应聘者对异步视频面试和个性问卷的算法评估和招聘人员评估的反应

IF 4.9 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology Pub Date : 2023-09-10 DOI:10.1111/joop.12465
Janneke K. Oostrom, Djurre Holtrop, Antonis Koutsoumpis, Ward van Breda, Sina Ghassemi, Reinout E. de Vries
{"title":"应聘者对异步视频面试和个性问卷的算法评估和招聘人员评估的反应","authors":"Janneke K. Oostrom,&nbsp;Djurre Holtrop,&nbsp;Antonis Koutsoumpis,&nbsp;Ward van Breda,&nbsp;Sina Ghassemi,&nbsp;Reinout E. de Vries","doi":"10.1111/joop.12465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In two studies, we examined the effects of algorithm-based (vs. recruiter-based) evaluations of an asynchronous video interview and a personality inventory on applicant reactions. In line with our expectations, we found several negative applicant reactions to the use of algorithms. Specifically, in Study 1 (<i>N</i> = 172), informing participants that an algorithm, rather than a recruiter, had analysed their interview and personality inventory increased feelings of emotional creepiness, and reduced fairness perceptions, perceived predictive validity and feedback acceptance. In Study 2 (<i>N</i> = 276), we were able to replicate these effects for fairness perceptions and perceived predictive validity. Furthermore, in both studies, algorithm-based evaluations negatively affected feedback acceptance, organizational attraction and job acceptance intentions through fairness perceptions. However, in contrast with our expectations, selection decision favourability did not influence the impact of evaluation source (recruiter vs. algorithm) on applicant reactions. In Study 2, we also found some tentative evidence that applicant reactions to algorithm-based evaluations are not affected by the type of information source (i.e. verbal vs. nonverbal cues) on which the algorithm is based.</p>","PeriodicalId":48330,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology","volume":"97 1","pages":"160-189"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joop.12465","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Applicant reactions to algorithm- versus recruiter-based evaluations of an asynchronous video interview and a personality inventory\",\"authors\":\"Janneke K. Oostrom,&nbsp;Djurre Holtrop,&nbsp;Antonis Koutsoumpis,&nbsp;Ward van Breda,&nbsp;Sina Ghassemi,&nbsp;Reinout E. de Vries\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/joop.12465\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In two studies, we examined the effects of algorithm-based (vs. recruiter-based) evaluations of an asynchronous video interview and a personality inventory on applicant reactions. In line with our expectations, we found several negative applicant reactions to the use of algorithms. Specifically, in Study 1 (<i>N</i> = 172), informing participants that an algorithm, rather than a recruiter, had analysed their interview and personality inventory increased feelings of emotional creepiness, and reduced fairness perceptions, perceived predictive validity and feedback acceptance. In Study 2 (<i>N</i> = 276), we were able to replicate these effects for fairness perceptions and perceived predictive validity. Furthermore, in both studies, algorithm-based evaluations negatively affected feedback acceptance, organizational attraction and job acceptance intentions through fairness perceptions. However, in contrast with our expectations, selection decision favourability did not influence the impact of evaluation source (recruiter vs. algorithm) on applicant reactions. In Study 2, we also found some tentative evidence that applicant reactions to algorithm-based evaluations are not affected by the type of information source (i.e. verbal vs. nonverbal cues) on which the algorithm is based.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48330,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology\",\"volume\":\"97 1\",\"pages\":\"160-189\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joop.12465\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joop.12465\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joop.12465","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在两项研究中,我们考察了基于算法(与基于招聘人员)的异步视频面试评估和个性问卷对求职者反应的影响。与我们的预期一致,我们发现应聘者对算法的使用有一些负面反应。具体来说,在研究 1(N = 172)中,告知参与者是算法而不是招聘人员分析了他们的面试和个性问卷,会增加情绪上的毛骨悚然感,降低公平感、预测有效性和反馈接受度。在研究 2(N = 276)中,我们在公平感和感知预测有效性方面复制了这些效应。此外,在这两项研究中,基于算法的评价通过公平感对反馈接受度、组织吸引力和工作接受意愿产生了负面影响。然而,与我们的预期不同的是,选择决策的倾向性并不影响评价来源(招聘人员与算法)对申请人反应的影响。在研究 2 中,我们还发现了一些初步证据,表明应聘者对基于算法的评价的反应并不受算法所依据的信息源类型(即语言线索与非语言线索)的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Applicant reactions to algorithm- versus recruiter-based evaluations of an asynchronous video interview and a personality inventory

In two studies, we examined the effects of algorithm-based (vs. recruiter-based) evaluations of an asynchronous video interview and a personality inventory on applicant reactions. In line with our expectations, we found several negative applicant reactions to the use of algorithms. Specifically, in Study 1 (N = 172), informing participants that an algorithm, rather than a recruiter, had analysed their interview and personality inventory increased feelings of emotional creepiness, and reduced fairness perceptions, perceived predictive validity and feedback acceptance. In Study 2 (N = 276), we were able to replicate these effects for fairness perceptions and perceived predictive validity. Furthermore, in both studies, algorithm-based evaluations negatively affected feedback acceptance, organizational attraction and job acceptance intentions through fairness perceptions. However, in contrast with our expectations, selection decision favourability did not influence the impact of evaluation source (recruiter vs. algorithm) on applicant reactions. In Study 2, we also found some tentative evidence that applicant reactions to algorithm-based evaluations are not affected by the type of information source (i.e. verbal vs. nonverbal cues) on which the algorithm is based.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: The Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology aims to increase understanding of people and organisations at work including: - industrial, organizational, work, vocational and personnel psychology - behavioural and cognitive aspects of industrial relations - ergonomics and human factors Innovative or interdisciplinary approaches with a psychological emphasis are particularly welcome. So are papers which develop the links between occupational/organisational psychology and other areas of the discipline, such as social and cognitive psychology.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information How much do family‐supportive supervisor behaviours matter? A meta‐analysis based on the ability‐motivation‐opportunity framework Uneventful days? A cautionary tale about the underestimated role of triggering events in employee silence research Presenteeism pressure: The development of a scale and a nomological network Supervisor‐directed anger as a link between work–family conflict and unethical pro‐family behaviours: An attributional perspective
×
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