School of Social Sciences Psychology PS 5424 Spring 2008
Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in Lithuanian and
Swedish samples
Author: Simona Sudaviciute
Supervisor: Abdul H. Mohammed, Ph D Examinor: Andrejs Ozolins, Ph D
ABSTRACT
Candidates’ attitudes towards various personnel selection methods get attention of organizational and work psychology specialists because of various reasons. The most important reason is that individuals’ attitudes towards personnel selection methods influence their latter behavior.
Although there is a substantial amount of studies carried out in different countries, there is no data from Lithuanian and Swedish samples. The aim of current study was to analyze the attitudes towards personnel selection methods among Lithuanian students, Lithuanian employees and Swedish students. The participants (197 students and 86 employees) filled in a questionnaire, which includes short descriptions of 10 personnel selection methods as well as items about fairness of these methods. According to the results of the study, work-sample tests were ranked as the fairest personnel selection method in the Lithuanian sample. The fairest personnel selection methods in Swedish sample were work-sample tests, interview, resumes, and personal references.
Lithuanian students ranked the fairness of written ability test and honesty test more favorably than Swedish students, but Swedish students tended to rank as more favorable interview, resumes, personal references and personal contacts. Personal contacts and graphology were ranked the lowest on fairness dimension in Lithuanian sample, and Swedes ranked only graphology as the least fair personnel selection method. Lithuanian employees ranked personal references, personal contacts and graphology more favorably than Lithuanian students. In Lithuanian students sample, perception of personnel selection method as a scientifically proved, logic and precise or providing an opportunity to show one’s skills, had the strongest connection with favorability ranking of personnel selection method’s fairness. In the Lithuanian employees and the Swedish students samples, perception of the method as logic or providing an opportunity to show one’s skills, had the strongest link with fairness.
Key words: attitude towards personnel selection methods fairness, attitude towards personnel selection methods fairness dimensions, attitude towards the suitability of personnel selection methods to positions, self-efficacy.
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).
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).
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).
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.
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
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,
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.
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.
Table 1. Participants’ social – demographic information.
Lithuania Sweden
Students (N=107)
Employees (N=86)
Students (N=90)
Female 89 49 62
Gender
Male 18 37 28
Married 20 45 8
Single 86 36 76
Family status
Divorced 1 5 0
Primary 1 0 0
Secondary 16 2 14
Further education 1 0 0
Not finished university
education 34 13 70
Education
University education 55 71 6
The students and employees received the questionnaire either electronically or as a paper copy. In Lithuania the questionnaire was translated into Lithuanian and in Sweden to Swedish.
Participants were asked to answer the social – demographical and self-efficacy questions.
Afterwards they were asked to read the description of each method and to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the statements about the fairness and suitability of ten personnel selection methods.
Measures
In this study the Steiner and Gilliland questionnaire (1996) was used to evaluate students’ and employees’ attitudes towards personnel selection methods (see the extract in Appendix B). This questionnaire covered 10 different personnel selection methods: interview, resumes, work-sample tests, biographical information blank, written ability tests, personal preferences, personality tests, honesty tests, personal contacts, graphology. Each personnel selection method was briefly described regarding its content and purpose. There were two questions designed to assess the fairness of each method using a 7–point Likert scale (1 indicated strongly disagree and 7 indicated strongly agree). The two questions were: 1) The method is effective for selecting qualified people; 2) Even if I did not get the job based on this selection method, I would think the procedure is fair.
Also participants answered seven questions about possible justice dimensions of each method. They used a 7-point Likert scale to answer (1 indicated strongly disagree and 7 indicated strongly agree).
These assessed dimensions were: a) The method is based on solid scientific research; b) The approach is a logical one for identifying qualified candidates for the job (face valid); c) The method will detect
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
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).
4.50 4.14
5.31
4.06 4.47
3.603.643.85
2.662.52
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Ratings
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 fic Sticien evidence Face validity alicog(l approach) tynituorppO to perform l sonaerInrpte armthw er‘splmEoy right to obtain ionfoatrmin Respect of yivacpr Widespread use
Interview 0.28** 0.37** 0.27** 0.25** 0.21** 0.10 0.17
Resumes 0.46** 0.45** 0.43** 0.30** 0.35** -0.03 0.35**
Work-sample tests 0.37** 0.60** 0.47** 0.19 0.40** 0.35** 0.21*
Biographical
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** 0.14
Personal contacts 0.50** 0.65** 0.50** -0.01 0.37** 0.06 0.40**
Graphology 0.60** 0.75** 0.73** 0.11 0.38** -0.09 0.56**
** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05
Three fairness dimensions correlate strongly with selection methods fairness: scientific evidence (correlations from 0.28 to 0.60), face validity (correlations from 0.37 to 0.75) and opportunity to perform (correlations from 0.27 to 0.73). If a selection method has scientific evidence, face validity and gives opportunity to perform then it is perceived as a fair method in the Lithuanian students group.
Identifying if experience influences the selection methods favorability ratings it was noticed that experience in personnel selection is related with three selection methods favorability ratings: students who have been evaluated by work-sample tests, personality tests or personal contacts rated these selection methods more favorably than those who have never gone through these methods (see table 3).
Table 3. Differences between experienced in personnel selection methods vs. inexperienced groups in the Lithuanian students group.
Selection method Experienced Mean
Inexperienced
Mean t value df p value
Interview 4.47 (N=78) 4.57 (N=27) -0.398 103 0.692
Resumes 4.04 (N=83) 4.57 (N=21) -1.516 102 0.133
Work-sample tests 5.91 (N=29) 5.08 (N=76) 4.005 67.262 0.000
Biographical 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 0.387
Personal preferences 4.00 (N=23) 3.50 (N=76) 1.430 97 0.156
Personality tests 5.20 (N=5) 3.55 (N=86) 2.800 89 0.012
Honesty tests 3.50 (N=5) 3.86 (N=90) -0.630 93 0.530
Personal contacts 3.03 (N=38) 2.43 (N=61) 2.075 97 0.041
Graphology 4.00 (N=1) 2.50 (N=95) 1.208 94 0.230
Comparing the suitability of selection methods to positions (managers, administration and workers) it was noticed that in this group written ability tests, interview and work-sample tests were perceived as the most suitable to select manager positions (see figure 4). Interview and work-sample tests were also suitable to select administration positions. The most suitable selection methods to select workers were the following: work-sample tests, resumes and interview.
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00
Interview Resumes Work-sample tests Biographical information blank Written ability tests Personal preferences Personality tests Honesty tests Personal contacts Graphology
Ratings
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
Manager Mean (SD)
Administration Mean (SD)
Workers
Mean (SD) p value
5.07 (1.50) 5.52 (0.98) 0.000
5.07 (1.50) 4.96 (1.70) 0.656
Interview
5.52 (0.98) 4.96 (1.70) 0.001
4.92 (1.71) 5.25 (1.39) 0.013
4.92 (1.71) 5.34 (1.55) 0.049
Work-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).
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 evceenidSc fitienci Face validity h)acropp a(lalicog Opportuty toni perform sol naerInrpte warmth htig r‘soyplmEer to obtain ionfoatinrm f yacpriv octpeesR Widespread 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 0.18
Honesty tests 0.68** 0.59** 0.45** 0.03** 0.48** 0.27** 0.14**
Personal contacts 0.66** 0.65** 0.45** 0.03 0.27* -0.18 0.59**
Graphology 0.56** 0.72** 0.58** 0.24* 0.29** 0.02 0.52**
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
Interview Resumes Work-sample tests Biographical information blank Written ability tests Personal preferences Personality tests Honesty tests Personal contacts Graphology
Ratings
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.
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 0.346
Resumes 4.14 1.45 4.01 1.37 0.503
Work-sample tests 5.31 1.14 5.13 1.37 0.314
Biographical information
blank 4.06 1.25 3.97 1.37 0.628
Written ability tests 4.47 1.31 4.55 1.16 0.651
Personal preferences 3.60 1.48 4.12 1.31 0.012
Personality tests 3.64 1.32 3.77 1.17 0.487
Honesty tests 3.85 1.22 4.05 1.36 0.303
Personal contacts 2.66 1.40 3.05 1.27 0.050
Graphology 2.52 1.24 2.95 1.30 0.022
Attitudes towards personnel selection methods in the Swedish sample
For the Swedish students sample four selection methods received highest ratings: work-sample tests (M = 5.09; SD = 1.239), interview (M = 5.08; SD = 1.121), resumes (M = 5.00; SD = 0.969) and personal preferences (M = 4.74; SD = 1.126) (table 6). Swedish students perceive these selection methods as the fairest procedures (the means of these methods fairness ratings differ significantly from other methods ratings; p < 0,05). Graphology received the lowest rating (M = 2,61; SD = 1.402) and it differs from the other nine selection methods ratings (p < 0,01).
5.08 5 5.09
4.234.02 4.74
3.76 3.2
3.62
2.62
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ratings
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
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 fic Sticien evidence Face validity alicog(l approach) tynituorppO to perform l sonaerInrpte armthw er‘splmEoy right to obtain ionfoatrmin Respect of yivacpr Widespread 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**
Table 8. Differences between experienced in personnel selection methods vs. inexperienced groups in the Swedish students group.
Personnel selection method
Experienced Mean
Inexperienced
Mean t value df p value
Interview 5.27 (N=62) 4.56 (N=27) 2.853 87 0.005
Resumes 5.10 (N=57) 4.76 (N=31) 1.615 86 0.110
Work-sample tests 5.61 (N=22) 4.90 (N=64) 2.361 84 0.021
Biographical 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 0.007
Personal preferences 5.06 (N=57) 4.18 (N=30) 3.726 85 0.000
Personality tests 3.50 (N=6) 3.75 (N=80) -0.437 84 0.663
Honesty tests 4.50 (N=4) 3.09 (N=81) 2.516 83 0.014
Personal contacts 4.00 (N=51) 3.07 (N=37) 2.992 86 0.004
Graphology 5.00 (N=1) 2.55 (N=85) 1.897 84 0.061
Examining social – demographical variables relationships with attitudes in the Swedish students group, only age correlated with attitudes towards three methods: personality tests (r = 0.313; p = 0.003), honesty tests (r = 0.293; p = 0.006) and personal contacts (r = 0.217; p = 0.043). It may be assumed that elder Swedish students rate personality tests, honesty tests and personal contacts more favorably than younger.
Analyzing the suitability of methods to positions, it was noticed that some ratings of suitability do difeer (see figure 7).
3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00
Interview Resumes Work-sample tests Biographical information blank Written ability tests Personal preferences Personality tests Honesty tests Personal contacts Graphology
Ratings 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,
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 0.000
Resumes 4.14 1.46 5.01 0.98 0.000
Work-sample tests 5.31 1.14 5.07 1.24 0.175
Biographical information
blank 4.06 1.25 4.19 1.20 0.489
Written ability tests 4.47 1.31 4.06 1.34 0.033
Personal preferences 3.60 1.48 4.76 1,11 0.000
Personality tests 3.64 1.32 3.74 1.22 0.601
Honesty tests 3.85 1.22 3.20 1.59 0.000
Personal contacts 2.66 1.40 3.62 1.50 0.000
Graphology 2.52 1.24 2.65 1.39 0.496
As can be seen in the table 9, there are differences in six of ten personnel selection methods ratings. Lithuanian students rate written ability tests and honesty students more favorably than Swedish students, while Swedish students perceive interview, resumes, personal preferences and personal contacts more favorably than Lithuanian students. With reference to this, the fourth hypothesis was supported partly.
When analyzing fairness dimensions ratings for each method (see table 10), the following tendencies emerge:
With regard to the scientific evidence of the method in both samples written ability tests were perceived as the method with the best research evidence. For the dimension of face validity both samples consider that work-sample tests were rated most positively. The Lithuanian students
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
Scientific evidence Face validity (logical approach) Opportunity to perform Interpersonal warmth Employer‘s right to obtain information Respect of privacy Widespread use
Students (LT) 4.10 4.79 5.09 4.85 5.90 4.90 4.47
Interview
Students (SW) 3.81 4.79 5.30 4.74 4.81 4.54 4.22
Students (LT) 3.95 4.68 4.45 3.04 6.04 5.86 4.82
Resumes
Students (SW) 3.94 4.52 4.56 3.69 5.18 5.15 4.51
Students (LT) 4.62 5.60 5.56 4.60 5.68 5.26 4.18
Work-sample tests
Students (SW) 3.90 5.07 5.00 4.92 4.95 5.23 4.01
Students (LT) 4.05 4.21 4.12 3.69 5.22 4.53 3.98
Biographical
information blank Students (SW) 3.94 4.04 4.16 4.37 4.37 4.36 3.90
Students (LT) 4.99 4.71 4.85 3.72 5.04 4.68 4.01
Written ability
tests Students (SW) 4.15 3.92 4.08 3.51 4.16 4.38 3.72
Students (LT) 3.14 3.65 3.57 3.98 5.19 4.43 3.87
Personal
preferences Students (SW) 3.60 4.44 4.32 4.79 4.90 4.44 4.34
Students (LT) 4.07 3.65 4.06 4.59 4.32 3.72 3.61
Personality tests
Students (SW) 3.84 3.60 4.03 4.14 4.08 4.02 3.58
Students (LT) 4.07 3.72 3.78 4.10 4.61 3.85 3.75
Honesty tests
Students (SW) 3.72 3.26 3.44 3.94 3.67 3.76 3.41
Students (LT) 2.36 2.60 2.41 4.77 3.71 4.11 3.05
Personal contacts
Students (SW) 3.25 3.18 3.21 4.00 4.04 4.65 3.74
Students (LT) 3.18 2.32 2.60 4.03 3.76 4.57 2.65
Graphology
Students (SW) 3.42 2.56 2.68 3.18 3.48 4.05 3.16
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
(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
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
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.
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.
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.
