It Takes More Than a Good Camera: Which Factors Contribute to Differences Between Face-to-Face Interviews and Videoconference Interviews Regarding Performance Ratings and Interviewee Perceptions?

IF 3.7 2区 心理学 Q2 BUSINESS Journal of Business and Psychology Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2020-09-10 DOI:10.1007/s10869-020-09714-3
Johannes M Basch, Klaus G Melchers, Anja Kurz, Maya Krieger, Linda Miller
{"title":"It Takes More Than a Good Camera: Which Factors Contribute to Differences Between Face-to-Face Interviews and Videoconference Interviews Regarding Performance Ratings and Interviewee Perceptions?","authors":"Johannes M Basch,&nbsp;Klaus G Melchers,&nbsp;Anja Kurz,&nbsp;Maya Krieger,&nbsp;Linda Miller","doi":"10.1007/s10869-020-09714-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Due to technological progress, videoconference interviews have become more and more common in personnel selection. Nevertheless, even in recent studies, interviewees received lower performance ratings in videoconference interviews than in face-to-face (FTF) interviews and interviewees held more negative perceptions of these interviews. However, the reasons for these differences are unclear. Therefore, we conducted an experiment with 114 participants to compare FTF and videoconference interviews regarding interview performance and fairness perceptions and we investigated the role of social presence, eye contact, and impression management for these differences. As in other studies, ratings of interviewees' performance were lower in the videoconference interview. Differences in perceived social presence, perceived eye contact, and impression management contributed to these effects. Furthermore, live ratings of interviewees' performance were higher than ratings based on recordings. Additionally, videoconference interviews induced more privacy concerns but were perceived as more flexible. Organizations should take the present results into account and should not use both types of interviews in the same selection stage.</p>","PeriodicalId":48254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business and Psychology","volume":"36 5","pages":"921-940"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10869-020-09714-3","citationCount":"43","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business and Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09714-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/9/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 43

Abstract

Due to technological progress, videoconference interviews have become more and more common in personnel selection. Nevertheless, even in recent studies, interviewees received lower performance ratings in videoconference interviews than in face-to-face (FTF) interviews and interviewees held more negative perceptions of these interviews. However, the reasons for these differences are unclear. Therefore, we conducted an experiment with 114 participants to compare FTF and videoconference interviews regarding interview performance and fairness perceptions and we investigated the role of social presence, eye contact, and impression management for these differences. As in other studies, ratings of interviewees' performance were lower in the videoconference interview. Differences in perceived social presence, perceived eye contact, and impression management contributed to these effects. Furthermore, live ratings of interviewees' performance were higher than ratings based on recordings. Additionally, videoconference interviews induced more privacy concerns but were perceived as more flexible. Organizations should take the present results into account and should not use both types of interviews in the same selection stage.

Abstract Image

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
它需要更多的好相机:哪些因素促成了面对面访谈和视频会议访谈之间的差异,关于绩效评级和受访者的看法?
由于技术的进步,视频会议面试在人员选拔中越来越普遍。然而,即使在最近的研究中,受访者在视频会议面试中获得的绩效评级也低于面对面(FTF)面试,受访者对这些面试持有更多的负面看法。然而,造成这些差异的原因尚不清楚。因此,我们对114名参与者进行了一项实验,比较FTF和视频会议面试在面试表现和公平感知方面的差异,并研究了社交在场、目光接触和印象管理在这些差异中的作用。与其他研究一样,在视频会议采访中,受访者的表现评分较低。感知到的社会存在、感知到的目光接触和印象管理的差异促成了这些影响。此外,受访者的现场表现评分高于基于录音的评分。此外,视频会议面试引起了更多的隐私问题,但被认为更灵活。组织应该考虑到目前的结果,不应该在同一选择阶段使用两种类型的面试。
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
8.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: The Journal of Business and Psychology (JBP) is an international outlet publishing high quality research designed to advance organizational science and practice. Since its inception in 1986, the journal has published impactful scholarship in Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Organizational Behavior, Human Resources Management, Work Psychology, Occupational Psychology, and Vocational Psychology. Typical subject matters include Team processes and effectiveness Customer service and satisfaction Employee recruitment, selection, and promotion Employee engagement and withdrawal Organizational culture and climate Training, development and coaching Mentoring and socialization Performance management, appraisal and feedback Workplace diversity Leadership Workplace health, stress, and safety Employee attitudes and satisfaction Careers and retirement Organizational communication Technology and work Employee motivation and job design Organizational change and development Employee citizenship and deviance Organizational effectiveness Work-nonwork/work-family Rigorous quantitative, qualitative, field-based, and lab-based empirical studies are welcome. Interdisciplinary scholarship is valued and encouraged. Submitted manuscripts should be well-grounded conceptually and make meaningful contributions to scientific understandingsand/or the advancement of science-based practice. The Journal of Business and Psychology is - A high quality/impactful outlet for organizational science research - A journal dedicated to bridging the science/practice divide - A journal striving to create interdisciplinary connections For details on submitting manuscripts, please read the author guidelines found in the far right menu.
期刊最新文献
Servant Leadership and Cooperation: The Moderating Role of Leader Group Prototypicality Here’s Looking at You: Does Eye Contact in Video Interviews Affect How Applicants are Perceived and Evaluated? Parent–Adolescent Transmission of Emotional Exhaustion: Testing a Social-Cognitive Spillover and Crossover Model The More Contextualized, the More Valid: Effects of Contextualization Strategies on Forced-choice Measurement The Relationship Between Team Diversity and Team Performance: Reconciling Promise and Reality Through a Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Registered Report
×
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