↓ Skip to main content

Applicant Personality and Procedural Justice Perceptions of Group Selection Interviews

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Business and Psychology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Applicant Personality and Procedural Justice Perceptions of Group Selection Interviews
Published in
Journal of Business and Psychology, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10869-015-9430-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hege H. Bye, Gro M. Sandal

Abstract

We investigated how job applicants' personalities influence perceptions of the structural and social procedural justice of group selection interviews (i.e., a group of several applicants being evaluated simultaneously). We especially addressed trait interactions between neuroticism and extraversion (the affective plane) and extraversion and agreeableness (the interpersonal plane). Data on personality (pre-interview) and justice perceptions (post-interview) were collected in a field study among job applicants (N = 97) attending group selection interviews for positions as teachers in a Norwegian high school. Interaction effects in hierarchical regression analyses showed that perceptions of social and structural justice increased with levels of extraversion among high scorers on neuroticism. Among emotionally stable applicants, however, being introverted or extraverted did not matter to justice perceptions. Extraversion did not impact on the perception of social justice for applicants low in agreeableness. Agreeable applicants, however, experienced the group interview as more socially fair when they were also extraverted. The impact of applicant personality on justice perceptions may be underestimated if traits interactions are not considered. Procedural fairness ratings for the group selection interview were high, contrary to the negative reactions predicted by other researchers. There was no indication that applicants with desirable traits (i.e., traits predictive of job performance) reacted negatively to this selection tool. Despite the widespread use of interviews in selection, previous studies of applicant personality and fairness reactions have not included interviews. The study demonstrates the importance of previously ignored trait interactions in understanding applicant reactions.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 21%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Professor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 38%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2022.
All research outputs
#7,926,100
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Business and Psychology
#221
of 534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,849
of 397,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Business and Psychology
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 397,059 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.