4.7 Article

Information as a double-edged sword: The role of computer experience and information on applicant reactions towards novel technologies for personnel selection

期刊

COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR
卷 81, 期 -, 页码 19-30

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.036

关键词

Information; Computer experience; Personnel selection; Applicant reactions; Human-computer-interaction

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF
  2. Project EmpaT) [16SV7229K]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Technologically advanced selection procedures are entering the market at exponential rates. The current study tested two previously held assumptions: (a) providing applicants with procedural information (i.e., making the procedure more transparent and justifying the use of this procedure) on novel technologies for personnel selection would positively impact applicant reactions, and (b) technologically advanced procedures might differentially affect applicants with different levels of computer experience. In a 2 (computer science students, other students) x 2 (low information, high information) design, 120 participants watched a video showing a technologically advanced selection procedure (i.e., an interview with a virtual character responding and adapting to applicants' nonverbal behavior). Results showed that computer experience did not affect applicant reactions. Information had a positive indirect effect on overall organizational attractiveness via open treatment and information known. This positive indirect effect was counterbalanced by a direct negative effect of information on overall organizational attractiveness. This study suggests that computer experience does not affect applicant reactions to novel technologies for personnel selection, and that organizations should be cautious about providing applicants with information when using technologically advanced procedures as information can be a double-edged sword. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据