心理评估报告在选择决策中的作用:空间邻近原则

Q4 Psychology Psihologia Resurselor Umane Pub Date : 2019-11-20 DOI:10.24837/PRU.V17I2.290
Roxana M. Spinu, D. Iliescu
{"title":"心理评估报告在选择决策中的作用:空间邻近原则","authors":"Roxana M. Spinu, D. Iliescu","doi":"10.24837/PRU.V17I2.290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two ways of building psychological assessment reports were explored in two separate cvasi-experimental studies.In the first study, depending on their assigned experimental group, participants received either an integrated or a spatially distant type of report. They were subsequently invited to choose, based on the reports and a corresponding job description, the better candidate for a fictitious job, out of two options. The obtained results suggest that there is no significant difference between the two groups, c2(1) = 0.10, p = .921, fc = 0.009, p = 1.000. Thus, the way in which the reports were structured did not influence in any way the participants’ decision. For the second experiment, which had a similar approach, an eye-tracker was used. Participants were asked to solve the same task, while their eye movements were recorded. The only significant between-group difference was in regards to the integrated transitions the participants made between the graphic and the text, t(29) = 4.45, p = .000, d = 1.59. No significant difference was observed regardingthe number offixations or the duration of fixationsbetween the two groups. Based on these results, we argue that the two contrasted ways of building an assessment report do not influence the accuracy of decisions made.","PeriodicalId":37470,"journal":{"name":"Psihologia Resurselor Umane","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychological Assessment Reports in Selection Decisions: The Role of Spatial Contiguity Principle\",\"authors\":\"Roxana M. Spinu, D. Iliescu\",\"doi\":\"10.24837/PRU.V17I2.290\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Two ways of building psychological assessment reports were explored in two separate cvasi-experimental studies.In the first study, depending on their assigned experimental group, participants received either an integrated or a spatially distant type of report. They were subsequently invited to choose, based on the reports and a corresponding job description, the better candidate for a fictitious job, out of two options. The obtained results suggest that there is no significant difference between the two groups, c2(1) = 0.10, p = .921, fc = 0.009, p = 1.000. Thus, the way in which the reports were structured did not influence in any way the participants’ decision. For the second experiment, which had a similar approach, an eye-tracker was used. Participants were asked to solve the same task, while their eye movements were recorded. The only significant between-group difference was in regards to the integrated transitions the participants made between the graphic and the text, t(29) = 4.45, p = .000, d = 1.59. No significant difference was observed regardingthe number offixations or the duration of fixationsbetween the two groups. Based on these results, we argue that the two contrasted ways of building an assessment report do not influence the accuracy of decisions made.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37470,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psihologia Resurselor Umane\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psihologia Resurselor Umane\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24837/PRU.V17I2.290\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psihologia Resurselor Umane","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24837/PRU.V17I2.290","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在两项独立的cvasi实验研究中,探讨了建立心理评估报告的两种方法。在第一项研究中,根据他们指定的实验组,参与者收到了一份综合报告或一份空间遥远的报告。随后,他们被邀请根据报告和相应的工作描述,从两个选项中选择一个更适合虚构工作的候选人。所获得的结果表明,两组之间没有显著差异,c2(1)=0.10,p=.921,fc=0.009,p=1.000。因此,报告的结构方式丝毫没有影响参与者的决定。第二个实验采用了类似的方法,使用了眼动仪。参与者被要求解决同样的任务,同时记录他们的眼球运动。组间唯一显著的差异是参与者在图形和文本之间的综合转换,t(29)=4.45,p=.000,d=1.59。两组在固定次数或固定时间方面没有观察到显著差异。基于这些结果,我们认为构建评估报告的两种对比方式不会影响决策的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Psychological Assessment Reports in Selection Decisions: The Role of Spatial Contiguity Principle
Two ways of building psychological assessment reports were explored in two separate cvasi-experimental studies.In the first study, depending on their assigned experimental group, participants received either an integrated or a spatially distant type of report. They were subsequently invited to choose, based on the reports and a corresponding job description, the better candidate for a fictitious job, out of two options. The obtained results suggest that there is no significant difference between the two groups, c2(1) = 0.10, p = .921, fc = 0.009, p = 1.000. Thus, the way in which the reports were structured did not influence in any way the participants’ decision. For the second experiment, which had a similar approach, an eye-tracker was used. Participants were asked to solve the same task, while their eye movements were recorded. The only significant between-group difference was in regards to the integrated transitions the participants made between the graphic and the text, t(29) = 4.45, p = .000, d = 1.59. No significant difference was observed regardingthe number offixations or the duration of fixationsbetween the two groups. Based on these results, we argue that the two contrasted ways of building an assessment report do not influence the accuracy of decisions made.
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
Psihologia Resurselor Umane
Psihologia Resurselor Umane Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊介绍: The Psihologia Resurselor Umane Journal is the official journal of the Association of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (APIO). PRU is devoted to publishing original investigations that contribute to an understanding of situational and individual challenges within an organizational context and that bring forth new knowledge in the field. The journal publishes primarily empirical articles and also welcomes methodological and theoretical articles on a broad range of topics covered by Organizational, Industrial, Work, Personnel and Occupational Health Psychology. Audience includes scholars, educators, managers, HR professionals, organizational consultants, practitioners in organizational and employee development.
期刊最新文献
Investigating the Link between Flow, Perceived Feedback and Performance in Art Dimension- or Task-based Assessment Centers? A direct comparison study of two measurement approaches Decision-making style, personality, and decision outcomes of military personnel, a network analysis approach. Self-Leadership and Task, Contextual, and Creative Performance: The Mediating Role of Job Crafting Measuring Work Motivation in Practice-Based Studies
×
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