Applicant Perspectives During Selection: A Review Addressing “So What?,” “What’s New?,” and “Where to Next?”
Open accessAbstract
We provide a comprehensive but critical review of research on applicant reactions to selection procedures published since 2000 ( n = 145), when the last major review article on applicant reactions appeared in the Journal of Management. We start by addressing the main criticisms levied against the field to determine whether applicant reactions matter to individuals and employers (“So what?”). This is followed by a consideration of “What’s new?” by conducting a comprehensive and detailed review of applicant reaction research centered upon four areas of growth: expansion of the theoretical lens, incorporation of new technology in the selection arena, internationalization of applicant reactions research, and emerging boundary conditions. Our final section focuses on “Where to next?” and offers an updated and integrated conceptual model of applicant reactions, four key challenges, and eight specific future research questions. Our conclusion is that the field demonstrates stronger research designs, with studies incorporating greater control, broader constructs, and multiple time points. There is also solid evidence that applicant reactions have significant and meaningful effects on attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. At the same time, we identify some remaining gaps in the literature and a number of critical questions that remain to be explored, particularly in light of technological and societal changes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Candidate experience can influence decisions to accept a job offer and how positively the candidate talks about the organization to other potential candidates and clients, thereby affecting brand reputation.
“Furthermore, candidate experience can influence decisions to accept a job offer and how positively the candidate will talk about the organization to other potential candidates and even clients, thereby influencing brand reputation86.”
From Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory (2022) · cites this paper as [86]
Cites
null (2016) · Philosophy Study · doi:10.17265/2159-5313/2016.09.003 · Cited by 28,317 · see citing works
An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion
Weiner, B. (1985) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.92.4.548 · Cited by 7,846 · see citing works
Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: An Updated Model and Meta‐Analysis
Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00003.x · Cited by 816 · see citing works
Experimental manipulation of intolerance of uncertainty: a study of a theoretical model of worry
Ladouceur, R., Gosselin, P., & Dugas, M. J. (2000) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(99)00133-3 · Cited by 524 · see citing works
Converse, P. D., Oswald, F. L., Imus, A., Hedricks, C., Roy, R., & Butera, H. (2008) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00420.x · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Nguyen, H.-H. D., O'Neal, A., & Ryan, A. M. (2003) · Human Performance · doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1603_5 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Ployhart, R. E., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2002) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00216 · Cited by 15 · cited 1× · see citing works
“When minority groups are highly motivated or anxious about selection tests, they are likely to experience higher levels of cognitive interference, lowering their test performance (Ployhart & Ehrhart, 2002).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory
Gagné, M., Parker, S. K., Griffin, M. A., Dunlop, P. D., Knight, C., Klonek, F. E., & Parent-Rocheleau, X. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00056-w · Cited by 434 · see citing works
Marketing AI recruitment: The next phase in job application and selection
van Esch, P., Black, J. S., & Ferolie, J. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.009 · Cited by 391 · see citing works
Woods, S. A., Ahmed, S., Nikolaou, I., Costa, A. C., & Anderson, N. R. (2020) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2019.1681401 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
Self-citationUnderstanding applicants’ reactions to gamified recruitment
Buil, I., Catalán, S., & Martínez, E. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.041 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Job seekers' attitudes toward cybervetting: Scale development, validation, and platform comparison
Cook, R., Jones‐Chick, R., Roulin, N., & O'Rourke, K. (2020) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/ijsa.12300 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Al-enabled biometrics in recruiting: insights from marketers for managers
van Esch, P., Stewart Black, J., Franklin, D., & Harder, M. (2021) · Australasian Marketing Journal · doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.04.003 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Hunkenschroer, A. (2021) · AI Ethics Journal · doi:10.47289/aiej20210716-3 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
- Authors
- McCarthy, J. M., Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Anderson, N. R., Costa, A. C., & Ahmed, S. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto Scarborough (CA)
- Portland State University (US)
- Brunel University of London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- McCarthy, Julie M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-01-19
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1693-1725
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W2575288116
- Cited by
- 258
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 36 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 5
- FWCI
- 30.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Management (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
- PDXScholar (Portland State University) (submittedVersion)
- Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
- Bradford Scholars (University of Bradford) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- Social Sciences Humanities and Research Council of Canada (435-2015-0220)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
- Keywords
- applicant reactions, personnel selection, applicant attitudes, applicant behavior, selection methods
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
