School of Social Sciences

Psychology PS 5424

Spring 2008

Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in Lithuanian and

Swedish samples

Author: Simona Sudaviciute

Supervisor: Abdul H. Mohammed, Ph D

Examinor: Andrejs Ozolins, Ph D

1

ABSTRACT

Candidates’ attitudes towards various personnel selection methods get attention of organizational

and work psychology specialists because of various reasons. The most important reason is that

individuals’ attitudes towards personnel selection methods influence their latter behavior.

Although there is a substantial amount of studies carried out in different countries, there is no

data from Lithuanian and Swedish samples. The aim of current study was to analyze the attitudes

towards personnel selection methods among Lithuanian students, Lithuanian employees and

Swedish students. The participants (197 students and 86 employees) filled in a questionnaire,

which includes short descriptions of 10 personnel selection methods as well as items about

fairness of these methods. According to the results of the study, work-sample tests were ranked as

the fairest personnel selection method in the Lithuanian sample. The fairest personnel selection

methods in Swedish sample were work-sample tests, interview, resumes, and personal references.

Lithuanian students ranked the fairness of written ability test and honesty test more favorably

than Swedish students, but Swedish students tended to rank as more favorable interview,

resumes, personal references and personal contacts. Personal contacts and graphology were

ranked the lowest on fairness dimension in Lithuanian sample, and Swedes ranked only

graphology as the least fair personnel selection method. Lithuanian employees ranked personal

references, personal contacts and graphology more favorably than Lithuanian students. In

Lithuanian students sample, perception of personnel selection method as a scientifically proved,

logic and precise or providing an opportunity to show one’s skills, had the strongest connection

with favorability ranking of personnel selection method’s fairness. In the Lithuanian employees

and the Swedish students samples, perception of the method as logic or providing an opportunity

to show one’s skills, had the strongest link with fairness.

Key words: attitude towards personnel selection methods fairness, attitude towards personnel

selection methods fairness dimensions, attitude towards the suitability of personnel selection

methods to positions, self-efficacy.

2

INTRODUCTION

Personnel selection is one of the most important practice fields in organizations which has

received considerable attention by work and organizational psychologists. Many companies try to

do more work with fewer employees and because of this personnel selection becomes more

actual. Personnel selection – the process when the best candidate is selected and employed from a

lot of candidates to a work position, - is the application of various personnel selection methods:

interview, resumes, practical tasks, biographical information, references, written ability,

personality, honesty tests, graphology and all relevant methods.

Work and organizational psychologists are interested in candidates’ attitudes towards

personnel selection methods for some reasons. One reason is that the first personal contact

between an employer and a prospective employee (candidate) is usually established through the

selection process and it is very important because not only companies select employees, but

applicants also select the organizations to which they will apply and where they are willing to

work (Rynes, 1993), i.e. a two-way decision is proceeding. The first contact might affect an

applicant’s attitudes towards the organization and his or her decision to accept a job offer

(Anderson, 2004; Chapman, et al., 2005; Macan, Avedon, Paese & Smith, 1994), to recommend

or not other potential employees to go to that organization (Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman &

Stoffey, 1996) or even to use or not to use services and products of that organization (Anderson,

2004; Hausknecht, Day & Thomas, 2004). Another reason is the danger that employees can retire

from selection and in this way the organization will have additional charges (the organization can

loose potential high level employees) (Anderson, 2004; Chambers, 2002). Also, the growing

interest of candidates in selection processes and techniques encourages the creation of a fair

selection system. Another important reason to explore candidates’ reactions to selection methods

is that selection methods can have negative psychological effects on candidates (Anderson,

2004). In addition, understanding candidates’ reactions gives a conceptual background to develop

better selection systems and this would cause desirable reactions and would affect organization

attractiveness and commitment would increase (Chan & Schmitt, 2004).

Although this field of organizational and work psychology has received attention by

researchers, there is not so much research carried out especially compared with research about

selection methods from organizational perspective: less than 5 percent of the studies give

attention to the candidates’ perspective (Anderson, Lievens, Dam & Ryan, 2004).

3

To date, whereas studies on fairness in selection have been conducted in a number of

countries, no literature exists for Lithuanian and Swedish samples. Most of the research

concerning applicants’ fairness perceptions towards selection has been conducted in the United

States (Steiner & Gilliland, 1996). In Europe, some data have been collected in Belgium, Spain,

Portugal, Germany, Italy, Greece and Netherlands and a good deal of data is available for France

(Steiner & Gilliland, 2001).

Theoretical background

The term “Applicant attitudes” has been used as a synonym to such terms as: candidate/

individual reaction, perception, cognition about selection process or methods (Hausknecht, Day

& Thomas, 2004). A growing interest in candidates’ attitudes towards selection procedures was

noticed in the last decade. The main reason is the belief that attitudes may be related to

subsequent behavior. One of the theories explaining links between attitudes and behaviors is a

theory of planned behavior, which was proposed by Icek Aizen (2006). This theory is valued as

one of the most predictive persuasion theories. As seen in Figure 1, attitude toward the behavior

is one of the factors influencing people’s intentions and subsequent behavior. So, according to

this theory it becomes clear that understanding about the applicants’ attitudes towards personnel

selection methods is really important because knowledge about candidates’ attitudes could help

to improve selection process and this could cause more desirable behavior of applicants.

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

4

One of the first explanations about the importance of candidates’ reactions was made by

Schuler in 1993. He introduced the term “social validity” which means that the applicants’

attitudes depend on four factors (Moscoso & Salgado, 2004):

1. Received information about task requirements and organization characteristics;

2. Direct or representative participation that candidates have in the development and

execution of the selection process;

3. The transparency of selection process;

4. The form and content of feedback given to candidate.

Concurrently there were attempts to relate existing research with organizational justice

theory (Gilliland, 1993). According to organizational justice theory, applicants evaluate selection

procedures on the basis of four aspects of organizational justice: perceived fairness of (1)

outcome allocations, (2) rules and procedures used to make decisions, (3) sensitivity and respect

shown to candidates and (4) given explanations or accounts to individuals. Bauer et al. (2001)

developed Gilliland’s organizational justice rules into a scale that was called Selection Procedural

Justice Scale and their results showed that there were eleven factors (job-relatedness (predictive),

information known, chance to perform, reconsideration opportunity, feedback, consistency,

openness, treatment, two-way communication, propriety of questions, job-relatedness content)

that relate perceived fairness of selection and later outcomes.

One of the latest attempts to explain applicants’ reactions to selection methods was made

by Hausknecht, Day and Thomas (2004). They offered an updated theoretical model (see the

figure 1 in Appendix A) and the main premise of this model was that candidates’ perception

about the selection process can help to predict later outcomes. The model consists of four parts:

applicant perceptions, antecedents, moderators and outcomes, - and we focus most on the links

between applicant reactions and outcomes. According to their results the applicants’ perceptions,

except test anxiety, were positively related to self-assessed procedure performance,

organizational attractiveness, recommendation intentions and offer acceptance intentions

(average correlations were generally moderate to large). Test anxiety was negatively related to

actual procedure performance. These results support the belief that attitudes can predict later

behavior but there is need to do more research to find out if the relations are robust or not

(Hausknecht, Day & Thomas, 2004).

5

Personality traits relations to attitudes towards personnel selection procedures

As Ryan and Ployhart (2000) notice among other determinants of fairness reactions, scientists

should also explore the role of individual differences, noting that only a few studies have

explored candidates’ reactions across multiple types of procedures, and even fewer have studied

them longitudinally. Hausknecht et al. (2004), in their recent meta-analysis, also identified a very

small number of studies exploring the relationship between personality dimensions and applicant

perceptions. According to their meta-analysis, conscientiousness and neuroticism had a small

average correlation with procedural justice, and conscientiousness was also moderately related to

test motivation.

In one of few studies on this subject, Viswesvaran and Ones (2004) found that individuals

who have high emotional stability and extroversion place greater value on selection system

development process variables, such as adequacy of job analysis, validity evidence, and

involvement of professionals. Extroversion was also positively related to the process of

administration, e.g., consistency across applicants, opportunity to review scoring, and

confidentiality. Importance placed on selection context (e.g., selection ratio and company history

of discrimination) was moderately negatively correlated with both conscientiousness and

emotional stability. Individuals with high conscientiousness, cognitive ability and emotional

stability place less importance on these factors in inferring selection system fairness.

Nevertheless, the results of this study should be interpreted cautiously because of the small

number of individuals (N = ) completing the personality measure (Nikolaou & Judge, 2007).

Self-efficacy and self-esteem have also been shown to correlate with applicant reactions.

Gilliland (1993) explored the potential impact of the selection process on applicants’ self-efficacy

and self-esteem. He found that self-efficacy was related to ‘the interaction of the job relevance of

the test and the hire-reject decision such that rejection using job relevant procedures has the

greatest negative impact on self-efficacy’ (Chan & Schmitt, 2004, p. 17).

Nikolaou and Judge (2007) tried to explore the role of individual differences on fairness

reactions. The results showed that CSE (a broad personality construct indicated by four specific

traits: self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control and neuroticism) is weakly correlated with the

process favorability of interviews and resumes only for the employee sample, but no statistically

significant correlations were identified in the student sample. The fairness dimensions of

interviews and personal contacts for employees and students respectively were also weakly

correlated with CSE.

6

Owing to the paucity of research, the importance of future research on the relationship

between personality and fairness reactions should be emphasized (Chan & Schmitt, 2004;

Hausknecht, et al., 2004).

Attitudes towards personnel selection procedures in different countries

A growing interest in applicants’ reactions to personnel selection methods was noticed after

Steiner and Gilliland (1996) research which had a purpose to explore candidates’ attitudes

towards ten personnel selection methods: interview, resumes, work-sample tests, biographical

information blank, written ability tests, personal preferences, personality tests, honesty tests,

personal contacts, graphology. This research that has been done in United States and France

(1996) were replicated later in other countries: Singapore (2002), Germany (2003), Spain and

Portugal (2004), Greece and Italy (2007), Netherlands (2008). The purpose of these studies was

to determine what applicants’ reactions to personnel selection methods are in various countries.

In these cases, the applicants’ reactions to personnel selection procedures indicated a

general attitude toward fairness of the personnel selection method, i.e. how exactly the method

helps to select an appropriate candidate to a job position, and attitudes toward fairness

dimensions of personnel selection methods, which means why/or by what reasons, the applicant

assesses the personnel selection method as fair.

General attitudes towards personnel selection methods

Analyzing results in general about attitudes towards the personnel selection methods, the

interview receives the highest favorability ratings from all ten personnel selection procedures,

and the interview is valued as the fairest personnel selection method (Anderson & Witvliet, 2008;

Bertolino & Steiner, 2007; Hausknecht, Day & Thomas, 2004; Marcus, 2003; Moscoso&

Salgado, 2004; Nikolaou & Judge, 2007; Phillips & Gully, 2002; Steiner & Gilliland, 1996).

Work-sample tests usually receive similar favorability ratings as the interview (Anderson &

Witvliet, 2008; Marcus, 2003; Moscoso& Salgado, 2004; Nikolaou & Judge, 2007; Phillips&

Gully, 2002; Steiner & Gilliland, 1996;) but there are some results indicating that work-sample

tests is a less favorable method than interviews (Hausknecht, Day & Thomas, 2004; Nikolaou &

Judge, 2007) or more favorable than interviews (Bertolino & Steiner, 2007). The fairness of

resumes is assessed moderately favorable but favorability rating is smaller not statistically

significant than interview and work-sample tests (Anderson & Witvliet, 2008; Bertolino &

Steiner, 2007; Marcus, 2003; Moscoso & Salgado, 2004; Nikolaou & Judge, 2007). The fairness

of written ability tests, personality tests, honesty tests, personal preferences and biographical

7

information blank receive average favorability ratings (Moscoso & Salgado, 2004; Phillips &

Gully, 2002). The worst favorability ratings appear when individuals assess the fairness of

personal contacts and graphology (Moscoso & Salgado, 2004), however graphology gets the

lowest ratings (Anderson & Witvliet, 2008; Bertolino & Steiner, 2007; Marcus, 2003; Moscoso

& Salgado, 2004; Nikolaou & Judge, 2007; Phillips & Gully, 2002).

While there is a notable similarity between the nine countries, there are some differences

too. Comparing Singapore and United States one may see that Singaporeans perceive personality

tests to have more process favorability than Americans did. Portuguese individuals rated the

interview, personal references, honesty tests, personal contacts and graphology more favorably

than the Spanish sample. However, in terms of the effect size, these differences are quite small (d

range from .27 to .54). Even graphology got the lowest favorability ratings in all countries;

however the French sample rated this method more favorably than the American, Spanish and

Portuguese samples. And some differences were found in comparisons between American and

Dutch samples: Americans favored resumes more than the Dutch did, whereas the Dutch favored

personality tests far more than Americans. Nikolaou and Judge (2007) propose that this “notable

similarity” between countries can be a result of student samples used in the investigations. In

Greece they used groups of students and employees, and found some differences between these

two samples. They found significant differences in five of the 10 selection methods. Employees

rated resumes more favorably than students, but students rated written ability, personality and

honesty tests higher as well as graphology. In most cases, the differences, in terms of the effect

size, were small to moderate (.26 ≤ d ≤ .67) with honesty tests demonstrating the largest

differences between employees and students.

Attitudes towards fairness dimensions of personnel selection methods

Candidates’ attitudes towards fairness dimensions of personnel selection methods are as

important as general applicants’ reactions to personnel selection techniques. It is important to

explore why candidates rate personnel selection methods as fair. As Steiner and Gilliland (1996)

proposed, the fairness dimensions were seven: scientific evidence, employer’s right to obtain

information, opportunity to perform, interpersonal warmth, face validity (logical approach),

respect of privacy and widespread use.

In general, comparing fairness dimensions ratings, it is perceived that the fairness

dimension called face validity predicts favorable rating of the method the best (Phillips, Gully,

2002) but some results indicate that both face validity and opportunity to perform are the best

predictors of personnel selection techniques favorability (Nikolaou, Judge, 2007; Bertolino,

8

Steiner, 2007). Fairness dimensions as opportunity to perform, wide use of method and

employer’s right to obtain information are also strong predictors in the United States sample, but

in the Singaporean sample all correlations are lower (Phillips & Gully, 2002).

Comparing fairness dimensions to every personnel selection method in the Spanish and

Portuguese samples the following tendencies can be observed (Moscoso, Salgado, 2004). For the

scientific evidence dimension personal contacts, personal preferences and graphology are

perceived as the personnel selection methods with the least research evidence, whereas written

ability tests, work-sample tests are rated as selection techniques with the most scientific evidence.

In consideration of fairness dimension, called employer’s right to obtain information, interview,

work-sample tests and resumes are rated most positively, whereas personal contacts and

graphology are rated most negatively. Interview and work-sample tests are perceived as fair

methods because they give an opportunity to perform, to demonstrate their skills; personal

contacts and graphology offer very small opportunities to demonstrate skills in the applicants’

opinion. Resume is perceived as cold and impersonal method, and interview is perceived as the

warmest technique. In consideration of respect for privacy biographical information blank,

personality and honesty tests are perceived as the most invasive to one’s privacy.

Anderson and Witvliet (2008) noticed some differences between Netherlands, United

States, France, Spain and Portugal in fairness dimensions; however the effect sizes were

relatively small.

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

conducted in a number of countries, most of the research concerning applicants’ fairness

perceptions towards selection has been conducted in the United States (Steiner & Gilliland,

1996). In Europe, some data have been collected in Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy,

Greece and Netherlands and a good deal of data is available for France (Steiner & Gilliland,

2001); unfortunately some data are not published or are inaccessible. No literature exists in

Scandinavian and Baltic countries, so it is important to explore applicants’ reactions to personnel

selection methods in some Scandinavian and/or Baltic countries. In addition, the focus should be

the limitation of earlier studies such as the use of student samples.

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

selection methods in Lithuanian and Swedish samples.

9

Hypotheses:

1. The interview is perceived as the fairest personnel selection method in

Lithuanian and Swedish samples.

2. Graphology and personal contacts are valued as the least fair personnel

selection methods in Lithuanian and Swedish samples.

3. Students perceive personnel selection methods as having greater process

favorability than employees in Lithuanian sample.

4. Lithuanian students perceive personnel selection methods as having greater

process favorability than Swedish students.

5. Students and employees with experience in personnel selection methods

perceive these methods more favorably than those who have never gone through

personnel selection.

6. Face validity is related more strongly to attitudes towards fairness of

personnel selection methods in Lithuanian and Swedish samples.

7. The higher the individuals’ self-efficacy, the higher the ratings of

personnel selection favorability individuals give in Lithuanian and Swedish samples.

8. The suitability of personnel selection methods for certain work positions

differs depending on position category (manager, administration or worker) in the

Lithuanian and Swedish samples.

Method

Sample and procedure

The sample of current study consists of 283 participants: 107 students from Vytautas Magnus

University (Lithuania), 90 students from Växjö University and 86 employees from different

companies in Lithuania. The mean age of the Lithuanian students was 23.93 (SD = 4.15) and for

the Swedish students was 22.85 (SD = 3.29). The mean age of the Lithuanian employees was

30.19 (SD = 0.49). The biggest part of students (VMU) were majoring in social sciences (53%),

others’ majors were economics and management (19%), political sciences (8%), humanities

sciences (7%), natural sciences (5%), computer sciences (3%), social work (3%) and religion

sciences (1%) and arts (1%). Students from Växjö university were majoring in: social sciences

(29%), education (28%), economics and management (18%), humanities (15%), technology and

design (3%), mathematics and system engineering (3%), health sciences and social work (2%),

and police studies (1%). Other social – demographic information is shown in table 1.

10

Table 1. Participants’ social – demographic information.

Lithuania SwedenStudents(N=107)

Employees(N=86)

Students(N=90)

Female 89 49 62Gender

Male 18 37 28Married 20 45 8Single 86 36 76

Family status

Divorced 1 5 0Primary 1 0 0Secondary 16 2 14Further education 1 0 0Not finished university education

34 13 70Education

University education 55 71 6

The students and employees received the questionnaire either electronically or as a paper

copy. In Lithuania the questionnaire was translated into Lithuanian and in Sweden to Swedish.

Participants were asked to answer the social – demographical and self-efficacy questions.

Afterwards they were asked to read the description of each method and to indicate how strongly

they agreed or disagreed with the statements about the fairness and suitability of ten personnel

selection methods.

Measures

In this study the Steiner and Gilliland questionnaire (1996) was used to evaluate students’ and

employees’ attitudes towards personnel selection methods (see the extract in Appendix B). This

questionnaire covered 10 different personnel selection methods: interview, resumes, work-sample

tests, biographical information blank, written ability tests, personal preferences, personality tests,

honesty tests, personal contacts, graphology. Each personnel selection method was briefly

described regarding its content and purpose. There were two questions designed to assess the

fairness of each method using a 7–point Likert scale (1 indicated strongly disagree and 7

indicated strongly agree). The two questions were: 1) The method is effective for selecting qualified

people; 2) Even if I did not get the job based on this selection method, I would think the procedure is fair.

Also participants answered seven questions about possible justice dimensions of each method. They used

a 7-point Likert scale to answer (1 indicated strongly disagree and 7 indicated strongly agree).

These assessed dimensions were: a) The method is based on solid scientific research; b) The approach

is a logical one for identifying qualified candidates for the job (face valid); c) The method will detect

11

important qualities of the individual that differentiate them from others (opportunity to perform); d) The

selection instrument is impersonal and cold; e) Employers have the right to obtain information using this

method; f) The method invades personal privacy; g) The method is good because it is widely used. The

coefficient alpha for the scale was 0.82 for the Lithuanian students sample, 0.85 for the Lithuanian

employees sample and 0.77 for the Swedish students sample.

Three statements about the method’s suitability were added to the questionnaire. Participants

indicated if each selection method is suitable for selecting candidates to such work position categories:

managers, administration and workers. They used a 7-point Likert scale (1 indicated strongly disagree

and 7 indicated strongly agree) for each statement (for example: The method is effective to select

managers).

Also the participants were asked if they had ever been evaluated by each personnel selection

method and also to evaluate two statements about self-efficacy (I can achieve my goals; I can perform

a majority of the tasks effectively) where they used a 4-point Likert scale (1 indicated strongly

disagree and 4 indicated strongly agree). Social – demographic questions were given too.

RESULTS

The results will be presented in this way:

Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in the Lithuanian sample:

o Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in the students sample;

o Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in the employees sample;

o Students’ and employees’ attitudes comparisons;

Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in the Swedish sample;

Lithuanian and Swedish samples comparisons.

Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in the Lithuanian sample

Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in the students sample

One of the main tasks in this study was to explore which personnel selection methods are

perceived as fair and which as unfair. Figure 3 shows means of personnel selection methods

fairness ratings in the Lithuanian students group.

As shown in figure 3 Lithuanian students perceive work sample tests most favorably. In

this group the method was evaluated as the fairest method, the mean of work-sample tests rating

differs statistically significantly from all other selection methods ratings (p < 0.001). The rating

12

means of personal contacts and graphology are the lowest and differ statistically significantly

from the rating means of the other eight selection methods (p < 0.001).

4.504.14

5.31

4.064.47

3.603.643.85

2.662.52

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Ratin

gs

Interview

Resumes

Work-sample tests

Biographical information blank

Written ability tests

Personal preferences

Personality tests

Honesty tests

Personal contacts

Graphology

Figure 3. The means of personnel selection methods fairness ratings in the Lithuanian

students group.

The next important task was to identify which fairness dimensions were related with

favorability rating of selection methods, i.e. why/by what reasons individuals assess personnel

selection method as fair. Table 2 shows correlations between the selection methods fairness

ratings and fairness dimensions ratings.

Table 2. Spearman correlations between the selection methods fairness ratings and fairness

dimensions ratings in Lithuanian students group (N=107).

Personnel selection method S

cien

tifi

c ev

iden

ce

Fac

e va

lidi

ty

(log

ical

ap

proa

ch)

Opp

ortu

nity

to

per

form

Inte

rper

sona

l w

arm

th

Em

ploy

er‘s

ri

ght t

o ob

tain

in

form

atio

n

Res

pect

of

priv

acy

Wid

espr

ead

use

Interview 0.28** 0.37** 0.27** 0.25** 0.21** 0.10 0.17Resumes 0.46** 0.45** 0.43** 0.30** 0.35** -0.03 0.35**Work-sample tests 0.37** 0.60** 0.47** 0.19 0.40** 0.35** 0.21*Biographical information blank

0.55** 0.55** 0.40** 0.03 0.32** 0.19 0.38**

Written ability tests 0.43** 0.63** 0.44** 0.05 0.41** 0.11 0.35**Personal preferences 0.53** 0.67** 0.61** 0.03 0.28** 0.09 0.44**Personality tests 0.29** 0.62** 0.39** -0.05 0.43** 0.24** 0.48**Honesty tests 0.45** 0.59** 0.45** 0.03 0.48** 0.27** 0.14Personal contacts 0.50** 0.65** 0.50** -0.01 0.37** 0.06 0.40**Graphology 0.60** 0.75** 0.73** 0.11 0.38** -0.09 0.56**

** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

13

Three fairness dimensions correlate strongly with selection methods fairness: scientific

evidence (correlations from 0.28 to 0.60), face validity (correlations from 0.37 to 0.75) and

opportunity to perform (correlations from 0.27 to 0.73). If a selection method has scientific

evidence, face validity and gives opportunity to perform then it is perceived as a fair method in

the Lithuanian students group.

Identifying if experience influences the selection methods favorability ratings it was

noticed that experience in personnel selection is related with three selection methods favorability

ratings: students who have been evaluated by work-sample tests, personality tests or personal

contacts rated these selection methods more favorably than those who have never gone through

these methods (see table 3).

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

groups in the Lithuanian students group.

Selection method ExperiencedMean

InexperiencedMean

t value df p value

Interview 4.47 (N=78) 4.57 (N=27) -0.398 103 0.692Resumes 4.04 (N=83) 4.57 (N=21) -1.516 102 0.133Work-sample tests 5.91 (N=29) 5.08 (N=76) 4.005 67.262 0.000Biographical information blank

4.20 (N=25) 4.02 (N=77) 0.626 100 0.532

Written ability tests 4.71 (N=17) 4.40 (N=81) 0.869 96 0.387Personal preferences 4.00 (N=23) 3.50 (N=76) 1.430 97 0.156Personality tests 5.20 (N=5) 3.55 (N=86) 2.800 89 0.012Honesty tests 3.50 (N=5) 3.86 (N=90) -0.630 93 0.530Personal contacts 3.03 (N=38) 2.43 (N=61) 2.075 97 0.041Graphology 4.00 (N=1) 2.50 (N=95) 1.208 94 0.230

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

and workers) it was noticed that in this group written ability tests, interview and work-sample

tests were perceived as the most suitable to select manager positions (see figure 4). Interview and

work-sample tests were also suitable to select administration positions. The most suitable

selection methods to select workers were the following: work-sample tests, resumes and

interview.

14

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

Inte

rvie

w

Res

umes

Wor

k-sa

mpl

ete

sts

Bio

grap

hica

lin

form

atio

nbl

ank

Writ

ten

abilit

y te

sts

Per

sona

lpr

efer

ence

s

Per

sona

lity

test

s

Hon

esty

test

s

Per

sona

lco

ntac

ts

Gra

phol

ogy

Rat

ing

s

Managers

Administration

Workers

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

Although interview and work-sample tests were perceived as suitable to all positions

categories, dispersion analysis with repeated measures showed that the suitability mean of

interview to select administration positions differs statistically significantly from the suitability

mean of interview to select manager or worker positions (see table 4). Work-sample tests suit to

select administration and worker positions more than manager positions, because suitability

means differs statistically significantly comparing manager with administration positions, and

manager with worker positions.

Table 4. The suitability means of interview and work-sample tests to select manager,

administration and worker positions in the Lithuanian students group (repeated measures).

Personnel selection method

ManagerMean (SD)

AdministrationMean (SD)

Workers Mean (SD)

p value

5.07 (1.50) 5.52 (0.98) 0.0005.07 (1.50) 4.96 (1.70) 0.656Interview

5.52 (0.98) 4.96 (1.70) 0.0014.92 (1.71) 5.25 (1.39) 0.0134.92 (1.71) 5.34 (1.55) 0.049Work-sample tests

5.25 (1.39) 5.34 (1.55) 0.526

Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in employees sample

Analyzing how selection methods fairness ratings differ in the Lithuanian employees group,

similar tendencies emerged as in the Lithuanian students group. Work-sample tests received the

highest fairness ratings (M = 5.13; SD = 1.370), personal contacts and graphology – the lowest

ratings (M = 3.05; SD = 1.265 and M = 2.95; SD = 1.297); the means of methods fairness ratings

differ statistically significantly from other selection methods ratings (p < 0.001).

15

With regard to social – demographical variables we noticed some weak but statistically

significant correlations between age and selection methods fairness ratings. For Lithuanian

employees group age correlated with honesty test fairness ratings (r = 0.272, p = 0.013), i.e. the

higher the age, the higher the rating of honesty tests fairness was noticed. So the elder people

perceive honesty tests fairness more favorably than young people.

Also correlations between the selection methods fairness ratings and fairness dimensions

ratings were calculated in the Lithuanian employees sample (see table 5). For this group the

strongest correlations emerged between the fairness ratings and two fairness dimensions: face

validity (logical approach) (r from 0.37 to 0.78) and opportunity to perform (r from 0.16 to 0.64).

Examining the relationship of experience in personnel selection methods with selection

methods fairness ratings, only one significant relationship emerged: employees who have been

evaluated by personal contacts in personnel selection perceive this methods more favorably than

those who have no experience in this method (t = 1.998; df = 82; p = 0.049).

Table 5. Spearman correlations between the selection methods fairness ratings and fairness

dimensions ratings in the Lithuanian employees sample (N=86).

** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

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

fairness but for the employees sample only few significant correlations occurred. Self-efficacy

correlated significantly with the interview (r = 0.246; p = 0.023) and resumes (r = 0.260; p =

Personnel selection

method Sci

enti

fic

evid

ence

Fac

e va

lidi

ty

(log

ical

app

roac

h)

Opp

ortu

nity

to

perf

orm

Inte

rper

sona

l

war

mth

Em

ploy

er‘s

rig

ht

to o

btai

n in

form

atio

n

Res

pect

of

priv

acy

Wid

espr

ead

use

Interview 0.17* 0.42** 0.33** 0.15 0.10 -0.16 0.44**Resumes 0.26** 0.37** 0.16 0.01 0.04 -0.04 0.38**Work-sample tests 0.47** 0.76** 0.58** 0.27* 0.41** -0.01 0.34**Biographical information blank

0.48** 0.78** 0.64** -0.01 0.49** -0.11 0.51**

Written ability tests 0.50** 0.45** 0.54** -0.30** 0.18 -0.34** 0.36**Personal preferences 0.39** 0.62** 0.47** -0.11 0.22* -0.17 0.55**Personality tests 0.62** 0.65** 0.46** -0.22* 0.23* 0.06 0.18Honesty tests 0.68** 0.59** 0.45** 0.03** 0.48** 0.27** 0.14**Personal contacts 0.66** 0.65** 0.45** 0.03 0.27* -0.18 0.59**Graphology 0.56** 0.72** 0.58** 0.24* 0.29** 0.02 0.52**

16

0.016) fairness ratings. In both cases correlations were positive: the higher the self-efficacy value,

the higher the ratings of interview and resumes fairness.

For the Lithuanian employees sample, written ability tests, personal preferences and

interview were perceived as the most suitable to select managers positions, interview, resumes

and work-sample tests –administration positions, and work-sample tests, resumes and interview –

workers positions (see figure 5).

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

Inte

rvie

w

Res

umes

Wor

k-sa

mpl

ete

sts

Bio

grap

hica

lin

form

atio

nbl

ank

Writ

ten

abilit

y te

sts

Per

sona

lpr

efer

ence

s

Per

sona

lity

test

s

Hon

esty

test

s

Per

sona

lco

ntac

ts

Gra

phol

ogy

Rat

ing

s

Managers

Administration

Workers

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

employees group).

As interview was perceived suitable for all positions categories, extra dispersion analysis

with repeated measures was done. It showed that employees perceive the interview as more

suitable to select administration positions than manager or worker positions because the mean of

interview suitability to select administration positions was significantly higher than the means of

interview suitability to select manager (p = 0.009) and worker (p = 0.002) positions.

Students’ and employees’ attitudes comparisons

Usually researchers emphasize that students’ and employees’ attitudes differ and therefore it is

important to explore if these differences exist. Examining students’ and employees’ attitudes

towards personnel selection methods we found significant differences in three of the ten

personnel selection methods (see table 6). Employees rated personal preferences, personal

contacts and graphology more favorably than students. So the hypothesis that students’ ratings of

personnel selection methods fairness are higher than employees’ ratings was not supported.

17

Table 6. The means and standard deviations of personnel selection methods ratings in

students and employees groups (Lithuania) (One-way ANOVA).

Lithuania Students (N=107) Employees (N=86)Mean SD Mean SD p value

Interview 4.47 1.22 4.63 1.21 0.346Resumes 4.14 1.45 4.01 1.37 0.503Work-sample tests 5.31 1.14 5.13 1.37 0.314Biographical information blank

4.06 1.25 3.97 1.37 0.628

Written ability tests 4.47 1.31 4.55 1.16 0.651Personal preferences 3.60 1.48 4.12 1.31 0.012Personality tests 3.64 1.32 3.77 1.17 0.487Honesty tests 3.85 1.22 4.05 1.36 0.303Personal contacts 2.66 1.40 3.05 1.27 0.050Graphology 2.52 1.24 2.95 1.30 0.022

Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in the Swedish sample

For the Swedish students sample four selection methods received highest ratings: work-sample

tests (M = 5.09; SD = 1.239), interview (M = 5.08; SD = 1.121), resumes (M = 5.00; SD = 0.969)

and personal preferences (M = 4.74; SD = 1.126) (table 6). Swedish students perceive these

selection methods as the fairest procedures (the means of these methods fairness ratings differ

significantly from other methods ratings; p < 0,05). Graphology received the lowest rating (M =

2,61; SD = 1.402) and it differs from the other nine selection methods ratings (p < 0,01).

5.08 5 5.09

4.234.02

4.74

3.76

3.23.62

2.62

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Ratin

gs

Interview

Resumes

Work-sample tests

Biographical information blank

Written ability tests

Personal preferences

Personality tests

Honesty tests

Personal contacts

Graphology

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

group.

Analyzing correlations between selection methods fairness ratings and fairness

dimensions ratings in Swedish students sample, the selection methods fairness ratings correlate

18

the most with two fairness dimensions: face validity (logical approach) (r from 0.57 to 0.88) and

opportunity to perform (r from 0.41 to 0.83) (see table 7).

Table 7. Spearman correlations between selection methods fairness ratings and fairness

dimensions ratings in Swedish students sample (N=90).

** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

With regard to experience in personnel selection methods six differences emerged in the

Swedish students sample. Individuals who have been evaluated by interview, work-sample tests,

written ability tests, personal preferences, honesty tests and personal contacts perceived these

selection methods more favorably than those who have never been evaluated by them (see table

8).

For the Swedish students group self-efficacy relationships with attitudes towards

selection methods were not so strong, but significant. Self-efficacy correlated significantly with

interview (r = 0.226; p = 0.033) and graphology (r = - 0.222; p = 0.002) fairness ratings. The

higher the self-efficacy value is, the higher the rating of interview fairness and the lower rating of

graphology fairness emerge in the Swedish students sample.

Personnel selection method S

cien

tifi

c ev

iden

ce

Fac

e va

lidi

ty

(log

ical

ap

proa

ch)

Opp

ortu

nity

to

per

form

Inte

rper

sona

l w

arm

th

Em

ploy

er‘s

ri

ght t

o ob

tain

in

form

atio

n

Res

pect

of

priv

acy

Wid

espr

ead

use

Interview 0.21 0.61** 0.68** 0.41** 0.21* 0.27* 0.47**Resumes 0.12 0.57** 0.42** 0.24* 0.22* 0.00 0.33**Work-sample tests 0.18 0.59** 0.41** 0.26* 0.30** 0.31** 0.27*Biographical information blank

0.42** 0.74** 0.49** 0.36** 0.36** 0.16 0.21

Written ability tests 0.53** 0.63** 0.68** 0.45** 0.19 0.19 0.23*Personal preferences 0.08 0.58** 0.45** 0,34** 0.29** 0.31** 0.37**Personality tests 0.42** 0.76** 0.53** 0.31** 0.57** 0.16 0.51**Honesty tests 0.46** 0.81** 0.71** 0.04 0.53** 0.09 0.53**Personal contacts 0.36** 0.64** 0.67** 0.19 0.44** 0.08 0.58**Graphology 0.63** 0.88** 0.83** 0.28** 0.52** -0.09 0.62**

19

Table 8. Differences between experienced in personnel selection methods vs. inexperienced

groups in the Swedish students group.

Personnel selection method

ExperiencedMean

InexperiencedMean

t value df p value

Interview 5.27 (N=62) 4.56 (N=27) 2.853 87 0.005Resumes 5.10 (N=57) 4.76 (N=31) 1.615 86 0.110Work-sample tests 5.61 (N=22) 4.90 (N=64) 2.361 84 0.021Biographical information blank

4.32 (N=17) 4.16 (N=70) 0.507 85 0.614

Written ability tests 5.36 (N=7) 3.98 (N=81) 2.771 86 0.007Personal preferences 5.06 (N=57) 4.18 (N=30) 3.726 85 0.000Personality tests 3.50 (N=6) 3.75 (N=80) -0.437 84 0.663Honesty tests 4.50 (N=4) 3.09 (N=81) 2.516 83 0.014Personal contacts 4.00 (N=51) 3.07 (N=37) 2.992 86 0.004Graphology 5.00 (N=1) 2.55 (N=85) 1.897 84 0.061

Examining social – demographical variables relationships with attitudes in the Swedish

students group, only age correlated with attitudes towards three methods: personality tests (r =

0.313; p = 0.003), honesty tests (r = 0.293; p = 0.006) and personal contacts (r = 0.217; p =

0.043). It may be assumed that elder Swedish students rate personality tests, honesty tests and

personal contacts more favorably than younger.

Analyzing the suitability of methods to positions, it was noticed that some ratings of

suitability do difeer (see figure 7).

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

Inte

rvie

w

Res

umes

Wor

k-sa

mpl

ete

sts

Bio

grap

hica

lin

form

atio

nbl

ank

Writ

ten

abilit

y te

sts

Per

sona

lpr

efer

ence

s

Per

sona

lity

test

s

Hon

esty

test

s

Per

sona

lco

ntac

ts

Gra

phol

ogy

Rat

ing

s Managers

Administration

Workers

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

group).

The Swedish students perceive interview, resumes and personal preferences as suitable

to select managers positions. As suitable for administration positions they rate interview,

20

resumes, work-sample tests and personal contacts, and for workers positions – work-sample tests,

resumes and personal preferences. As in the Lithuanian sample the means of resumes suitability

to all positions were compared and it did not show any difference. The Swedish students perceive

resumes as suitable for all positions: managers, administration and workers.

Lithuanian and Swedish samples comparisons

At first it was analyzed which selection methods Lithuanian and Swedish students perceive as the

fairest and the least fair procedures separately. Table 9 shows comparisons between these two

groups.

Table 9. The means and standard deviations of personnel selection methods ratings in

students groups in Lithuania and Sweden (one-way ANOVA).

Students Lithuania (N=107) Sweden (N=90)Mean SD Mean SD

p value

Interview 4.47 1.22 5.07 1.13 0.000Resumes 4.14 1.46 5.01 0.98 0.000Work-sample tests 5.31 1.14 5.07 1.24 0.175Biographical information blank

4.06 1.25 4.19 1.20 0.489

Written ability tests 4.47 1.31 4.06 1.34 0.033Personal preferences 3.60 1.48 4.76 1,11 0.000Personality tests 3.64 1.32 3.74 1.22 0.601Honesty tests 3.85 1.22 3.20 1.59 0.000Personal contacts 2.66 1.40 3.62 1.50 0.000Graphology 2.52 1.24 2.65 1.39 0.496

As can be seen in the table 9, there are differences in six of ten personnel selection

methods ratings. Lithuanian students rate written ability tests and honesty students more

favorably than Swedish students, while Swedish students perceive interview, resumes, personal

preferences and personal contacts more favorably than Lithuanian students. With reference to

this, the fourth hypothesis was supported partly.

When analyzing fairness dimensions ratings for each method (see table 10), the

following tendencies emerge:

With regard to the scientific evidence of the method in both samples written ability tests

were perceived as the method with the best research evidence. For the dimension of face validity

both samples consider that work-sample tests were rated most positively. The Lithuanian students

21

perceived work-sample tests as giving the biggest opportunity to perform (to show your skills and

abilities), but the Swedish students in this case rated interview the best. With regard to

interpersonal warmth of the method interview was perceived as the warmest method in the

Lithuanian students group, while for the Swedish students it was the work-sample tests. The next

dimension analyzed was the employer’s right to obtain information. For this dimension, the

Lithuanian students rated the interview most favorably, while the Swedish students rated resumes

most favorably. Moreover both samples perceived resumes as the least invasive of privacy and

the most extensively used selection method.

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

samples.

Personnel selection method

Sci

enti

fic

evid

ence

Fac

e va

lidi

ty

(log

ical

app

roac

h)

Opp

ortu

nity

to

perf

orm

Inte

rper

sona

l

war

mth

Em

ploy

er‘s

rig

ht to

ob

tain

info

rmat

ion

Res

pect

of

priv

acy

Wid

espr

ead

use

Students (LT) 4.10 4.79 5.09 4.85 5.90 4.90 4.47InterviewStudents (SW) 3.81 4.79 5.30 4.74 4.81 4.54 4.22Students (LT) 3.95 4.68 4.45 3.04 6.04 5.86 4.82ResumesStudents (SW) 3.94 4.52 4.56 3.69 5.18 5.15 4.51Students (LT) 4.62 5.60 5.56 4.60 5.68 5.26 4.18Work-sample testsStudents (SW) 3.90 5.07 5.00 4.92 4.95 5.23 4.01Students (LT) 4.05 4.21 4.12 3.69 5.22 4.53 3.98Biographical

information blank Students (SW) 3.94 4.04 4.16 4.37 4.37 4.36 3.90Students (LT) 4.99 4.71 4.85 3.72 5.04 4.68 4.01Written ability

tests Students (SW) 4.15 3.92 4.08 3.51 4.16 4.38 3.72Students (LT) 3.14 3.65 3.57 3.98 5.19 4.43 3.87Personal

preferences Students (SW) 3.60 4.44 4.32 4.79 4.90 4.44 4.34Students (LT) 4.07 3.65 4.06 4.59 4.32 3.72 3.61Personality testsStudents (SW) 3.84 3.60 4.03 4.14 4.08 4.02 3.58Students (LT) 4.07 3.72 3.78 4.10 4.61 3.85 3.75Honesty testsStudents (SW) 3.72 3.26 3.44 3.94 3.67 3.76 3.41Students (LT) 2.36 2.60 2.41 4.77 3.71 4.11 3.05Personal contactsStudents (SW) 3.25 3.18 3.21 4.00 4.04 4.65 3.74Students (LT) 3.18 2.32 2.60 4.03 3.76 4.57 2.65GraphologyStudents (SW) 3.42 2.56 2.68 3.18 3.48 4.05 3.16

22

In summary we can conclude that there are some differences in attitudes towards

personnel selection methods fairness in different cultures samples (six of ten personnel selection

methods fairness ratings differ significantly).

DISCUSSION

Although attitudes towards personnel selection received considerable attention by researchers,

there are not so many studies from the candidates perspective. To date, studies on fairness in

selection have been conducted in the USA, France, South Africa, Belgium, Singapore, Spain,

Portugal, Germany, Italy, Greece, and Netherlands. No study was found in Lithuania and

Sweden, so the objective of the current study was to explore the attitudes towards personnel

selection methods in Lithuanian and Swedish samples.

Analyzing personnel selection fairness ratings in the Lithuanian sample (both students

and employees together) work-sample tests were perceived as the fairest selection technique. The

results confirm the results of studies that work-sample tests are perceived most favorably

(Bertolino & Steiner, 2007), but partly this contradicts other results when interview and work-

sample tests are rated equally (Hausknecht, Day & Thomas, 2004) or the interview is rated the

best and work-sample tests receive next best ratings (Steiner & Gilliland, 1996; Phillips & Gully,

2002; Marcus, 2003; Moscoso & Salgado, 2004; Hausknecht, Day & Thomas, 2004). Maybe in

Lithuania this selection method is perceived more favorably because it shows the highest

relatedness with job, e.g. it is clear for candidates that the method evaluates your knowledge,

skills and abilities necessary for work performance.

In the Swedish sample four selection methods are perceived as the fairest procedures:

work-sample tests, interview, resumes and personal preferences. Many studies confirm that

individuals rate a few selection techniques favorably, for example: interview, work-sample tests

and resumes (Marcus, 2003; Moscoso & Salgado, 2004; Nikolaou & Judge, 2007; Anderson &

Witvliet, 2008). One possible explanation is that individuals are not prone to prefer only one

method, because the combination of a few selection methods gives more opportunities to perform

(to show your knowledge, skills and abilities), so they are assessed similarly in terms of fairness.

The lowest fairness ratings go to graphology and personal contacts in the Lithuanian

sample, and in the Swedish sample – only to graphology. Studies in other countries showed

similar results: usually both methods receive low fairness ratings, but graphology gets the lowest

23

(Phillips & Gully, 2002; Marcus, 2003; Moscoso & Salgado, 2004; Bertolino & Steiner, 2007;

Nikolaou & Judge, 2007; Anderson & Witvliet, 2008). So, in this case the results were very

similar to other studies. Probably it is influenced by the perception that these methods are not so

scientific evident and face valid. Another explanation why graphology is perceived the least

favorably may be ignorance of this selection method because in both countries this selection

method is not used widely (only 3 participants from 283 answered that they had been evaluated

by this method).

The hypothesis that experience in personnel selection methods is related to the ratings of

selection methods fairness was supported only in three (work-sample tests, personality test and

personal contacts) out of ten cases in the Lithuanian sample, and in six (interview, work-sample

tests, written ability tests, personal preferences, honesty tests and personal contacts) out of ten

cases in the Swedish sample. In all cases individuals who had experienced personnel selection

methods perceived them more favorably than those who had never been evaluated by them. It

confirms results which show that information about selection techniques influence higher ratings

of selection method fairness (De Jong & Visser, 2000): persons who had got information about

selection methods rated them (interview, written ability tests, personality tests, personal

preferences) more favorably than those who had no additional information about methods.

Comparing fairness dimensions ratings of selection methods it was noticed that face

validity (logical approach) and opportunity to perform were the most related with perception of

selection methods fairness in all three groups. Also the Lithuanian students group considered

scientific evidence to be as important as the first two dimensions mentioned earlier. It supports

conclusions made by other researchers (Phillips & Gully, 2002; Bertolino & Steiner, 2007;

Nikolaou & Judge, 2007) that face validity and opportunity to perform are marked as the most

predictive dimensions. Obviously it is very important to candidates to feel that selection and

methods are logical, related to testing of skills, knowledge necessary at work, and to get the

opportunity to present their advantages and differences from other individuals.

Examining self-efficacy and selection methods fairness perception relationships few

significant correlations emerged in the Lithuanian employees and the Swedish students samples.

Although positive correlations between self-efficacy and interview and resumes fairness

perception in Lithuanian employees sample, these correlations replicate results conducted in

Greece when researchers found weak, significant correlations between CSE personality (self-

esteem, self-efficacy and locus of control) construct and interview, resumes fairness ratings in

employees sample (Nikolaou & Judge, 2007). In the Swedish students sample relationships

24

between self-efficacy and interview, graphology fairness perceptions emerged. Self-efficacy

relationship with the perception of interview fairness shows a similar tendency as was seen in the

Lithuanian employees sample. But self-efficacy relationship with rating of graphology fairness

was not noticed in earlier studies.

The suitability of personnel selection methods to positions is a new aspect in studies

from candidates’ perspective. There are not so many differences when comparing suitability of

methods of selection to manager, administration and worker positions. Nevertheless it was

noticed that the Lithuanian students and employees perceived the interview as a suitable

technique to select all positions categories. After further analysis it emerged that interview was

the most suitable method to select administration positions. In the Swedish sample resumes were

perceived as the most suitable technique to select all position categories. In terms of the method

suitability to select employees both countries’ participants indicated selection methods which are

widely used in personnel selection. Maybe this is the reason why individuals perceived these

methods as the most suitable to select all positions categories.

Comparing the perceptions of personnel selection methods fairness between students

and employees samples there were differences in three out of ten personnel selection methods

ratings – employees rate three selection procedures (personal preferences, personal contacts,

graphology) more favorably than students. Earlier studies emphasized some limitations in student

samples, because it seems likely that students may overestimate the fairness of selection

techniques (Hausknecht, Day & Thomas, 2004). But the results of the current study did not

support this. It could be due to a fact that a big part of the students (60% of the group) in this

study had work experience. But why employees perceived these methods more favorably than

students may be due to the fact that selection techniques as personal preferences and personal

contacts were used widely in organizations earlier when employees started their work. Also the

perception of graphology fairness may be influenced by the lack of reliable information about it.

Comparing the Lithuanian and Swedish students answers differences emerged in six out

of ten personnel selection methods ratings. Lithuanian students evaluated written ability tests and

honesty tests more favorably than Swedish students, while the latter evaluated interview,

resumes, personal preferences and personal contacts more favorably than Lithuanian students.

Many researchers found a lot of similarities between countries, but in the current study six

significant differences emerged. A possible explanation may be that these two countries have

more different human resource systems. So, a notably similarity between countries may be a

result of widely used American human resource systems in European countries (and usually all

25

results are compared with American samples). Because of this, it is worth continuing studies in

other countries (for example: Asian, South America countries) because in today’s world the

number of international companies is growing and these companies could use knowledge about

candidates’ attitudes towards personnel selection methods in practice.

26

References:

1. Aizen, I. Theory of planned behavior

http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/index.html

2. Anderson, N. (2004). Editorial – The Dark Side of the Moon: Applicant Perspectives,

Negative Psychological Effects (NPEs), and Candidate Decision Making in Selection.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 1/2, 1- 8.

3. Anderson, N., Lievens, F., van Dam, K., Ryan, A.M. (2004). Future Perspectives on

Employee Selection: Key Directions for Future Research and Practise. Applied

Psychology: an international review, 53, 487 – 501.

4. Anderson, N., Witvliet, C. (2008). Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Methods:

An international comparison between the Netherlands, the United States, France, Spain,

Portugal, and Singapore. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 1, 1 – 13.

5. Bauer, T.N., Truxillo, D.M., Sanchez, R., Craig, J., Ferrara, P., Campion, M.A. (2001).

Development of the Selection Procedural Justice Scale (SPJS). Personnel Psychology, 54,

387 – 419.

6. Bertolino, M., Steiner, D. D. (2007). Fairness Reactions to Selection Methods: An Italian

study. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 2, 197 – 205.

7. Chamber, B.A. (2002). Applicant reactions and their consequences: review, advice, and

recommendations for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4, 4,

317 – 333.

8. Chan, D., Schmitt, N. (2004). An Agenda for Future Research on Applicant Reactions to

Selection Procedures: A Construct-Oriented Approach. International Journal of Selection

and Assessment, 12, 1/2, 9 – 22.

9. Chapman, D.S., Uggerslev, K.L., Carroll, S.A., Piasentin, K.A., Jones, D.A. (2005).

Applicant Attraction to Organizations and Job Choice: A Meta-Analytic Review of the

Correlates of Recruiting Outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 5, 928 – 944.

10. Gilliland, S.W. (1993). The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational

Justice Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694 – 734.

11. Hausknecht, J.P., Day, D.V., Thomas, S.C. (2004). Applicant Reactions to Selection

Procedures: an Updated Model and Meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57, 639 – 683.

12. Macan, T.H., Avedon, M.J, Paese, M., Smith, D.E. (1994). The effects of applicants’

reactions to cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47,

715 – 738.

27

13. Marcus, B. (2003). Attitudes Towards Personnel Selection Methods: A Partial Replication

and Extension in a German Sample. Applied Psychology: an international review, 52, 515

– 532.

14. Moscoso, S., Salgado, J.F. (2004). Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Techniques

in Spain and Portugal. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 1/2, 187 –

196.

15. Nikolaou, I., Judge, T.A. (2007). Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Techniques in

Greece: The role of core self-evaluations. International Journal of Selection and

Assessment, 15, 2, 206 – 219.

16. Phillips, J.M., Gully, S.M. (2002). Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in

Singapore and the United States. International Journal of Human Resource Management,

13, 8, 1186 – 1205.

17. Ryan, A.M., Ployhart, R.E. (2000). Applicants’ Perceptions of Selection Procedures and

Decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 26, 3, 565

– 606.

18. Rynes, S.L., Connerley, M.L. (1993). Applicant Reactions to Alternative Selection

Procedures. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 3, 261 – 277.

19. Smither, J.W., Millsap, R.E., Stoffey, R.W., Reilly, R.R., Pearlman, K. An Experimental

Test of the Influence of Selection Procedures on Fairness Perceptions, Attitudes about the

Organization, and Job Pursuit Intentions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 297 –

318.

20. Steiner, D.D., Gilliland, S.W. (1996). Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection

Techniques in France and the United States. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 134 –

141.

21. Steiner, D.D., Gilliland, S.W. (2001). Procedural Justice in Personnel Selection:

International and Cross-cultural Perspectives. International Journal of Selection and

Assessment, 9, 1/2, 124 – 136.

22. Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D.S. (2004). Importance of Perceived Personnel Selection System

Fairness Determinants: Relations with Demographic, Personality, and Job characteristics.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 1/2, 172 – 186.

28

Appendix A

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

Person Characteristics Work experience Test experience Personality Demographics

Perceived Procedure Characteristics Procedural justice rules Interpersonal justice rules Informational justice rules Length of process Outcome (actual or perceived) Intrusion of privacy Perceived test ease Transparency

Job Characteristics KSA requirements Job stereotypes Job attractiveness Industry norms for selection

Organizational Context Selection ratio History Resources

Applicant Perceptions Procedural justice Distributive justice Test anxiety Test motivation Attitudes towards test Attitudes towards selection

Moderators Stage in selection process Selection context Hiring expectations Job desirability Available alternatives Subjective norms

Outcomes

Selection Procedure Performance Actual procedure performance Self-assessed procedure performance

Self-Perceptions Self-efficacy Self-esteem

Attitudes and Behaviors toward Organization Organizational attractiveness Offer acceptance intentions/behaviors Recommendations intentions/behaviors Application intentions/behaviors Reapplication intentions/behaviors Retesting intentions/behaviors Product purchase intentions/behaviors Litigation intentions/behaviors Applicant withdrawal

Work Attitudes and Behaviors Job satisfaction Organizational commitment Job performance Organizational citizenship behaviors Turnover intentions/ turnover

29

Appendix B

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

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

1. Har du någon gång blivit utvald med hjälp av denna metod? Ja NejInstämmerinte alls

Instämmerinte

Instämmer delvis inte

Vet ej

Instämmerdelvis

Instämmer Instämmerhelt

2. Metoden är effektiv för att hitta kvalificerade personer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Jag tycker att metoden är rättvis, även om jag inte fick jobbet p g a denna metod.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Metoden grundar på vetenskaplig forskning. 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. Tillvägagångssättet är logiskt och mest lämpligt för att identifiera kvalificerade kandidater för jobbet.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Metoden är lämplig för att hitta viktiga egenskaper av en person som urskilja individuen från andra personer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Urvalsinstrumentet är opersonlig, kall och okänslig. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Arbetsgivare har rättigheten att samla in information genom denna metod.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Metoden strider emot individuens personlig integritet och privatsfären.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Metoden är bra eftersom den användas ofta. 1 2 3 4 5 6 711. Metoden är effektiv för att välja ut: Manager 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Förvaltningspersonal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Arbetare 1 2 3 4 5 6 7