Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Perceived fairness in employee selection: the role of applicant personality

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

The present study investigated the role of applicant personality in relation to applicant procedural and distributive justice perceptions after being informed of an organization’s reject/accept selection decision. A sample of 503 students completed a selection test, believing the results would be used to make initial selection decisions for an organization recruiting from the university. Participants were presented with selection decisions (randomly assigned) two weeks later, and procedural and distributive justice perceptions were assessed. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that agreeableness, openness to experience, and test-taking self-efficacy were positively related with perceptions of procedural and distributive justice. Neuroticism was negatively associated with distributive justice perceptions. The relationships of test-taking self-efficacy with procedural and distributive justice were moderated by the organization’s selection decision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 2) (pp 267–299). New York: Academic Press

  • Aiken L. S., West S. G., (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A., (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agencyAmerican Psychologist 37: 122–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer T. N., Maertz C. P., Jr., Dolen M. R., Campion M. A., (1998). Longitudinal assessment of application reactions to employment and test outcome feedbackJournal of Applied Psychology 83: 892–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer T. N., Truxillo D. M., Sanchez R. J., Craig J. M., Ferrara P., Campion M. A., (2001). Applicant reactions to selection: Development of the selection procedural justice scale (SPJS)Personnel Psychology 54: 387–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9) (pp. 289–319). Greenwich: JAI Press

  • Bies R. J., Tripp T. M., Kramer R. M., (1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social dynamics of revenge in organizations. In: Giacalone R. A., Greenberg J., (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage pp. 18–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss A., Plomin R., (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers B. A., (2002). Applicant reactions and their consequences: Review, advice, and recommendations for future researchInternational Journal of Management Reviews 4: 317–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J., Cohen P., (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa P. T., McCrae R. R., (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor (NEO-FFI) inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: PAR

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa P. T., McCrae R. R., Dembroski T. M., (1989). Agreeableness versus antagonism: Explication of a potential risk factor for CHD. In: Siegman A., Dembroski T. M., (Eds.), In search of coronary-prone behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 41–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Digman J. M., (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utilityJournal of Personality 57: 195–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dunford B. B., Devine D. J., (1998). Employment at-will and employee discharge: A justice perspective on legal action following terminationPersonnel Psychology 51: 903–934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkins T. J., Phillips S., (2000). Job context, selection decision outcome, and the perceived fairness of selection tests: Biodata as an illustrative caseJournal of Applied Psychology 85: 479–484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Evans M. G., (1985). A monte carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysisOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36: 305–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg R. A., Meoli-Stanton J., Gable M., (1996). Employment rejection and acceptance letters and their unintended consequences on image, self-concept, and intentionsJournal of Business and Psychology 11: 63–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L., (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielden, J. S. & Dulek, R. (1982). What rejection letters say about your company. Business Horizons, September–October, 40–45

  • Fiske D. W., (1967). The subject reacts to testsAmerican Psychologist 22: 287–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Funder D. C., (2004). The personality puzzle (3rd ed.). New York: Norton

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilliland S. W., (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspectiveAcademy of Management Review 18: 694–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilliland S. W., (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection systemJournal of Applied Psychology 79: 691–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilliland S. W., Groth M., Baker R. C. IV, Dew A. F., Polly L. M., Langdon J. C., (2001). Improving applicants’ reactions to rejection letters: An application of fairness theoryPersonnel Psychology 54: 669–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gist M. E., Schwoerer C., Rosen B., (1989). Effects of alternative training mehods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software trainingJournal of Applied Psychology 74: 884–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg L. R., (1990). An alternative description of personality: The Big Five factor structureJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 1216–1229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman B. M., (2001). Toward an understanding of employment discrimination claiming: An integration of organizational justice and social information processing theoriesPersonnel Psychology 54: 81–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graziano, W. G. & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.). Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–825) . New York: Academic Press

  • Greenberg J., (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theoriesAcademy of Management Review 12: 9–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg J., (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrowJournal of Management, 16: 399–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauenstein N. M. A., McGonigle T., Flinder S. W., (2001). A meta-analysis of the relationship between procedural justice and distributive justice: Implications for justice researchEmployee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 13: 39–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heider F., (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvarth M., Ryan A. M., Stierwalt S. L., (2000). The influence of explanations for selection test use, outcome favoribility, and self-efficacy on test-taker perceptionsOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 83: 310–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Konovsky M. A., (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizationsJournal of Management 26: 489–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland G. H., Judd C. M., (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effectsPsychological Bulletin 114: 376–390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mellor S., (1992). The influence of layoff severity on postlayoff union commitment among survivors: The moderating effect of the perceived legitimacy of a layoff accountPersonnel Psychology 45: 579–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ployhart R. E., Ryan A. M., (1997). Toward an explanation of applicant reactions: An examination of organizational justice and attribution frameworkOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 72: 308–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ployhart R. E., Ryan A. M., (1998). Applicants’ reactions to the fairness of selection procedures: The effects of positive rule violations and time of measurementJournal of Applied Psychology, 83: 3–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson I. T., Iles P. A., Gratton L., Sharpley D., (1991). The impact of personnel selection and assessment methods on candidatesHuman Relations 44: 963–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan A. M., Ployhart R. E., (2000). Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the futureJournal of Management 26: 565–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rynes S. L., Barber A. E., (1990). Applicant attraction strategies: An organizational perspectiveAcademy of Management Review 15: 286–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rynes S. L., Boudreau J. W., (1986). College recruiting in large organizations: Practice, evaluation, and research implicationsPersonnel Psychology 39: 729–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour R. T., (1988). Why plaintiffs’ counsel challenge tests, and how they can successfully challenge the theory of “validity generalization.”Journal of Vocational Behavior 33: 331–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skarlicki D. P., Folger R., (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justiceJournal of Applied Psychology 82: 434–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skarlicki D. P., Folger R., Tesluk P., (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliationAcademy of Management Journal 42: 100–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smither J. W., Reilly R. R., Millsap R. E., Pearlman K., Stoffey R. W., (1993). Applicant reactions to selection proceduresPersonnel Psychology 46: 49–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Suls J., Green P., Hills S., (1998). Emotional reactivity to everyday problems, affective inertia, and neuroticismPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24: 127–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut J., Walker L., (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

    Google Scholar 

  • Tupes, E. C., Christal, R. E., (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (Technical Report ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: US Air Force

  • van den Bos K., Bruins J., Wilke H. A. M., Dronkert E., (1999). Sometimes unfair procedures have nice aspects: On the psychology of the fair process effectJournal of Applied Psychology 77: 324–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Waung M., Brice T. S., (2000). Communicating negative hire decisions to applicants: Fulfilling psychological contractsJournal of Business and Psychology 15: 247–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiechmann D., Ryan A. M., (2003). Reactions to computerized testing in selection contextsInternational Journal of Selection and Assessment 11: 215–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins J. S., (Ed), (1996). The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong P. T. P., Weiner B., (1981). When people ask “why” questions, and the heuristics of attributional searchJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 40: 650–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman M., Kuhlman D. M., Joireman J., Teta P., (1993). A comparison of three structural models of personality: The big three, the big five, and the alternative fiveJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 757–768

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, 36849-5241, USA

    Jeremy B. Bernerth, Hubert S. Feild & William F. Giles

  2. Institute of Leadership and Human Resource Management, University of St. Gallen, CH-9000, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Michael S. Cole

  3. Department of Management, Auburn University, 415 W. Magnolia Avenue, Auburn, AL, 36849-5241, USA

    Jeremy B. Bernerth

Authors
  1. Jeremy B. Bernerth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hubert S. Feild
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William F. Giles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael S. Cole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy B. Bernerth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bernerth, J.B., Feild, H.S., Giles, W.F. et al. Perceived fairness in employee selection: the role of applicant personality. J Bus Psychol 20, 545–563 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-9004-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-9004-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation