Skip to main content.

Reactions of Simulated Job Applicants to a Personality Inventory (Summary)

by Jailza Cader

The study of applicants’ reactions to personnel devices and procedures is worthy of increased attention in personnel selection.1 Indeed, given the potential of the high growth of selection procedures such as drug testing, personality assessment, integrity testing, and background checks, procedures which can be invasive, lack obvious relatedness to job content, and generate public controversy, it is important that we develop a better understanding of applicants’ reactions to selection processes.

Research in the area of applicant’s reactions to selection procedures is of importance for three groups: job applicants, organizations, and human resources professionals and researchers. During a selection process, job applicants need to demonstrate the best of their knowledge, skills and abilities at the same time that they deal with varied feelings and expectations about themselves and about the job and the organization for which they are applying. Likewise, organizations may suffer when individuals react negatively to selection or other personnel procedures. Smither and his colleagues2 gave two practical reasons for organizations to be concerned with applicants reactions. First, the effects that applicants’ reactions have on organizational attractiveness can indirectly influence pursuit or acceptance of a job offer and can have other spill over effects. Second, applicants’ reactions may be related to both the likelihood of litigation and how successfully a selection procedure can be defended. Human resources professionals and researchers are in a position to ensure that selection procedures take into consideration the applicants’ well-being, comfort and the need for a respectful and ethically sound treatment.3 They are also in a position, to take into account possible effects that the exposure to selections procedures might have on the applicants,4 and observe possible effects that such reactions may have on both validity and utility of the procedures.5 Sara Rynes6 argues that applicant and employer interests are not necessarily inconsistent in selection and that is there is no reason to believe that most devices could not simultaneously be made more valid and more acceptable to applicants.

Rynes also notes that there has been very little theoretical attention given to explaining applicants“ reactions to selection procedures. One exception is work by Schuler7 who suggests that some components make a selection situation socially valid. More than face validity, which refers to what the test appears to measure, social validity refers to the social quality of selection processes and counterbalances the traditional concept of validity as a purely quantitative term. Shuler’s model proposes that applicant’s favorable reactions to selection procedures results primarily from the influence of four components: (1) relevant information about the job and the organization, (2) participation by applicants or representatives in the development of assessment programs; (3) the transparency of the selection situation, and (4) feedback given to the applicants concerning their performance in the selection situation. This study investigates whether test-taker reactions to a personality inventory differ when information about task requirements and characteristics of the organization is provided, or not, prior to the test’s administration.

Theoretical, methodological and research developments are continuously providing optimistic conclusions concerning the usefulness of personality measures in selection processes. The synthesis of the numerous personality characteristics into five broad areas has contributed to consistency among research and theoretical efforts in the area of personality testing.8 The “Big Five” dimensions are: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience. Recent reviews support the validity of certain of the five dimensions as predictors of job performance.9-11 Specifically, Conscientiousness seems to be a valid predictor of performance across jobs and situations, Extraversion is a valid predictor for jobs with large social component, and the other dimensions are related to specific jobs and criteria. Nevertheless, some research shows that applicants do not react favorably to personality tests. Indeed, job applicants perceive personality tests as having low face validity, low predictive validity, low job relatedness.12, 13

Procedures with a strong relationship to job content are favored by applicants and perceived as fairer and less invasive than procedures that lack job relatedness.14-17 Research efforts can be directed toward finding ways to make personality tests more acceptable to applicants and ensure that personality tests used for selection purposes are perceived by applicants as useful instruments in the job selection process. Based on the assumption that job-related items seem to provide applicants with a better frame-of-reference when responding to test items in a selection process,18 this study investigates whether changing the items of a personality inventory to appear to be more job-related accounts for differences in test-takers reactions.

A 2 X 2 factorial design was employed. Participants were randomly assigned to two conditions on information about the job and the organization and two variations of the personality inventory. The NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1989) was the personality inventory used in this study. The NEO-FFI is a shortened version of the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) which measures the Big Five personality traits. For one condition, the NEO-FFI items were changed to appear to be more job-related. Instructions for answering the inventory were the same for all participants regardless of personality inventory conditions. A description of a fictitious organization, its characteristics, goals, culture, and style, as well as a description of a job position, task domains of the job, critical task requirements, and chances of personal and career development were presented to participants in the “relevant information” conditions but no information on these aspects was given to participants in the “no relevant information&3147; condition. A questionnaire with three scales was developed to assess the test-takers reactions to the personality inventory. The scales focused on reactions to the test itself, to the test as it relates to the job, and to the test as it relates to perceptions of the organization. Responses were given in 5-point agree-disagree format.

It was expected that 1) subjects in the “NEO-FFI job related” condition would react better to the personality inventory than subjects in the “NEO-FFI commercialized version” condition; 2) subjects in the ”relevant information” condition would react better to the personality inventory than subjects in the “no relevant information” condition; and 3) as an exploratory hypothesis, it was expected that Agreeableness, Neuroticism and Openness to Experience items would be the most frequently mentioned as the least appropriate items to be included in a selection test.

The total sample consisted of 152 students attending a university in the Southeastern United States. The sample contained 84 women and 62 men (6 people did not report gender) with an age average of 26.5 (SD = 7). Nine years was the average work experience (SD = 7) for the sample and participants had previously held, on average, over four different jobs (M = 4.4, SD = 2.4). At the time of the study, 52 participants were working full-time, 55 were working part-time and 31 were not working (14 people did not report work status). Forty percent of the participants reported having taken tests in an employee selection process an average of 2.2 times (SD = 1.3). Forty percent of the participants had taken a test like the one used in this study before, but only twenty two percent during a job selection process.

The first hypothesis was partially supported. Simulated job applicants reactions to the personality inventory were significantly more favorable to the NEO-FFI Job Related version than to the NEO-FFI commercialized version for the test as it relates to the job (t = 2.49, p < .01). Differences in reactions to the two versions of the personality inventory were not significant as they relate to the test itself or as the test relates to perceptions of the organization. Reactions to the personality inventory were not significantly more favorable when information about the task requirements and organization was provided prior to the test administration for any of the three scales. Thus, the second hypothesis was not supported.

Only sixty two participants (41%) answered the question which asked them to go back to the test and circle the items that they thought would be the least appropriate to be included in a selection instrument. Analysis of those answers partially supported the exploratory hypothesis. The distribution of responses indicates that seven out of the ten items most frequently mentioned as the least appropriate items were from the Openness to Experience scale followed by three items from the Neuroticism scale. Also, the number of times in which these items were indicated as least appropriate was greater in the NEO-FFI commercialized version and the non-relevant information conditions.

A major limitation of this study is that its sample was composed of simulated job applicants. Motivational characteristics of participants are probably very different from those of actual job applicants. The limited information that participants had about the organization does not correspond to most actual selection situations. However, the demographic characteristics of this sample suggest that they are quite representative of an applicant population. The current work status, age and number of jobs held by the participants each indicate that this sample is reflective of an applicant pool for a position such as the one described in the scenario used in this study. Nevertheless, the results of this study should be treated with caution until follow-up work with actual applicants can be completed.

This study was conducted to investigate whether reactions of simulated job applicants to a personality inventory were more favorable when the inventory items appear to be job related and information about the job and the organization was provided prior to the test administration. Analysis of the results indicated that the job related version of the personality inventory yielded more favorable reactions to the test as it relates to the job. Reaction differences to the two versions of the personality inventory were not significant as they relate to the test itself or to the test as it relates to the organization. Neither were reactions to the personality inventory more favorable when information about the job and organization was provided prior to the test administration in any of the three scales. Sarah Rynes’ argument that applicant and employer interests in selection do not necessarily conflict is exemplified in this study. This study contributes to the research on the topic of applicants' reactions to selection procedures demonstrating that is possible to improve applicants' reactions to personality inventories used in selection processes by framing items around job-related topics. Future research should look at these findings in other context as well as with actual job applicants.

References

  1. Landy, J. .L., Shankster, L. J. & Kohler, S. S. (1994). Personnel selection and placement. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 261-96.
  2. Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K. & Stoffey, R. W. (1993). Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 49-76.
  3. Iles, P. A. & Robertson, I. T. (1989). The impact of personnel selection procedures on candidates. In Smith, M. & Robertson, I. T. (Eds.), Advances in selection and assessment (pp. 257-271). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  4. Robertson, I. T., Illes, P. A., Gratton, L., & Sharpley, D. (1991). The impacts of personnel selection and assessment methods on candidates. Human Relations, 44 (9), 963-982.
  5. Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., Stierwalt, S. L., & Powell, A. B. (1995). Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (5), 607-620.
  6. Rynes, S. L. (1993). Who's selecting whom? Effects of selection practices on applicants attitudes and behavior. In Schmitt, N. & Borman, W. C. (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 171-202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  7. Schuler, H. (1993). Social validity of selection situations: A concept and some empirical results. In Schuler, H., Farr, J. L. & Smith, M. (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives. (pp. 11-26). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  8. Gatewood, R. D. & Feild, H. S. (1994). Personality assessment. In Gatewood, R. D. & Feild, H. S. (Eds.), Human resource selection (3rd ed., pp. 593-620). Chicago: The Dryden Press.
  9. Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
  10. Mount, M. K., Murray, M. R. & Strauss, J. P. (1994). Validity of observer ratings of the big five personality factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (2), 272-280.
  11. Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N. & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.
  12. Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K. & Stoffey, R. W. (1993). Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 49-76.
  13. Rosse, J. G., Miller, J. L., & Barnes, L. K. (1991). Combining personality and cognitive ability predictors for hiring service-oriented employees. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5 (4), 431-446.
  14. Kluger, A. N. & Rothstein, H. R. (1993). The influence of section test type on applicant reactions to employment testing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8 (1), 3-25.
  15. Rosse, J. G., Miller, J. L., & Stecher, M. D. (1994). A field study of job applicant's reactions to personality and cognitive ability testing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (6), 987-992.
  16. Rynes, S. L. & Connerley, M. L. (1993). Applicant reactions to alternatives selection procedures. Journal of Business & Psychology, 7 (3), 261-279.
  17. Jones, J. W. (1991). Assessing privacy invasiveness of psychological test items: Job relevant versus clinical measures of integrity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5 (4), 531-535.
  18. Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., Stierwalt, S. L., & Powell, A. B. (1995). Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (5), 607-620.

* Costa, Jr., P. T. and McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa; PAR -Psychological Assessment Resources.

This is a summary of the paper Jailza Cader submitted to win the 1996 IPMAAC Student Paper Award. Ms. Cader is from Salvador, northeast of Brazil. In May 1992 she received a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in Psychology form the Federal University of Bahia. After graduation, she worked at Banco Economico S.A. coordinating the company's internship program and training branch managers. Even though she was performing her duties very well, she felt that further education in Organizational Psychology was needed. She was granted a sabbatical and in January, 1994 entered The University of Tennessee, Chattanooga. In December, 1995 she earned a Master of Science degree in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. She is currently working as a Human Resources Supervisor at Sanda Hoisery Mills, Cleveland, TN. Jailza may be reached at Jcader@aol.com or 3824 Quail Lane South, Chattanooga, TN 37415.