Cited by 22Psychological Testing and AssessmentCompetency Development and EvaluationPersonality Traits and Psychology

Interpersonal behavior in assessment center role‐play exercises: Investigating structure, consistency, and effectiveness

Open access
Breil, Simon M., Lievens, Filip, Forthmann, Boris, Back, Mitja D.·2023·Personnel Psychology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/peps.12507

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

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
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