Search

The unstructured employment interview is one of the most popular selection tools among employers and applicants alike. Although past research have shed light on some explanations for practitioners’ preferences for unstructured methods, less is known about the reasons for their popularity among applicants. One reason might be that applicants overestimate recruiters’ intuitive abilities to make judgments about applicant characteristics based on resumes and interviews. The results of this study (N = 345) suggest that recruiters are perceived as much better than laypeople at making judgments about applicants based on resume screening and interviews, and that faith in recruiters’ intuition predicts process favorability for unstructured employment interviews. Moreover, this association remained significant when accounting for attitudes to structured interviews, perceived recruiter expertise, and attitudes to holistic versus mechanic methods in general. The results thus suggest that overestimation of recruiters’ intuitive expertise may help explain why many people prefer unstructured selection methods.

The unstructured employment interview is one of the most popular selection tools among employers and applicants alike. Although past research have shed light on some explanations for practitioners’ preferences for unstructured methods, less is known about the reasons for their popularity among applicants. One reason might be that applicants overestimate recruiters’ intuitive abilities to make judgments about applicant characteristics based on resumes and interviews. The results of this study (N = 345) suggest that recruiters are perceived as much better than laypeople at making judgments about applicants based on resume screening and interviews, and that faith in recruiters’ intuition predicts process favorability for unstructured employment interviews. Moreover, this association remained significant when accounting for attitudes to structured interviews, perceived recruiter expertise, and attitudes to holistic versus mechanic methods in general. The results thus suggest that overestimation of recruiters’ intuitive expertise may help explain why many people prefer unstructured selection methods.

The unstructured employment interview is one of the most popular selection tools among employers and applicants alike. Although past research have shed light on some explanations for practitioners’ preferences for unstructured methods, less is known about the reasons for their popularity among applicants. One reason might be that applicants overestimate recruiters’ intuitive abilities to make judgments about applicant characteristics based on resumes and interviews. The results of this study (N = 345) suggest that recruiters are perceived as much better than laypeople at making judgments about applicants based on resume screening and interviews, and that faith in recruiters’ intuition predicts process favorability for unstructured employment interviews. Moreover, this association remained significant when accounting for attitudes to structured interviews, perceived recruiter expertise, and attitudes to holistic versus mechanic methods in general. The results thus suggest that overestimation of recruiters’ intuitive expertise may help explain why many people prefer unstructured selection methods.

The unstructured employment interview is one of the most popular selection tools among employers and applicants alike. Although past research have shed light on some explanations for practitioners’ preferences for unstructured methods, less is known about the reasons for their popularity among applicants. One reason might be that applicants overestimate recruiters’ intuitive abilities to make judgments about applicant characteristics based on resumes and interviews. The results of this study (N = 345) suggest that recruiters are perceived as much better than laypeople at making judgments about applicants based on resume screening and interviews, and that faith in recruiters’ intuition predicts process favorability for unstructured employment interviews. Moreover, this association remained significant when accounting for attitudes to structured interviews, perceived recruiter expertise, and attitudes to holistic versus mechanic methods in general. The results thus suggest that overestimation of recruiters’ intuitive expertise may help explain why many people prefer unstructured selection methods.

The unstructured employment interview is one of the most popular selection tools among employers and applicants alike. Although past research have shed light on some explanations for practitioners’ preferences for unstructured methods, less is known about the reasons for their popularity among applicants. One reason might be that applicants overestimate recruiters’ intuitive abilities to make judgments about applicant characteristics based on resumes and interviews. The results of this study (N = 345) suggest that recruiters are perceived as much better than laypeople at making judgments about applicants based on resume screening and interviews, and that faith in recruiters’ intuition predicts process favorability for unstructured employment interviews. Moreover, this association remained significant when accounting for attitudes to structured interviews, perceived recruiter expertise, and attitudes to holistic versus mechanic methods in general. The results thus suggest that overestimation of recruiters’ intuitive expertise may help explain why many people prefer unstructured selection methods.

Previous research suggests that affirmative action policies tend to be perceived more negatively by men than by women, and by nonbeneficiaries relative to beneficiaries. However, studies focusing on men as beneficiaries are scarce. The present paper reports the results of two preregistered studies conducted in Sweden. Study 1 investigated gender differences in reactions to being selected for a position based on either a strong or weak type of affirmative action policy. The results revealed that men (relative to women) displayed more negative attitudes, but not stronger resentment, and that a procedure using explicit quotas was perceived more negatively than a softer type of preferential treatment. In Study 2, we experimentally manipulated whether participants imagined being selected or rejected due to the same preferential treatment policy. Again, men displayed more negative attitudes than women, but not stronger resentment. The results further showed that attitudes were negative regardless of whether one was selected or rejected. However, those who were rejected felt stronger resentment than those who were selected. This effect was significant for both men and women, but stronger among women. Implications for research, organizations, and policy-makers are discussed.