Skip to content

Research article

Selection Fairness and Outcomes: A field study of interactive effects on applicant reactions

Sonja Schinkel; Annelies van Vianen; Dirk van Dierendonck

International Journal of Selection and Assessment • 2013

audience: factory-internalaudience: velaPeople Analyticsbridge (3)processed in meta-factory

Abstract

Despite the vast amount of applicant reactions studies, few have examined combined effects of selection outcomes with perceived procedural and distributive fairness on both personal and organizational reactions. Further, most have been conducted in laboratory settings, limiting external validity. The present study examined these effects with a longitudinal design, measuring actual applicants’ well-being and organizational attractiveness preinterview and postoutcome. As expected, several interactions between outcomes and fairness were found. Applicants who were hired reported both highest well-being and organizational attractiveness when they perceived the outcome as fair. In contrast, applicants who were rejected reported highest well-being when they thought the outcome was unfair. Selection outcome and procedural fairness interacted for organizational attractiveness, with higher procedural fairness leading to higher attractiveness for rejected applicants.

Available formats

research_article

File instances

1

Extracted by meta-factory

Models (1)

  • Selection Fairness Theory

    evidence: Medium

    Justice/Fairness • Applicant Reactions

    Primary factors

    Procedural FairnessDistributive FairnessSelection Outcomes

    Field domains

    Organizational BehaviorI-O Psychology

Instruments (3)

  • Selection Procedural Justice Scale (SPJS)

    format: likert

    developer: Bauer et al.

    Constructs

    Procedural Fairness

    reliability: Cronbach’s alpha = .91

  • Affective Well-being Scale

    format: likert

    developer: Warr

    Constructs

    Affective Well-being

    reliability: Cronbach’s alpha = .88

  • Organizational Attractiveness Scale

    format: likert

    developer: Ployhart & Ryan

    Constructs

    Organizational Attractiveness

    reliability: Cronbach’s alpha = .74 (T1), .76 (T2)

Constructs (4)

  • Procedural Fairness

    FAIR_001

    The perceived fairness of the processes and procedures used in selection events.

    Domains

    Decision-Making & JudgmentEthics & Values

    Procedural fairness is distinct from distributive fairness and can influence organizational attractiveness.

  • Distributive Fairness

    FAIR_002

    The perceived fairness of the outcomes of selection events.

    Domains

    Decision-Making & JudgmentEthics & Values

    Distributive fairness can moderate the effect of selection outcomes on well-being and organizational attractiveness.

  • Affective Well-being

    WELL_001

    A subjective estimate of the quality of life, concerning how people feel about themselves and their work settings.

    Domains

    Wellbeing & Stress

    Measured with 12 adjectives to capture short-term feelings.

  • Organizational Attractiveness

    ATTR_001

    The degree to which an applicant finds an organization appealing as a potential employer.

    Domains

    MotivationPerformance Management

    Influenced by procedural and distributive fairness perceptions.

Related

Source profile (V0). This page is a thin scaffold over the factory_documents registry; richer treatment lands once the source is ingested into Vela's editorial corpus.