Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: An Updated Model and Meta‐Analysis
verifiedrich profile · Personnel Psychology · 2004
Hausknecht, John P.; Day, David V.; Thomas, Scott C.
How this was studied
A meta-analytic synthesis — it pools many primary studies rather than running a single design, so there is no single-study diagram.
What this article reports
The findings we extracted from this work, normalized into Principia’s relationship form (X → Y). Each feeds the synthesized models below.
applicant reactions → self efficacy
procedural fairness → organizational attractiveness
applicant reactions → organizational attractiveness
predictive validity perceptions → procedural fairness
Models this article informs
The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.
applicant reactions predicts organizational attractiveness
applicant reactions predicts recommendation intention
applicant reactions predicts self efficacy
predictive validity perceptions predicts procedural fairness
procedural fairness predicts organizational attractiveness
In the authors’ words
The article’s own abstract.
An updated theoretical model of applicant reactions to selection procedures is proposed and tested using meta‐analysis. Results from 86 independent samples ( N = 48,750) indicated that applicants who hold positive perceptions about selection are more likely to view the organization favorably and report stronger intentions to accept job offers and recommend the employer to others. Applicant perceptions were positively correlated with actual and perceived performance on selection tools and with self‐perceptions. The average correlation between applicant perceptions and gender, age, and ethnic background was near zero. Face validity and perceived predictive validity were strong predictors of many applicant perceptions including procedural justice, distributive justice, attitudes towards tests, and attitudes towards selection. Interviews and work samples were perceived more favorably than cognitive ability tests, which were perceived more favorably than personality inventories, honesty tests, biodata, and graphology. The discussion identifies remaining theoretical and methodological issues as well as directions for future research.
What the literature says about it
Attributed, open-access quotes from other works that cite this article, plus the citation-graph verdict tally. Corroborations and disputes, in one place — the honest-broker view.
disputes “In their meta-analysis, Hausknecht et al. (2004) found a mean sample-weighted correlation of -0.04 between neuroticism and applicant perceptions of procedural justice.”
supports “Regarding general self-efficacy, meta-analytic findings show that recruiters’ attentiveness and friendly interpersonal treatment is related to applicants’ self-perceptions such as self-efficacy after the selection process (Hausknecht et al., 2004).”
supports “Moreover, applicant reactions also impact the organization because unfavorable reactions to selection procedures result in negative perceptions of organizational image (Hausknecht et al., 2004; Ryan & Ployhart, 2000; Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, & Stoffey, 1993).”
supports “…feelings of Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 May 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 740 reassurance and self-efficacy (Stevens et al., 1990; Hausknecht et al., 2004), along with interviewers’ aim of creating a close relation image (Wilhelmy et al., 2016), and applicants’ favorable…”
supports “This finding supports Hausknecht et al.’s (2004) applicant reaction model by confirming that the selection setting (low-stakes vs. high-stakes) influences applicant reactions as well as attitudes toward the organization, such as organizational attractiveness and behavioral intentions.”
supports “Perceived procedural justice is likely to be expected to generalize to the way the organization conducts itself and therefore inform perceptions of organizational attractiveness and, finally, intentions to pursue a job (Cropanzano et al., 2005; Chapman et al., 2005; Gilliland, 1993; Harold et al., 2015; Hausknecht et al., 2004; Stoughten, Thompson & Meade, 2015).”
disputes “For example, Hausknecht et al. (2004) described only zero to low meta-analytic correlations between conscientiousness, neuroticism, and perceptions of procedural justice.”
supports “…that fairness perceptions of a selection procedure can influence important outcomes like applicants’ perceptions of organizational attractiveness (Hausknecht et al., 2004), reapplication behavior (Gilliland et al., 2001), or job offer acceptance (Harold et al., 2016), they can affect the…”
supports “This enhanced perception of opportunity to perform is in turnmost likely to lead tomore positive perceptions of procedural justice given prior links between these constructs (Hausknecht et al., 2004).”
Ancillary research
Neighbouring works in the citation graph around this article.
- 10.1007/s10869-015-9430-9
- 10.15760/etd.697
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00740
- 10.1007/s10869-019-09655-6
- 10.3390/jintelligence13030033
- 10.5465/ambpp.2015.13497abstract
- 10.1177/1059601115617665
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00863
- 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00512.x
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.603632
- 10.1108/jmp-10-2018-0434
Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.