The Impact of Nondiagnostic Information on Selection Decision Making: A Cautionary Note and Mitigation Strategies

Dev Dalal,Xiaoyuan Zhu,Levi Sassaman

doi:10.25035/pad.2020.02.007

Dev Dalal, Xiaoyuan Zhu + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.25035/pad.2020.02.007

Copy DOI

Abstract

Selection decision makers are inundated with information from which to make decisions about the suitability of a job candidate for a position. Although some of this information is relevant for making a high-quality decision (i.e., diagnostic information), much of the information is actually unrelated to the decision (i.e., nondiagnostic information). Although the deleterious effects of nondiagnostic information on selection decision making have been demonstrated, the prevalence and impact of this type of information is increasing, especially with recent advances in new selection methods used by employers. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to caution selection decision makers, and/or those advising them, to the impact nondiagnostic information has on decisions. We also present different types and prevalence estimates of nondiagnostic information given the changes to the ways applicants are screened and selected. We conclude with suggestions for mitigating the use and/or negative impact of nondiagnostic information.

Highlights

IntroductionThe detrimental impact of nondiagnostic information on social judgments (i.e., predictions of others) was demonstrated in a series of studies by Nisbett and colleagues (1981) and Zukier (1982; though see Troutman & Shanteau [1977] for a demonstration in nonsocial judgment)
Nondiagnostic information is information that is not related to the decision being made, and its use would result in worse quality decisions
The preponderance of research shows that nondiagnostic information can negatively impact decision making, a natural follow-up question is: Do selection decision makers encounter nondiagnostic information when making hiring decisions? we present a picture of the prevalence of verified nondiagnostic information by reviewing the frequency with which selection decision makers utilize sources of this information

Summary

Introduction

The detrimental impact of nondiagnostic information on social judgments (i.e., predictions of others) was demonstrated in a series of studies by Nisbett and colleagues (1981) and Zukier (1982; though see Troutman & Shanteau [1977] for a demonstration in nonsocial judgment). In these studies, participants who received only diagnostic information made more accurate predictions of others than participants who received, in addition to the same diagnostic information, some nondiagnostic information. Field, and observational studies have since established the robustness of the dilution effect (Waller & Zimbelman, 2003)

Objectives

Methods

Results