It's just a game! Effects of fantasy in a storified test on applicant reactions

Marie L. Ohlms, Klaus G. Melchers, Filip Lievens
{"title":"It's just a game! Effects of fantasy in a storified test on applicant reactions","authors":"Marie L. Ohlms,&nbsp;Klaus G. Melchers,&nbsp;Filip Lievens","doi":"10.1111/apps.12569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is increasing attention to storification of assessments (i.e., embedding a storyline into a non-storified assessment) in research and practice and to gamified and game-based assessment in general. However, there is a surprising lack of agreement and of recommendations regarding what level of fantasy of the storyline one should choose for the storification from the perspective of applicant reactions. A distinction is typically made between fantasy (e.g., fighting aliens) and realistic (e.g., workday simulations) storylines, with both choices having their advantages and disadvantages. In this study, a sample of 195 participants was shown either a storified realistic test, a storified fantasy test, or a non-storified test. Afterwards, they rated various applicant reaction measures. Both storified assessments were rated equally positively on perceived modernity of the organization and enjoyment but the storified realistic test was superior to the storified fantasy test in terms of perceived job-relatedness, procedural fairness, organizational attractiveness, and clarity of work activity. Thus, the level of fantasy of a storyline in a storified assessment plays an important role for applicant reaction variables, whereby the overall pattern of results showed that the storified realistic test was rated most favorably, followed by the non-storified test, and the storified fantasy assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":48289,"journal":{"name":"Applied Psychology-An International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/apps.12569","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Psychology-An International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apps.12569","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is increasing attention to storification of assessments (i.e., embedding a storyline into a non-storified assessment) in research and practice and to gamified and game-based assessment in general. However, there is a surprising lack of agreement and of recommendations regarding what level of fantasy of the storyline one should choose for the storification from the perspective of applicant reactions. A distinction is typically made between fantasy (e.g., fighting aliens) and realistic (e.g., workday simulations) storylines, with both choices having their advantages and disadvantages. In this study, a sample of 195 participants was shown either a storified realistic test, a storified fantasy test, or a non-storified test. Afterwards, they rated various applicant reaction measures. Both storified assessments were rated equally positively on perceived modernity of the organization and enjoyment but the storified realistic test was superior to the storified fantasy test in terms of perceived job-relatedness, procedural fairness, organizational attractiveness, and clarity of work activity. Thus, the level of fantasy of a storyline in a storified assessment plays an important role for applicant reaction variables, whereby the overall pattern of results showed that the storified realistic test was rated most favorably, followed by the non-storified test, and the storified fantasy assessment.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
这只是一场游戏故事化测试中的幻想对申请人反应的影响
在研究和实践中,评估的故事化(即在非故事化的评估中嵌入故事情节)以及游戏化和基于游戏的评估越来越受到关注。然而,从申请人反应的角度来看,对于故事情节的幻想程度应达到何种程度,却缺乏一致的意见和建议,这一点令人惊讶。故事情节通常分为幻想型(如与外星人作战)和现实型(如模拟工作日),两种选择各有利弊。在这项研究中,195 名参与者分别接受了故事化现实测试、故事化幻想测试或非故事化测试。之后,他们对申请人的各种反应进行了评分。在对组织的现代感和乐趣的感知方面,两种经过陈列的评估都获得了同样积极的评价,但在对工作相关性、程序公平性、组织吸引力和工作活动清晰度的感知方面,经过陈列的现实测试要优于经过陈列的幻想测试。因此,故事化测评中故事情节的幻想程度对应聘者的反应变量起着重要作用,总体结果显示,故事化写实测评最受欢迎,其次是非故事化测评和故事化幻想测评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
84
期刊介绍: "Applied Psychology: An International Review" is the esteemed official journal of the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP), a venerable organization established in 1920 that unites scholars and practitioners in the field of applied psychology. This peer-reviewed journal serves as a global platform for the scholarly exchange of research findings within the diverse domain of applied psychology. The journal embraces a wide array of topics within applied psychology, including organizational, cross-cultural, educational, health, counseling, environmental, traffic, and sport psychology. It particularly encourages submissions that enhance the understanding of psychological processes in various applied settings and studies that explore the impact of different national and cultural contexts on psychological phenomena.
期刊最新文献
Who uses abusive supervision to punish deviant employees? An integration of identity threat and self-regulation perspectives Nature, predictors, and outcomes of Nurses' trajectories of harmonious and obsessive passion Sowing the seeds of love: Cultivating perceptions of culture of companionate love through listening and its effects on organizational outcomes Leading while playing: How leader fun pursuit affects leadership perceptions and evaluations Time after time: The influence of perceived coworker overtime, affect and workaholism on daily withdrawal responses
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1