Applicant reactions to selection procedures: an updated model and meta-analysis.

An updated theoretical model of applicant reactions to selection procedures is proposed and tested using meta-analysis. Results from 86 independent samples (N = 48,750) indicated that applicants who hold positive perceptions about selection are more likely to view the organization favorably and report stronger intentions to accept job offers and recommend the employer to others. Applicant perceptions were positively correlated with actual and perceived performance on selection tools and with self-perceptions. The average correlation between applicant perceptions and gender, age, and ethnic background was near zero. Face validity and perceived predictive validity were strong predictors of many applicant perceptions including procedural justice, distributive justice, attitudes towards tests, and attitudes towards selection. Interviews and work samples were perceived more favorably than cognitive ability tests, which were perceived more favorably than personality inventories, honesty tests, biodata, and graphology. The discussion identifies remaining theoretical and methodological issues as well as directions for future research.

**********

Research in personnel selection traditionally has focused on understanding the process from the perspective of the organization. Studies concerning the validity and utility of selection techniques have demonstrated how organizations can benefit from using valid selection tools. Researchers have also developed an interest in examining selection from the applicant's perspective, recognizing that not only do companies select employees, but applicants also select the organizations to which they will apply and where they are willing to work (Rynes, 1993). Thus, as research continues with the goal of better estimating the predictive value of selection devices, a related concern is in understanding how applicants perceive and react to the selection process.

Studying applicant reactions is important for at least five reasons. First, applicants who find particular aspects of the selection system invasive may view the company as a less attractive option in the job search process. Maintaining a positive company image during the selection process is of significant importance as there are costs associated with losing top candidates (Murphy, 1986). Second, candidates with negative reactions to a selection experience might dissuade other potential applicants from seeking employment with the organization (Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, & Stoffey, 1993). Third, candidates may be less likely to accept an offer from a company with selection practices that are perceived unfavorably (Macan, Avedon, Paese, & Smith, 1994). Fourth, applicant reactions may be related to the filing of legal complaints and court challenges. Applicants who perceive a particular selection technique as invasive or inappropriate may be more likely to bring suit than applicants who perceive the process as fair and face valid (Smither et al., 1993). Finally, although there is little empirical data on these issues, it is also possible that applicants may be less likely to reapply with an organization or buy the company's products if they feel mistreated during the selection process.

This study begins with a discussion of conceptual models of applicant reactions and a brief review of relevant research. Next, we offer an updated theoretical framework, suggest several hypotheses, and test the model using meta-analysis. Overall, this research provides empirical answers to questions about the theoretical and practical value of studying selection from the applicants' perspective.

Theoretical Foundation

The term applicant reactions has been used to refer to the growing body of literature that examines "attitudes, affect, or cognitions an individual might have about the hiring process" (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000, p. 566). One of the first theoretical models of applicant reactions was an effort to the existing research to organizational justice theory in order to explain how applicants' justice perceptions develop and subsequently affect various outcomes in selection settings (Gilliland, 1993). Organizational justice generally involves the perceived fairness of: (a) outcome allocations (distributive justice), (b) rules and procedures used to make those decisions (procedural justice), (c) sensitivity and respect shown to individuals (interpersonal justice), and (d) explanations and accounts given to individuals (informational justice; Greenberg, 1993). The basic premise of organizational justice theory in selection contexts is that applicants view selection procedures in terms these four facets of justice, and these perceptions influence future attitudes, intentions, self-perceptions, and behaviors.