the appropriateness
of the selection process) explanations positively affected
fairness perceptions. Likewise, Ployhart et al. (1999)examined the effects of features of explanations, i.e. types
of information and sensitivity, on process fairness in a
scenario study. They found that the nature of the selection
decision (i.e. selected or rejected) influenced the effects of
types of information on fairness perceptions. More
research is needed examining effects of how feedback is
provided to applicants in more realistic settings where
assessment outcomes have a large impact on people’s
careers. The challenge for researchers and practitioners is
to find ways to diminish the potential drawbacks of
negative feedback. As Ilgen and Davis (2000) have noted:
‘‘The most critical issue for delivering negative feedback is
156 ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN, RUBEN TARIS, EVELINE SCHOLTEN AND SONJA SCHINKEL
7/24/2019 Percepção de Igualdade Na Seleção de Pessoal - 12934483
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/percepcao-de-igualdade-na-selecao-de-pessoal-12934483 9/12
the balance between making it possible for performers to
accept responsibility for substandard performance and, at
the same time, not lower their self-concept’’.
Ryan and Ployhart (2000) argued that, although
difficult to control for, researchers should not disregard
the organizational context affecting applicants’ reactions
to selection. In the present study, we examined applicants’
fairness perceptions in the context of an ‘external’assessment procedure, whereby organizations hired a
selection agency for doing the psychological assessment.
Because a large part of the selection procedure is performed
by the selection agency, applicants may only marginally
link their evaluation of the assessment procedure to the
organization they apply for. This may explain why we did
not find direct relationships between post-feedback fair-
ness perceptions and job attractiveness. Moreover, our
results are in line with the ones found by Bauer et al.
(1998). They revealed that procedural justice perceptions
were less important for organizational attractiveness than
were (self-assessed) test outcomes. We found that fairnessperceptions are of less importance for job attractiveness
after applicants have received their assessment feedback.
Although the (external) assessment procedure and its
perceived fairness as such are not directly linked to
organizational attractiveness, applicants may view their
feedback provider (i.e. the psychological staff member) as a
representative of the organization they applied for. They
know, for example, that this person will report to the
organization. Moreover, they may expect that this is
particularly the staff member that has strong ties with the
organization. Finally, applicants may assume that the
organization and the psychological staff member togetherhave set the specific norms for passing the assessment
procedure. This may explain why the assessment results
directly influence job attractiveness.
Potential Limitations
This study had some potential limitations. First, the
number of participants reduced from Time 2 (pre-feed-
back) to Time 3 (post-feedback) with 65% of the original
sample participating at Time 3. The non-response at Time 3
may have influenced the results of this study. We, therefore,
compared the Time 2 respondents with our final sampleregarding their pre-feedback fairness perceptions, test
beliefs and feedback content (i.e. their assessment perfor-
mance). No significant differences between the two groups
were revealed with respect to pre-feedback fairness
perceptions and test beliefs. However, applicants that did
not participate at Time 3 rated significantly lower on their
assessment performance than those who continued their
participation. This suggests that non-response at Time 3
was due to applicants’ lower assessment performances,
actually illustrating the negative effects of negative
performance feedback, i.e. withdrawal behavior of dis-
appointed applicants. We tested whether restriction of
range might have put constraints on actual relationship
between variables that were measured in the final stage of
the assessment procedure. Because the standard deviation
of feedback content was known for the total sample
(N5437), we compared the correlation coefficients
between feedback content on the one hand and post-
feedback fairness, feedback treatment, and job attractive-
ness (see Table 1) with the corrected correlation coefficient(see Sackett & Yang, 2000). We found that that the
corrected correlation coefficients only slightly increased
toward the uncorrected correlation coefficients (from .44
to .45, from .20 to .23, and from .24 to .27, respectively).
This indicates that our results were not significantly
affected by a restriction of range effect.
Several researchers have emphasized the need to
measure very specific fairness perceptions concerning the
different aspects of a selection procedure. In this study, we
have used general measures of pre-feedback and post-
feedback fairness perceptions. We thought it to be more
appropriate to focus on applicants’ overall fairnessperceptions, because we were particularly interested in
the determinants of these general perceptions that can be
conceived of as the aggregation of more specific ones.
General fairness perceptions represent the salient feelings
applicants have at different stages of the assessment
procedure and as such influence their attitudes and
behaviors.
The current study contributes to our knowledge of
applicants’ fairness perceptions in several ways. It was the
first study that included applicants’ personality as a
predictor of test beliefs. Moreover, it applied a process
model comprising the determinants and outcomes of applicants’ perceptions at different stages of the assessment
procedure. This provided information about the contri-
bution of each stage to the final outcome of post-feedback
perceptions and job attractiveness. Furthermore, applicant
reactions were examined in the specific context of an
external selection agency. Many organizations involve
external agencies in their selection procedures and it is
therefore surprising that this specific contextual factor
was neglected in previous research. The agency in this
study uses an assessment procedure and instruments
that are highly representative of those used in many
other selection agencies. We, therefore, believe, that ourfindings can be generalized to other external selection
agencies.
In case of involvement of an independent selection
agency, the perceived fairness of their assessment procedure
as such hardly affects the attractiveness of the client (i.e. the
organization). Applicants are more likely to blame the
feedback agent in the first place, and they will finally
withdraw themselves from the selection procedure if their
test performances are below standard or if they evaluate
their feedback treatment as negative. The quality of
feedback provision is of crucial importance for both
selection agencies and organizations.
PERCEIVED FAIRNESS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION 157
7/24/2019 Percepção de Igualdade Na Seleção de Pessoal - 12934483
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/percepcao-de-igualdade-na-selecao-de-pessoal-12934483 10/12
References
Anderson, N. (2003) Applicant and recruiter reactions to newtechnology in selection: A critical review and agenda for futureresearch. International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 11,
121 – 136.
Anderson, N., Born, M. and Cunningham-Snell, N. (2001)Recruitment and selection: Applicant perspectives and out-comes. In: N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil and
C. Viswesvaran (Eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work &Organizational Psychology, Volume 1, Personnel Psychology(pp. 200 – 218). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Arvey, R.D., Strickland, W., Drauden, G. and Martin, C. (1990)Motivational components of test taking. Personnel Psychology,43, 695 – 716.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986) The moderator-mediatorvariable distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual,strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 51, 1173 – 1182.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991) The Big Five personalitydimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1 – 26.
Bauer, T.N., Maertz, C.P., Dolen, M.R. and Campion, M.A. (1998)
Longitudinal assessment of applicant reactions to employmenttesting and test outcome feedback. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 83, 892 – 903.
Bauer, T.N., Truxillo, D.M., Sanchez, R.J., Craig, J.M., Ferrara, P.and Campion, M.A. (2001) Applicant reactions to selection:Development of the selection procedural justice scale (SPJS).
Personnel Psychology, 54, 388 – 420.
Bies, R.J. and Shapiro, D.L. (1988) Voice and justification: Theirinfluence on procedural fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal , 31, 676 – 685.
Carson, K.P., Becker, J.S. andHenderson, J.A. (2000) Is utility reallyfutile? A failure to replicate andan extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 84 – 96.
Chan, D. and Schmitt, N. (1997) Video-based versus paper-
and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgmenttests: Subgroup differences in test performance and facevalidity perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
143 – 159.
Chan, D., Schmitt, N., Jennings, D., Clause, C.S. and Delbridge, K.(1998a) Applicant perceptions of test fairness: Integration
Justice and self-serving bias perspectives. International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 6, 232 – 240.
Chan, D., Schmitt, N., Sacco, J.M. and DeShon, R.P. (1998b)Understanding pretest and posttest reactions to cognitive abilityand personality tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,471 – 485.
Elkins, T.J. and Philips, J.S. (2000) Job context, selection decisionoutcome, and the perceived fairness of selection tests: Biodataas an illustrative case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
479 – 484.Gilliland, S.W. (1993) The perceived fairness of selection systems:
An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694 – 734.
Gilliland, S.W., Groth, M., Baker, R.C.I.V., Dew, A.F., Polly, L.M.and Langdon, J.C. (2001) Improving applicants’ reactions torejection letters: An application of fairness theory. Personnel Psychology, 54, 669 – 703.
Greenberg, J. (1990) Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, andtomorrow. Journal of Management , 16, 399 – 432.
Herold, D.M., Davis, W., Fedor, D.B. and Parsons, C.K.(2002) Dispositional influences on transfer of learning inmultistage training programs. Personnel Psychology, 55,851 – 869.
Hoekstra, H.A., Ormel, J. and de Fruyt, F. (1996) NEO PI-Rhandleiding . Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.
Horvath, M., Ryan, A.M. and Stierwalt, S.L. (2000) The influenceof explanations for selection test use, outcome favorability, andself-efficacy on test-taker perceptions. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 83, 310 – 330.
Ilgen, D.R. and Davis, C.A. (2000) Bearing bad news: reactions tonegative performance feedback. Applied Psychology: An Inter-national Review, 49, 550 – 565.
Jo ¨ reskog, K. and So ¨ rbom, D. (2001) LISREL 8.50: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kluger, A.N. and Rothstein, H.R. (1993) The influence of selectiontest type on applicant reactions to employment testing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8, 3 – 25.
Kravitz, D.A., Stinson, V. and Chavez, T.L. (1996) Evaluationsof tests used for making selection and promotion decisions.International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 4,24 – 34.
Lievens, F., De Corte, W. and Brysse, K. (2003) Applicantperceptions of selection procedures: The role of selectioninformation, belief in tests, and comparative anxiety. Interna-tional Journal of Selection and Assessment , 11, 67 – 77.
Lounsbury, J.W., Bobrow, W. and Jensen, J.B. (1989) Attitudes
toward employment testing: Scale development, correlates, and‘‘known-group’’ validation. Professional Psychology: Researchand Practice, 20, 340 – 349.
Macan, T.H., Avedon, M.J., Paese, M. and Smith, D.E. (1994) Theeffects of applicants’ reactions to cognitive ability tests and anassessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47, 715 – 738.
Ployhart, R.E. and Ryan, A.M. (1997) Toward and explanation of applicant reactions: An examination of organizational justiceand attribution frameworks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 308 – 335.
Ployhart, R.E. and Ryan, A.M. (1998) Toward and explanation of applicant reactions: An examination of original justice andattribution frameworks. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 74, 88.
Ployhart, R.E., Ryan, A.M. and Bennett, M. (1999) Explanationsfor selection decisions: Applicants’ reactions to informationaland sensitivity features of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 87 – 106.
Ryan, A.M. and Chan, D. (1999) Perceptions of the EPPP: How dolicensure candidates view the process? Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, 30, 519 – 530.
Ryan, A.M. and Greguras, G.J. (1998) Life is not multiplechoice: Reactions to the alternatives. In M.D. Hakel (Ed.),Beyond multiple choice: Evaluating alternatives to traditional testing for selection (pp. 183 – 202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Ryan, A.M. and Ployhart, R.E. (2000) Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: A critical review and agendafor the future. Journal of Management , 26, 565 – 606.
Rynes, S.L. (1991) Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire con-sequences: A call for new research directions. In M.D. Dunnette
(Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology(2nd edn, Vol. 2, pp. 399 – 4444). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologist Press.
Rynes, S.L. and Connerley, M.L. (1993) Applicant reactions toalternative selection procedures. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 261 – 277.
Sackett, P.R. and Yang, H. (2000) Correction for range restriction:An expanded typology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
112 – 118.
Smither, J.W., Reilly, R.R., Millsap, R.E., Pearlman, K. and Stoffey,R.W. (1993) Applicant reactions to selection procedures.Personnel Psychology, 46, 49 – 76.
158 ANNELIES E.M. VAN VIANEN, RUBEN TARIS, EVELINE SCHOLTEN AND SONJA SCHINKEL
7/24/2019 Percepção de Igualdade Na Seleção de Pessoal - 12934483
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/percepcao-de-igualdade-na-selecao-de-pessoal-12934483 11/12
Smither, J.W., Millsap, R.E., Stoffey, R.W., Reilly, R.R. andPearlman, K. (1996) An experimental test of the influence of selection procedures on fairness perceptions, attitudes about theorganization, and job pursuit intentions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 297 – 318.
Schmit, M.J. and Ryan, A.M. (1992) Test-taking disposi-tions: A missing link? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,
629 – 637.
Schmit, M.J. and Ryan, A.M. (1997) Applicant withdrawal: The
role of test-taking attitudes and racial differences. Personnel Psychology, 50, 855 – 876.
Steiner, D. andGilliland, S.W. (1996) Fairness reactions to personnelselection techniques in France and the United States. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 134 – 141.
Steiner, D. andGilliland, S.W. (2001) Procedural justice in personnelselection: International and cross-cultural perspectives. Interna-tional Journal of Selection and Assessment , 9, 124 – 137.
Truxillo, D.M. and Bauer, T.N. (1999) Applicant reactions to testscores banding in entry-level and promotional contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 322 – 339.
Truxillo, D.M., Bauer, T.N., Campion, M.A. and Paronto, M.E.(2002) Selection fairness information and applicant reactions:A longitudinal field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
1020 – 1031.Wiechmann, D. and Ryan, A.M. (2003) Reactions to computerized
testing in selection contexts. International Journal of Selectionand Assessment , 11, 215 – 229.
PERCEIVED FAIRNESS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION 159