CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Employer Branding and e-HRMAI and HR TechnologiesHuman Resource and Talent Management

Threat of technological unemployment: are hiring managers discounted for using standardized employee selection practices?

Open access
Nolan, Kevin, Carter, Nathan, Dalal, Dev·2016·Personnel Assessment and Decisions
DOI 10.25035/pad.2016.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Two studies were conducted to examine the tenability of Meehl’s (1986) “threat of technological unemployment” explanation for why practitioners of employee selection resist using standardized decision-making practices. The results of Study 1 support the existence of this threat by demonstrating that practitioners received less credit for the outcomes of employment decisions when structured rather than unstructured interviews were used to evaluate candidates and analytical rather than holistic data combination was used to determine candidates’ overall evaluations. The results of Study 2 support the influence of this threat on employee selection by demonstrating that practitioners recognized the effects using the standardized practices have on stakeholders’ perceptions of their causality/control over the hiring process, and that practitioners’ beliefs about stakeholders’ perceptions of their causality/control over the hiring process significantly influenced their intentions to use the employee selection practices via concerns about the perceived value of their employment (i.e., fear of technological unemployment).

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 · 10.25035/pad.2016.004

Cites

5 of 5 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

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?

  • When sharing the selection task with AI, decision makers might not attribute the decision outcome to their own effort.

    “When sharing the selection task with an AI-based decision support system, decision makers might not attribute the decision outcome to their own effort”

    From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Nolan et al., 2016

    The “Attributions and Employee Selection” section says standardized practices can reduce the extent to which people attribute a hiring outcome to the practitioner’s judgment. The paper’s computer-program hypothesis concerns stakeholders’ perceptions, and its discussion of practitioners concerns what they believe stakeholders think. It does not establish that decision makers themselves attribute less of the outcome to their own effort. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. Anderson, N., Salgado, J. F., & Hulsheger, U. R. (2010). Applicant reactions in selection: Comprehensive meta- analysis into reaction generalization versus situational specificity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 291-304.
  2. Arthur Jr., W. A., Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., & Doverspike, D. (2006). The use of person-organization fit in employment decision making: An assessment of its criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 786-801.
  3. Baron, R. A. (1987). Interviewer's moods and reactions to job applicants: The influence of affective states on applied social judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 911-926.
  4. Batson, D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 751-758.
  5. Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24, 82-98.
  6. Borman, W. C. (1982). Validity of behavioral assessment for predicting military recruiter performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 3-9.
  7. Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in industrial and organizational psychology from 1963 to 2007: Changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied 2016 • Issue 2 • 30-47 http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/pad/ ReseaRch aRticles Psychology, 93, 1062-1081.
  8. Conway, J. M., Jako, R. A., & Goodman, D. F. (1995). A meta-analysis of interrater and internal c o n s i s t e n c y reliability of selection interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 565-579.
  9. Cortina, J. M., & Landis, R. S. (2009). When small effect sizes tell a big story, and when large effect sizes don't. In C. E Lance, & R. J. Vandenberg, (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in organizational and social sciences, (pp. 287-308). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
  10. Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 713-726.
  11. Diab, D. L., Pui, S., Yankelevich, M., & Highhouse, S. (2011). Lay perceptions of selection decision aids in U.S. and non-U.S. samples. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(2), 209-216.
  12. Dipboye, R. L. (1994). Structured and unstructured selection interviews: Beyond the job-fit m o d e l . I n G . F e r r i s (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 12, pp. 79-123). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  13. Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Callender, J. C. (1994). Confirming first impressions in the employment interview: A field study of interviewer behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 659-665.
  14. Furnham, A. (2008). HR professionals' beliefs about and knowledge of, assessment techniques and psychometric tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 300-305.
  15. Galper, R. E. (1976). Turning observers into actors: Differential causal attributions as a function of "empathy." Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 328- 335.
  16. Giluk, T. L., & R ynes S. (2012). Research findings practitioners resist: Lessons for management academics from evidence-based medicine. In D. M. Rousseau, (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management (pp. 130-164). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  17. Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 900-912.
  18. Herriot, P. (1989). Selection as a social process. In M. Smith and I. T. Robertson (Eds.), Advances in Selection and Assessment (pp. 171-87). New York: Wiley.
  19. Highhouse, S., & Kostek, J.A. (2010). Holistic assessment for selection and placement. In K. F. Geisinger, B. A. Bracken, J. F. Carlson, J-I. C. Hansen, N. R. Kuncel, S. P. Reise, M. C. Rodriguez, (Eds.), APA Handbook of Testing and Assessment in Psychology. Vol. 1: Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 565-577). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  20. Himmelfarb, S., & Anderson, N.H. (1975). Integration-theory applied to opinion attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1064-1071.
  21. Hodgkinson, G. P. (2012). The politics of evidence-based decision making. In D. M. Rousseau, (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Management, (pp. 404- 419). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  22. Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W., Jr. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 184-190.
  23. Jeanneret, R., & Silzer, R. (1998). An overview of psychological assessment. In R. Jeanneret & R. Silzer (Eds.), Individual psychological assessment: Predicting behavior in organizational settings (pp. 3-26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  24. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., & Cable, D. M. (2000). The employment interview: A review of recent research and recommendations for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 383-406. 2016 • Issue 2 • 30-47 Published By ScholarWorks@BGSU, 2016 Personnel Assessment And decisions Attributions And EmployEE sElEction
  25. Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457-501.
  26. Kohn, L. S., & Dipboye, R. L. (1998). The effects of interview structure on recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 821-843.
  27. König, C.J., Klehe, U., Berchtold, M., & Kleinmann, M. (2010). Reasons for being selective when choosing personnel selection procedures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 17-27.
  28. Latham, G. P., & Finnegan, B. J. (1993). Perceived practicality of unstructured, patterned, and situational interviews. In H. Schuler, J. L. Farr, & M. Smith, (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives, (pp. 41-55). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  29. Lowe, D. J., Reckers, P. M. J., & Whitecotton, S. M. (2002). The effects of decision-aid use and reliability on juror's evaluations of auditor liability. The Accounting Review, 77, 185-202.
  30. McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. (1994). The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 599-616.
  31. Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  32. Meyer, J. P., & Koelbl, S. L. M. (1982). Dimensionality of students' causal attributions for test performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 31-36.
  33. Phillips, A. P., & Dipboye, R. L. (1989). Correlational tests of predictions form a process model of the interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 41-52.
  34. Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1979). A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 86, 61-79.
  35. Regan, D. T., & Totten, J. (1975). Empathy and attribution: Turning observers into actors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 850-856.
  36. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-36.
  37. Russell, D. (1982). The causal dimension scale: A measure of how individuals perceive causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1137-1145.
  38. R yan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2000). Applicants' perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 26, 565-606.
  39. Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2014). A century of selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 693-717.
  40. R ynes, S. L. (2012). The research-practice gap in industrial/organizational psychology and related fields: Challenges and potential solutions. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Industrial- Organizational Psychology (pp. 409-452). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  41. Sawyer, J. (1966). Measurement and prediction, clinical and statistical. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 178.
  42. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.
  43. Simola, S. K., Taggar, S., & Smith, G. W. (2007). The employment selection interview: Disparity among research-based recommendations, current practices and what matters to human rights tribunals. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 24, 30-44.
  44. Standing, G. (1984). The notion of technological unemployment. International Labor Review, 123, 127- 147.
  45. Tziner, A., & Dolan, S. (1982). Validity of an assessment center for identifying future female officers in the military. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 728-736.
  46. van der Zee, K. I., Bakker, A. B., & Bakker, P. (2002). Why are structured interviews so rarely u s e d i n p e r s o n n e l selection? Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 176-184.
  47. Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3-25.
  48. Weiner, B. (1985). "Spontaneous" causal search. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 74-84.
  49. Wiesner, W. H., & Cronshaw, S.F. (1988). A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 61, 275-290.
  50. Wollowick, H. B., & McNamara, W. J. (1969). Relationship of the components of an assessment center to management success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 348-352.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nolan, K., Carter, N., & Dalal, D.
Affiliations
  • Hofstra University (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • University at Albany, State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Nolan, Kevin
ORCID
Dalal, Dev
Venue
Personnel Assessment and Decisions
Publisher
Bowling Green State University Libraries
Published
2016
Volume
2
Issue
1
ISSN
2377-8822 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.25035/pad.2016.004
OpenAlex
W2512434466
Cited by
28
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
FWCI
3.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Personnel Assessment and Decisions (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ScholarWorks@BGSU (Bowling Green State University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Human Resource and Talent Management
Keywords
technological unemployment, personnel selection, hiring managers, structured interviews, unstructured interviews, stakeholder perspectives

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