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.
Highlights
Technology-Mediated Employment InterviewsEmployment interviews are the most widely used tool for personnel selection
Hypothesis 1 stated that there would be a difference between interview performance ratings in FTF interviews and videoconference interviews
We decided to treat ratings based on live interviews and ratings based on recorded interviews as separate variables because of the results by Van Iddekinge et al (2006) who found significant differences between ratings in FTF interviews versus ratings that were based on video recordings of the same interviews
Summary
Technology-Mediated Employment InterviewsEmployment interviews are the most widely used tool for personnel selection. Alternatives to FTF interviews have been developed that offer several advantages for organizations as well as for applicants (Potosky, 2008) These alternatives include telephone interviews (e.g., Straus, Miles, & Levesque, 2001), interviews by interactive voice response (IVR) systems (e.g., Bauer, Truxillo, Paronto, Weekley, & Campion, 2004), videoconference interviews (e.g., Sears et al, 2013), and so-called asynchronous video interviews ( called digital interviews, Langer, König, & Krause, 2017, or video interviews, Toldi, 2011). Candidates are shown pre-defined questions on the screen and their answers are recorded via webcam and microphone so that they can be evaluated by the interviewer later (e.g., Brenner, Ortner, & Fay, 2016)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
