Interpersonal behavior in assessment center role‐play exercises: Investigating structure, consistency, and effectiveness
Open accessAbstract
Although the behaviors displayed by assessees are the currency of assessment centers (ACs), they have remained largely unexplored. This is surprising because a better understanding of assessees’ behaviors may provide the missing link between research on the determinants of assessee performance and research on the validity of performance ratings. Therefore, this study draws on behavioral personality science to scrutinize the behaviors that assessees express in interpersonal AC exercises. Our goals were to investigate (a) the structure of interpersonal behaviors, (b) the consistency of these behaviors across AC exercises, and (c) their effectiveness. We obtained videotaped performances of 203 assessees who took part in AC role‐plays in a high‐stakes context. Apart from assessors’ performance ratings, trained experts also independently coded assessees on over 40 specific behavioral cues in these role‐plays (e.g., clear statements, upright posture, freezing). Results were threefold: First, the structure underlying behavioral differences in interpersonal AC exercises was represented by four broad behavioral constructs: agency, communion, interpersonal calmness, and intellectual competence. Second, assessees’ behaviors showed more consistency across exercises than performance ratings did. Third, the behaviors were related to role‐play performance and predicted future interpersonal performance. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of this study's granular, behavior‐driven perspective.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194 · see citing works
Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390 · Cited by 2,429 · see citing works
Missing Data: Five Practical Guidelines
Newman, D. A. (2014) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428114548590 · Cited by 1,411 · see citing works
An admissions OSCE: the multiple mini-interview
Eva, K. W., Rosenfeld, J., Reiter, H. I., & Norman, G. R. (2004) · Medical Education · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01776.x · Cited by 617 · see citing works
Behavioral processes underlying the decline of narcissists’ popularity over time.
Leckelt, M., Küfner, A. C. P., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2015) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000057 · Cited by 302 · see citing works
Self-citationSadler, P., Ethier, N., Gunn, G. R., Duong, D., & Woody, E. (2009) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0016232 · Cited by 216 · see citing works
Complementarity of interpersonal behaviors in dyadic interactions
Markey, P. M., Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2003) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167203253474 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Breil, S. M., Lievens, F., Forthmann, B., & Back, M. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Münster (DE)
- Singapore Management University (SG)
- Corresponding author
- Breil, Simon M.
- Venue
- Personnel Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-04-22
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 759-795
- ISSN
- 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-6570
- OpenAlex
- W4220844428
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 4.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Personnel Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge (InK) (Singapore Management University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01GK1801B)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Competency Development and Evaluation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Keywords
- assessment centers, role play, interpersonal behavior, behavioral cues, agency, communion, intellectual competence, behavioral consistency, performance ratings, behavioral coding
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review