Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how job seekers’ digital profile influences employment-related outcomes, namely recommendations on hiring and salary.

A sample of 118 job seekers sharing information online about job searching was identified using a social networking platform. Using an impression management (IM) framework, two research assistants coded for use of verbal IM (e.g. utterances) and the use of nonverbal IM (e.g. professional images). Three HR managers evaluated the profiles and provided hiring-related recommendations. Data were analyzed used OLS moderated regression and simple slope analysis.

Consistent with IM theory, use of verbal and nonverbal IM were both positively related to employment-related recommendations. Gender was found to moderate the use of IM utterances and employment-related recommendations in an unexpected direction for women.

Findings suggest that an IM framework can be applied to studying digital social spaces of job seekers. The study provides evidence in support of the notion that previously established effects of IM efforts extend from an interview setting to a digital context.

This study aims to analyze aspects of decision-making in recruitment. Using a choice-based conjoint (CBC) experiment with typified screening scenarios, it was analyzed what aspects will be more important for recruiters: the recommendation provided by a hiring algorithm or the recommendation of a human co-worker; gender of the candidate and of the recruiter was taken into account.

A total of 135 recruitment professionals (67 female) completed a measure of sex roles and a set of 20 CBC trials on the hiring of a pharmacologist.

Participants were willing to accept a lower algorithm score if the level of the human recommendation was maximum, indicating a preference for the co-worker’s recommendation over that of the hiring algorithm. The biological sex of neither the candidate nor the participant influenced in the decision.

Participants were presented with a fictitious scenario that did not involve real choices with real consequences. In a real-life setting, considerably more variables influence hiring decisions.

Results show that there are limits on the acceptance of technology based on artificial intelligence in the field of recruitment, which has relevance more broadly for the psychological correlates of the acceptance of the technology.

An additional value is the use of a methodological approach (CBC) with high ecological validity that may be useful in other psychological studies of decision-making in management.

LinkedIn is a popular and maybe the best job-oriented social networking site (SNS) around the world. Numerous individuals (mostly, jobseekers), as well as the companies (mostly, hiring organizations) have LinkedIn accounts. This study intends to reveal the roles of LinkedIn-based skill endorsements (LSEs) as well as LinkedIn-based hiring recommendations (LHRs) on the hiring preferences (HPs) of Bangladeshi employers.

The authors purposefully selected 388 valid respondents (employers) from different Bangladeshi job sectors. Based on their responses, the authors applied SPSS 25 for explanatory statistics and a “Covariance-based Structural Equation Modeling (CB-SEM)” (with AMOS 25) to measure the hypothesized associations.

After appropriate analysis, the authors revealed a momentous positive role of LHR on HP, whereas LSE was identified to have an inconsiderable role on HP.

In this empirical study, the authors tried to highlight the relatively unattended area of Bangladeshi employers' HPs that can be affected by LSEs and LHRs. The authors believe that this study will encourage the researchers to unveil the impacts of LinkedIn-based profile characteristics on job candidates' employability. This empirical study can also aid the employers and policymakers to look for a new avenue for hiring competent talents.

As universities grapple with broadening participation of women in science, many ADVANCE funded institutions hone in on transforming search committee practices to better consider dual-career partners and affirmative action hires (“opportunity hires”). To date, there is a lack of empirical research on the consequences and processes underlying such a focus. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether and how two ADVANCE-recommended hiring practices, dual-career hiring and affirmative action hiring, help or hinder women’s participation in academic science.

In two experiments, the authors tested what happens to a science candidate’s evaluation and offer when that candidate reveals he or she has a dual-career partner (vs is a solo-candidate, Experiment 1) or if it is revealed that the candidate under review is the dual-hire partner or is a target of opportunity hire (vs primary candidate, Experiment 2). A random US national sample of academic scientists provided anonymous external recommendations to an ostensible faculty search committee.

Evaluators supported the job offer to a primary candidate requiring a heterosexual partner accommodation. This good news, however, was offset by the results of Experiment 2, which showed that support for the partner or affirmative action candidate depended on the evaluator’s gender. Taken together, the research identifies important personal and contextual features that sometimes do – and sometimes do not – impact hiring perceptions of women in science.

The authors believe the effects of such an emphasis on opportunity hires within ADVANCE funded institutions may be considerable and inform changes to policies and practices that help bring about gender equality.

The purpose of this paper is to examine bias among White raters against racial minority women seeking employment in fitness organizations.

The authors conducted a 2 (applicant perceived racial identity) × 2 (applicant race) × 2 (hiring directive) factorial design experiment, with participant rater gender serving as the within-subjects variable. Adults in the USA (n=238) who had or were currently working in the fitness industry participated in the study.

Results indicate that applicant presumed racial identity and rater gender had direct effects, while applicant presumed racial identity, applicant race and rater gender had interactive effects, as well.

Results show that perceived racial identity affects raters’ view of job applicants, and the pattern of findings varies among racial groups.

Research indicates that inconsistent gender norm presentations are met with backlash, which is particularly damaging to women. With social media use in selection rising, it is important to understand if this remains consistent for job applicants on social media.

In two experiments, this study investigates hiring managers' reactions to job applicant (in)consistent gender norm-based communication on Facebook (n = 197) and YouTube (n = 203). Participants located in the United States were asked to review social media materials, reported perceptions of task and social attraction, and make hiring recommendations.

Inconsistent with work on backlash in face-to-face settings, results demonstrated that masculine communication styles on social media may be detrimental to job seekers, and this was more pronounced for male job seekers. Feminine presentation styles had more favorable results.

The findings challenge the long-held understanding that men have more leeway to behave in agentic ways in job seeking contexts. While this may remain true in face-to-face settings, these findings suggest that social media, lacking media richness, may be a context in which males experience backlash for agentic behavior.

The research offers a novel perspective investigating traditional gender expectations in the digital realm, paving the way for a more comprehensive understanding of gender in employment contexts. This study contributes to the growing body of research on online behavior and expands understanding of how hiring managers react to gender norms in the era of social media.

Early research on overqualification suggested that overqualification is primarily associated with negative attitudes and behavior. As a consequence, hiring practitioners were advised against hiring overqualified job applicants. However, recent studies have revealed that there are several potential positive consequences of overqualification. Given this change in perspective on overqualification, we examine how hiring practitioners nowadays look at overqualified job applicants, and what their considerations are for hiring an overqualified job applicant or not.

We have interviewed 33 hiring practitioners to examine their attitudes and considerations toward hiring overqualified job applicants.

Results show that hiring practitioners are aware of potential positive as well as negative consequences of overqualification and consider a variety of factors to assess how beneficial hiring an overqualified candidate will be. These factors fall under three categories: Individual considerations, interpersonal considerations and contextual considerations.

We show that overqualification is not a stigma anymore and that the decision to hire an overqualified job applicant or not depends on a mixture of factors that are carefully considered. Two of these three considerations transcend the individual level (i.e. the overqualified person), whereas most research and theories on the consequences of overqualification do not go beyond the individual level. As such, our findings call for more theory and research on interpersonal and contextual factors shaping the consequences of overqualification.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how HR professionals use social networking website information to evaluate applicants’ propensity to engage in counterproductive work behaviors and suitability for hire.

Using an experimental design, 354 HR professionals participated in a two-part study. In part 1, participants viewed a fictitious resume and rated the applicant’s likelihood to engage in counterproductive work behavior as well as likelihood of a hiring recommendation. In part 2, participants viewed a fictitious social networking website profile for the applicant and repeated the ratings from part 1. The authors analyzed their responses to determine the effect viewing a social network website (SNW) profile had on ratings of the applicant.

Unprofessional SNW information negatively affected ratings of applicants regardless of applicants’ qualifications, while professional SNW profile information failed to improve evaluations regardless of qualifications.

Anecdotal reports suggest that many employers use SNW information to eliminate job applicants from consideration despite an absence of empirical research that has examined how SNW content influences HR recruiters’ evaluation of job applicants. This study represents one of the first attempts to understand how HR professionals use such information in screening applicants. The findings suggest that unprofessional SNW profiles negatively influence recruiter evaluations while professional SNW profile content has little to no effect on evaluations.

Catalogues that the amusement/recreation industry in the USA has around 99,000 establishments, from theme parks to fitness centres and three broad groups, sports, performing arts and amusement/gambling within the industry. Gives in‐depth information about the kind of workers and earnings, etc. Looks at the type of hiring practices involved, especially the new hiring developments. Discusses in‐depth three California amusement parts at: The Disneyland Resort; Universal Studios, Hollywood; and Knott’s Berry Farm, and voices concerns over hire procedures.

Many everyday situations involve the performance of a task and the inference of competence from the results. Here, we focus on situations in which two or more persons who differ on status (e.g., sex category, skin tone) perform a valued task with equivalent, objectively judged results, and yet are not granted equal competence. We examine the conditions under which such a conclusion derives from the use of different standards for each status level.

We review and assess the findings of all the 17 social psychological experiments completed to date and designed to investigate the hypothesis that the lower a person’s social status is perceived to be, the stricter the competence standard applied to him or her.

We find substantial support for this hypothesis, but there are also factors that either moderate (e.g., qualifications level) or even reverse (e.g., participant’s sex category) such link. Of particular interest among those factors is whether competence is measured directly or indirectly. For example, we found overall that the specific question about competence often restrains the use of double standards, whereas the wider questions (e.g., about suitability) are more likely to allow that practice to emerge.

We also identify and expand interventions from three different research traditions designed to deter bias, and propose ways of applying them to block double standards in the assessment of equivalent performances. The interventions involve (1) increasing assessor’s accountability, (2) increasing similarity across the performers, and (3) disrupting the often taken-for-granted association between higher status and good performance – as well as the corresponding link between lower status and poor performance.