percepção de igualdade na seleção de pessoal - 12934483

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



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



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



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.




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.




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.




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




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




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.




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.




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.


percepção de igualdade na seleção de pessoal - 12934483

Documents