Interviews & Staffing
We want an applicant with x, y, z, qualities: how should we design and carry out the interview?
My research connects interview goals and interview design.
Related Publications
Evaluating interview criterion-related validity for distinct constructs: A meta-analysis
Article Abstract
The employment interview is used to assess myriad constructs to inform personnel selection decisions. This article describes the first meta-analytic review of the criterion-related validity of interview-based assessments of specific constructs (i.e., related to task and contextual performance). As such, this study explores the suitability of the interview for predicting specific dimensions of performance, and furthermore, if and how interviews should be designed to inform the assessment of distinct constructs. A comprehensive search process identified k = 37 studies comprising N= 30,646 participants (N = 4,449 with the removal of one study). Results suggest that constructs related to task (ρ = .30) and contextual (ρ = .28) performance are assessed with similar levels of criterion-related validity. Although interview evaluations of task and contextual performance constructs did not show discriminant validity within the interview itself, interview evaluations were more predictive of the targeted criterion construct than of alternative constructs. We further found evidence that evaluations of contextual performance constructs might particularly benefit from the adoption of more structured interview scoring procedures. However, we expect that new research on interview design factors may find additional moderating effects and we point to critical gaps in our current body of literature on employment interviews. These results illustrate how a construct-specific approach to interview validity can spur new developments in the modeling, assessment, and selection of specific work performance constructs.
Full Reference
Wingate, T. G., Bourdage, J. S., & Steel, P. (2024). Evaluating interview criterion-related validity for distinct constructs: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1-21.
What are interviews for? A qualitative study of employment interview goals and design
Article Abstract
The employment interview is among the most versatile of staffing tools. Yet, the interview is rarely studied as a multipurpose tool. If the interview is used to serve multiple goals, then the interview can be effective (i.e., valid), and effectively designed, in multiple ways. The current study uses qualitative methodology to develop an inductive theory of interview goals and design based on conversational interviews with 29 experienced professional interviewers. Transcript data were analyzed with template analysis grounded in a postpositive epistemology and objectivist ontology. Results suggested that the interview is primarily used to serve three broad goals: performing a targeted assessment, making a positive impression, and informing the applicant. Interviewers reported a variety of strategies for adapting the interview to achieve and balance these goals. In short, findings suggest that the interview is used in multiple ways that have received very little research attention. These findings imply that the concept of interview validity should be expanded to include multiple interviewing goals, and that interview design should be understood as a complex function of these goals. Further implications for the research, theory, and practice of employment interviews are discussed.
Full Reference
Wingate, T. G., & Bourdage, J. S. (2024). What are interviews for? A qualitative study of employment interview goals and design. Human Resource Management, 63, 555-580.
How does bias enter the employment interview? Identifying the riskiest applicant characteristics, interviewer characteristics, and sources of potentially biasing information
Article Abstract
The current study examines the riskiest forms and sources of potential bias in the employment interview. A mixed methods survey focused on interviewers’ attention to various potentially biasing applicant characteristics, how interviewers learn about such characteristics, the traits of interviewers who are sensitive to such characteristics, and how knowledge of such characteristics affects interviewers’ opinions of applicants. Participants were 680 professional interviewers from the U.S., U.K., and Canada. High risks of bias were associated with six applicant characteristics (as targets of bias), three interviewer characteristics (as predisposing toward bias), and three sources of information in the interview process. Interviewers commonly rationalized their judgments in job-relevant terms. These results have implications for understanding and limiting the risk of common selection biases.
Practitioner Points
- Jobseekers that face the greatest risk of hiring bias and discrimination might not receive the attention and supports they need.
- Job interviewers reported being most affected by applicants’ age, accent/English fluency, professional appearance, criminal history, body odor, and addictions.
- Interviewers usually learned such information from appropriate and often unavoidable channels such as via application materials, seeing the applicant in person, or because the applicant disclosed the information.
- Interviewers that were disagreeable, socially dominant, and younger, were more strongly influenced by potentially biasing applicant information.
- Interviewers rationalized potential biases in ostensibly job-relevant language.
Full Reference
Wingate, T. G., Rasheed, S., Risavy, S. D., & Robie, C. (2024). How does bias enter the employment interview? Identifying the riskiest applicant characteristics, interviewer characteristics, and sources of potentially biasing information. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 32, 399-420.
Does it take two to tango? Examining how applicants and interviewers adapt their impression management to each other
Article Abstract
Although research has long examined applicants’ use of impression management (IM) behaviors in the interview, interviewers’ IM has only been recently investigated, and no research has attempted to combine both. The aim of this research was to examine whether and how applicants and interviewers adapt their IM to one another. To answer this question, we bring together IM, signaling theory, and the concept of adjacency pairs from linguistics, and carried out two studies. Study 1 was an observational study with field data (N = 30 interviews including a total of 6290 turns of speech by interviewers and applicants). Results showed that both applicants and interviewers are more likely to engage in IM in a way that can be considered as a “preferred” (vs. “dispreferred”) response pattern. That is, self-focused IM is particularly likely to occur as a response to other-focused IM, other-focused IM as a response to self-focused IM, and job/organization-focused IM as a response to job/organization-focused IM. In study 2, we used a within-subjects design to experimentally manipulate interviewer IM and examine its impact on (N = 120) applicants’ IM behaviors during the interview. Applicants who engaged more in “preferred” IM responses were evaluated as performing better in the interview by external raters. However, “preferred” IM responses were not associated with any other interview outcomes. Altogether, our findings highlight the adaptive nature of interpersonal influence in employment interviews, and call for more research examining the dynamic interactions between interviewers and applicants.
Full Reference
Wilhelmy, A., Roulin, N., & Wingate, T. G. (2021). Does it take two to tango? Examining how applicants and interviewers adapt their impression management to each other. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35, 1053-1076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-0972065
Liar at first sight? Early impressions and interviewer judgments, attributions, and false perceptions of faking
Article Abstract
Research suggests that early impressions influence employment interview outcomes. A highly controlled experiment examined the effects of pre-interview qualifications information and early applicant impression management behavior on interviewers’ early impressions and, in turn, applicant outcomes. Mock interviewers (N = 247) judged the same applicant with a poorer pre-interview qualification ranking to be a poorer performer, but also perceived the applicant to have faked (deceived) more, and considered the applicant less likeable, less competent, less dedicated, and more conceited. Early applicant impression management behavior did not consistently contribute to interviewers’ early impressions, or to perceptions and judgments. Overall, these findings suggest that early applicant information can affect interviewer cognitions and judgments through the formation of early impressions.
Full Reference
Wingate, T. G., & Bourdage, J. S. (2019). Liar at first sight? Early impressions and interviewer judgments, attributions, and false perceptions of faking. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 18, 177-188. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000232
Who is conducting “better” employment interviews? Antecedents of structured interview components use
Article Abstract
The employment interview remains a unique paradox. On the one hand, decades of research demonstrate that using more structured components (e.g., question consistency, evaluation standardization) can largely improve the psychometric properties of interviews. On the other hand, although interviews are almost universally used, many interviewers still resist using structured formats. We examined the use of seven structure components by 131 professional interviewers and their association with three types of antecedents: interviewers’ background (e.g., experience, training), the focus of the interview (selection vs. recruitment), and interviewers’ personality (based on the HEXACO model). Interviewers’ background (i.e., training) and the focus of the interview were largely associated with the use of question sophistication, question consistency, note taking, and evaluation standardization. Personality (i.e., extraversion) was mostly associated with rapport building and probing. Our findings highlight the importance of providing formal training to interviewers but suggest that attempting to eliminate less-structured components could encounter resistance from some interviewers.
Full Reference
Roulin, N., Bourdage, J. S., & Wingate, T. G. (2019). Who is conducting “better” employment interviews? Antecedents of structured interview components use. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 5, 37-48. https://doi.org/10.25035/pad.2019.01.002