The forced decline in focus of gas vehicles in the car industry
Prof. Reinford
2016_The_role_of_privacy_invasion_and_fairness.pdf
Personnel Review The role of privacy invasion and fairness in understanding job applicant reactions to potentially inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions Khaldoun I. Ababneh Mohammed A. Al-Waqfi
Article information: To cite this document: Khaldoun I. Ababneh Mohammed A. Al-Waqfi , (2016),"The role of privacy invasion and fairness in understanding job applicant reactions to potentially inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions", Personnel Review, Vol. 45 Iss 2 pp. 392 - 418 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2014-0264
Downloaded on: 05 July 2016, At: 03:25 (PT) References: this document contains references to 105 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 347 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2016),"An employee who was not there: a study of job boredom in white-collar work", Personnel Review, Vol. 45 Iss 2 pp. 374-391 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2015-0125 (2016),"Work-family balance and cultural dimensions: from a developing nation perspective", Personnel Review, Vol. 45 Iss 2 pp. 315-333 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2014-0196 (2016),"Effectiveness of performance appraisal: Developing a conceptual framework using competing values approach", Personnel Review, Vol. 45 Iss 2 pp. 334-352 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ PR-07-2014-0164
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald- srm:460019 []
For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
The role of privacy invasion and fairness in understanding job
applicant reactions to potentially inappropriate/discriminatory
interview questions Khaldoun I. Ababneh
School of Business Administration, American University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and
Mohammed A. Al-Waqfi College of Business and Economics,
United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
Abstract Purpose – Building on organizational justice and privacy literatures, the purpose of this paper is to test a model capturing the impacts of potentially inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions on job applicant perceptions and behavioral intentions in a developing economy context with a multicultural workforce. Design/methodology/approach – An experimental design using senior undergraduate students (n ¼ 221) seeking or about to seek jobs in the United Arab Emirates was used to examine interviewees’ reactions to inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions. A questionnaire was used to collect the data. Structural equation modeling and bootstrapping were used for data analysis and hypothesis testing. Findings – This study demonstrates that inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions influence privacy invasion perceptions, which in turn influence job applicants’ fairness perceptions and behavioral intentions. This study also demonstrates that privacy invasion perceptions fully mediate the effect of inappropriate/discriminatory employment interview questions on fairness perceptions. Moreover, the findings show that privacy invasion directly and indirectly, via fairness perceptions, influence litigation intentions. On the other hand, findings of this study indicate that privacy invasion influence organizational attractiveness and recommendation intentions only indirectly, via fairness perceptions. Originality/value – This is the first study to examine the impact of inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions on applicant reactions in a developing economy context with social, cultural, and legal environment that is different from those prevailing in developed Western societies. This study demonstrates that privacy invasion is an important mechanism to understand job applicant reactions to inappropriate interview questions. Keywords Quantitative, Employment interview, UAE, Fairness perceptions, Inappropriate interview questions, Job applicant reactions, Privacy invasion Paper type Research paper
Introduction Though personnel selection represents a two-way process in which organizations select their future employees and job applicants select their future employers (Dipboye et al., 2012; Ryan and Ployhart, 2000; Smither et al., 1993), the vast majority of early research examined the selection process from the employer’s perspective (Breaugh and Starke, 2000; Salgado et al., 2001; Schmidt and Hunter, 1998). Recently, more and more researchers have examined the employment process from the applicant’s perspective.
Personnel Review Vol. 45 No. 2, 2016 pp. 392-418 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0048-3486 DOI 10.1108/PR-11-2014-0264
Received 18 November 2014 Revised 26 May 2015 25 July 2015 Accepted 11 August 2015
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
392
PR 45,2
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
Specifically, researchers have examined cognitions, attitudes, affects, intentions, and behaviors of job applicants toward the staffing process (Anderson et al., 2010; Gilliland, 1993; Hausknecht et al., 2004; Ryan and Ployhart, 2000). This relatively new stream of research addresses various aspects of what has been generally labeled as applicant reactions (Gilliland, 1993; Ryan and Ployhart, 2000). Applicant reactions are very important for organizations because applicants who perceive an organization selection process as unfair or inappropriate are more likely to form negative views of the organization; be less attracted to the organization; be less motivated to do well during the selection process; pursue job options or offers with other organizations; dissuade other job applicants from pursuing employment with the organization; and pursue litigation actions against the organization (Ababneh et al., 2014; Gilliland, 1993; Goldman, 2001; Hausknecht et al., 2004; Ryan and Ployhart, 2000; Stoughton et al., 2015).
In light of the important consequences of applicant reactions, researchers have examined applicant perceptions of and reactions to various selection methods, among which is the employment interview (Anderson et al., 2010; Hausknecht et al., 2004; Rynes and Connerley, 1993; Saks and McCarthy, 2006). Prior research has documented various positive aspects of the employment interview. For example, researchers have shown that the employment interview is the most widely used selection method (Anderson et al., 2010) and one of the most favorably perceived selection methods among practitioners (Topor et al., 2007) and job applicants (Anderson et al., 2010; Anderson and Witvliet, 2008). Researchers have also reported that in comparison to other selection tools, the employment interview is frequently weighted higher in the hiring decision process (Kinicki et al., 1990).
Nevertheless, researchers continue to document that the employment interview in Western countries is fraught with inappropriate and discriminatory practices (Bennington, 2001; Gilliland, 1995; Hackett et al., 2004; Jablin and Tengler, 1982; Macan, 2009; Madera and Hebl, 2012; Morgeson et al., 2008; Mullen et al., 2007; Saks and McCarthy, 2006; Saunders et al., 1990). For example, researchers have reported that interviewers often request interviewees to answer questions that might be considered inappropriate[1], discriminatory, or illegal such as those related to age, race, family status, nationality, disabilities, and religion (Bennington, 2001; Jablin and Tengler, 1982; Marshall, 2007; Mullen et al., 2007; Saks and McCarthy, 2006; Saunders et al., 1990; Thurman et al., 2009). Researchers also showed that when applicants are screened for the interview stage, interviewers exclude some applicants from the interview process based on irrelevant factors such as gender and nationality (Blommaert et al., 2014; Carlsson and Rooth, 2007; Dipboye et al., 2012; Marshall et al., 1998; Peluchette and Karl, 2009). Moreover, the popular media and social network sites provide anecdotal evidence regarding the prevalence of inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions and offer job interviewees suggestions to tackle such questions (Bloch, 2011; Clarke, 1999).
A number of researchers have highlighted the need for further research on job applicant reactions to the employment interview in general (Chapman and Zweig, 2005; Conway and Peneno, 1999; Goldberg, 2003) and reactions to inappropriate/ discriminatory employment interview questions and practices in particular (Mullen et al., 2007; Posthuma et al., 2002; Saks and McCarthy, 2006; Woodzicka and LaFrance, 2005). Researchers have also called for more research into the role of privacy in understanding applicant reactions (Bauer et al., 2006; Harris et al., 2003; Stone-Romero et al., 2003; Stone and Kotch, 1989; Stoughton et al., 2015). However, despite the negative consequences that are likely to be triggered by inappropriate/discriminatory
393
Role of privacy invasion
and fairness
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
interview questions, there has been little research on applicant reactions to such questions. One exception is an experimental study conducted by Saks and McCarthy (2006) to investigate the reactions of Canadian MBA students to discriminatory interview questions.
In their study, Saks and McCarthy (2006) employed an experimental design with three interview conditions: an interview with no discriminatory interview questions, an interview with two discriminatory interview questions, and an interview with four discriminatory interview questions. Saks and McCarthy (2006) found that compared to participants in the control condition, participants in the interview with four discriminatory interview questions reported lower ratings of the interview and lower intentions to pursue employment and to recommend the organization to other job applicants. Saks and McCarthy (2006) also showed that participants in the interview with four discriminatory interview questions reported lower reaction to the interviewer and the organization’s treatment compared to participants in both the control condition and the interview with two discriminatory questions. Furthermore, participants in both the two and the four discriminatory question conditions reported lower acceptance intentions than participants in the control condition (Saks and McCarthy, 2006).
Saks and McCarthy (2006) also examined the effects of the interviewer and the interviewee gender on applicant reactions. However, although they found a significant main effect for interviewer gender and interviewee gender on some applicant reactions (e.g. job acceptance) they did not find any two-way nor three-way interaction effect (between discriminatory questions, interviewer gender, and interviewee gender). These findings suggest that discriminatory interview questions have negative impacts on applicant reactions regardless of the interviewee or the interviewer gender. A possible explanation for the absence of two-way and three-way interaction effects in Saks and McCarthy’s study is the relatively low-sample size (n ¼ 116).
In their study, Saks and McCarthy (2006) also tested a post-hoc sequential model capturing the effect of discriminatory interview questions on applicant reactions. The post-hoc analysis revealed that discriminatory interview questions negatively impacted applicant reactions to both the interviewer and the interview, which influence applicant perceptions (e.g. treatment of employees) and applicant perceptions in turn influence applicant behavioral intentions (e.g. accept a job offer, recommend the organization to other applicants). However, although Saks and McCarthy (2006) noted the importance of privacy in understanding applicant reactions to the discriminatory interview questions, they did not examine the role of privacy in their paper. Based on prior relevant research, we argue in this paper that invasion of privacy is a vital factor to understand how inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions impact applicant perceptions and behavioral intentions. Therefore, one goal of this paper is to examine empirically the role of privacy invasion in explaining how inappropriate interview questions impact applicants’ perceptions and behavioral intentions.
Another area that is missing in the existing literature on applicant reactions is an examination of the consequences of inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions in contexts characterized by social, cultural, and legal environments that are different from those prevailing in developed Western societies (Huffcutt et al., 2011; Macan, 2009; Posthuma et al., 2014). Reviewing prior research on reactions to inappropriate/ discriminatory interview questions, we found only two studies, both of them were conducted in a Western context (Mullen et al., 2007; Saks and McCarthy, 2006). While the notion that certain interview questions (e.g. race, gender disabilities) are inappropriate or discriminatory is relatively well established in Western contexts,
394
PR 45,2
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
whether these questions will be perceived similarly in other socio-cultural contexts has not yet been verified. Therefore, another goal of this study is to address the gap in the existing research on applicant reactions to inappropriate interview questions within a developing economy context characterized by different social, cultural, and legal environment.
In brief, the present paper has two main objectives. First, it seeks to examine the influence of inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions on organizational attractiveness, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions using participants living and seeking employment in the UAE, a country characterized by social, cultural, and legal environment that are different from those prevailing in developed Western contexts. Second, and more importantly, this paper aims to shed further light on the mechanism through which inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions influence applicant organizational attractiveness, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions. Specifically, this paper seeks to understand the role of privacy invasion and fairness perceptions in explaining how inappropriate/ discriminatory interview questions influence applicant organizational attractiveness perceptions, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions.
Context of the present paper This paper focusses on the UAE for a number of reasons. The UAE is a country located in the Middle East, a region that we know little about its human resources practices and job applicant reactions (Budhwar and Mellahi, 2007; Mashood et al., 2009). The UAE has a unique labor force structure as well as business, cultural, and political environment (Al-Waqfi and Forstenlechner, 2012). More than 80 percent of the UAE’s labor force consists of expatriates coming from more than 100 nationalities that represent different races, cultures, ethnicities, languages, and religions (Central Intelligence Agency World Fact Book, 2014). The UAE is ranked as one of the top 30 most competitive countries in the world to do business in (Schwab et al., 2011). According to the World Bank, the UAE’s gross domestic product per capita has more than doubled over the last decade (World Bank, 2012). Because of the availability of relatively inexpensive skilled labor force, open economy, free trade zones offering 100 percent foreign ownership and zero taxes, and sophisticated infrastructure (Al-Suwaidi, 2011), the UAE has attracted a number of well-known international organizations and has become the regional corporate headquarters for a number of these organizations.
Like other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, the UAE suffers from a severe shortage of labor and therefore relies largely on foreign workers to maintain its rapid economic growth which is driven by increasing oil revenues over the past few decades (Al-Waqfi and Forstenlechner, 2014). To strengthen its economy and to mitigate the negative effects of oil price fluctuations, the UAE recently started to focus on diversifying its economy by investing in other sectors such tourism, financial services, and manufacturing. The labor policy regarding the foreign workers in the GCC countries follows the “guest worker” or “contract worker” model where foreign workers are hired on a temporary basis and are concentrated in jobs and economic sectors where local skills and expertise are lacking (Abdalla et al., 2010). To be eligible to work in the UAE, any foreign worker needs to be sponsored by his/her employer. The spouse and children of a foreign worker in the UAE are also eligible to apply for work within the country as long as they are sponsored by their spouse or a parent. Faced with heavy reliance on foreign workers, the UAE Government has introduced a policy of workforce localization (Al-Waqfi and Forstenlechner, 2014). The policy aims at
395
Role of privacy invasion
and fairness
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
reducing dependence on expatriate workers and creating job opportunities for the UAE citizens, especially in the thriving private sector. The UAE recent employment regulations also require employers to diversify their workforce so that no specific nationality dominates in any given organization. In such context, it is common for employers in the UAE to ask job applicants questions related to nationality and/or marital status which is normally considered inappropriate or discriminatory in other countries such as Canada and the USA.
Like many other countries in its region, the UAE does not have clear laws/guidelines regarding what is acceptable and unacceptable question/practice in the employment process. An exception to this is the case of gender discrimination which is prohibited by existing laws. Labor laws in the UAE prohibit discrimination in wages and employment conditions between males and females who are occupying the same job. Also, the UAE has ratified the International Labor Organization’s Equal Remuneration Convention in 1997 and the Discrimination Convention in 2001. However, recent research (Al-Waqfi and Al-faki, 2015) in the UAE indicate that females are still experiencing a clear disadvantage in the UAE labor market as they are on average less paid and have lower access to managerial jobs compared to males. Moreover, the participation rate of females in the UAE labor force is relatively low (22 percent).
As noted earlier, prior research (Mullen et al., 2007; Saks and McCarthy, 2006) on inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions were conducted in Western countries (e.g. Canada and USA) that have relatively well established and clear laws and guidelines about what is an appropriate or legal question in the employee selection process. However, it is not clear whether prior research findings are generalizable to other countries with different social, cultural, and legal environments because what might be considered illegal and/or inappropriate regarding employment interview questions in one country might be considered legal and/or acceptable in another country. Previous research showed that cultural factors such as cultural values and communication styles are associated with differences in fairness and privacy perceptions (Harris et al., 2003; Rustemli and Kokdemir, 1993). Moreover, a number of researchers have argued that HR practices based on Western contexts may not be applicable to other parts of the world (Caldas et al., 2011; Posthuma et al., 2014). Given that the legal and cultural contexts in the UAE are different from those in a Western context, it is possible that job applicants in the UAE might report different perceptions of and reactions to fairness and invasion of privacy than those reported by Western applicants.
Hypothesis development Effects of inappropriate interview questions on fairness and privacy invasion perceptions. Gilliland’s (1993) justice model and the literature on organizational privacy (Bies, 1993; Bies and Moag, 1986; Rosse et al., 1994; Stone and Stone, 1990) offer valuable theoretical grounds to understand the effect of inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions on applicant perceptions and behavioral reactions. Gilliland’s model is the dominant framework in the area of applicant reactions (Bauer et al., 2001; Hausknecht et al., 2004; Ryan and Ployhart, 2000). Gilliland (1993) utilized the broad organizational justice literature to build his model on applicant fairness perceptions and their consequences (Bies and Moag, 1986; Greenberg, 1986; Leventhal, 1980). In brief, Gilliland’s (1993) model proposes that when employers fulfill procedural justice rules (e.g. propriety of questions, job relatedness) and distributive justice rules (e.g. equity, equality) job applicants will report high-fairness perceptions, which in turn impact applicant
396
PR 45,2
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
organizational perceptions and behavioral reactions such as recommending the organization to others, accepting/rejecting a job offer, and pursuing litigation (Ababneh and Chhinzer, 2014; Hausknecht et al., 2004; Ryan and Ployhart, 2000).
From Gilliland’s (1993) model, the present paper focusses mainly on the propriety of question justice rule, which reflects the degree to which employers avoid inappropriate and prejudicial questions/statements during the selection process (Gilliland, 1993; Wallace et al., 2006). According to Gilliland, the propriety of question justice rule is an immediate antecedent of process fairness perceptions. Specifically, Gilliland (1993) maintains that procedures, statements, or questions that are inappropriate and prejudiced trigger negative effect on fairness perceptions because such practices violate applicants’ expectation of appropriate treatment and privacy rights. A number of empirical studies have supported Gilliland’s (1993) model regarding the association between propriety of questions and fairness perceptions (Anderson et al., 2010; Hausknecht et al., 2004; Ryan and Ployhart, 2000; Wallace et al., 2006).
Literature on organizational privacy also provides important insights for understanding applicant reactions to inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions. Central to the concept of privacy is that individuals seek to control the accessing to and sharing of their personal information (Rosse et al., 1994; Stone and Stone, 1990). In their model of organizational privacy, Stone and Stone (1990) suggest that individuals seek to guard their privacy by refraining from sharing personal information about themselves, especially information that is likely to result in negative consequences such as biased treatment (Stone and Kotch, 1989). Therefore, Stone and Stone (1990) indicate that applicants who are requested to disclose their personal information during an employment interview process are more likely to perceive that their privacy is invaded because they are losing control over their personal information. It is important to note here that even if job applicants share their private information during a job interview, such sharing should not mean that they are willingly do so (Stone-Romero et al., 2003).
While Gilliland’s (1993) model proposes that propriety of questions directly influences process fairness perceptions, other research on organizational privacy suggests that propriety of questions influences perceptions of privacy invasion (Bies, 1993; Rosenbaum, 1973; Stone and Stone, 1990), which in turn influence fairness perceptions (Alge, 2001; Bies, 1993; Eddy et al., 1999). For example, Bies (1993) integrated the literatures on justice and privacy and contended that certain questions during the staffing process evoke invasion of privacy perceptions, which in turn impact fairness perceptions. In other words, research on organizational privacy suggests that invasion of privacy fully mediate the effect of justice rules (e.g. relevancy and propriety of questions) on fairness perceptions (Eddy et al., 1999; McNall and Roch, 2007).
Prior empirical research has provided direct support for the theoretical suggestions that inappropriate/discriminatory questions influence applicant perceived invasion of privacy. Specifically, researchers who examined reactions to personality inventories (Ni and Hauenstein, 1998; Rosse et al., 1994; Simmons, 1968), biodata inventories (Stone and Jones, 1997), and drug tests (Stone and Kotch, 1989) demonstrated that when questions and/or items of a selection method are inappropriate and/or non-job related, applicants reported higher level of privacy invasion. For example, Rosenbaum (1973) demonstrated that questions related to religious beliefs and racial/ethnic background provoked perceptions of privacy invasion among job applicants.
Findings from empirical research also suggest that privacy perceptions mediate the relationship between the propriety of questions and fairness perceptions. Seeking
397
Role of privacy invasion
and fairness
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
to understand the effects of electronic performance monitoring and control systems, Alge (2001) integrated research on privacy and justice and demonstrated through an experimental study that perceptions of privacy invasion fully mediated the relationship between relevancy justice rule and process fairness perceptions. However, perceptions of privacy invasion partially mediated the relationship between participation justice rule and process fairness perceptions (Alge, 2001). In line with the above theoretical propositions and empirical findings, this paper offers the following hypothesis:
H1. Inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions will trigger invasion of privacy perceptions, which in turn negatively impact fairness perceptions. In other words, perceived invasiveness will fully mediate the relationship between inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions and fairness perceptions.
Effects of fairness on organizational attractiveness, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions In line with Gilliland’s model, this study also hypothesizes that perceived fairness is an important predictor of organizational outcomes. Specifically, Gilliland’s (1993) model proposes that favorable fairness perceptions of selection systems will result in favorable applicant perceptions and behavioral reactions, and unfavorable fairness perceptions will lead to unfavorable applicant perceptions and behavioral reactions. This is expected because individuals who experience fair treatment and fulfillment of justice rules are likely to reciprocate by exhibiting favorable reactions while those who experience unfair treatment and violations of justice rules are likely to reciprocate by engaging in unfavorable reactions (Hausknecht et al., 2004; Ryan and Ployhart, 2000). Truxillo and Bauer (1999) reported that organizational attractiveness was positively correlated with process fairness perceptions. Researchers also demonstrated that fairness perceptions were positively associated with intentions to recommend the organization to other job applicants (Ababneh et al., 2014; Bauer et al., 2001; Gilliland, 1994). Furthermore, researchers reported that perceptions of fairness are negatively related to complaints and pursuing legal actions against the employers (Ababneh et al., 2014; Goldman, 2001, 2003; Lind et al., 2000; Wallace et al., 2006). Accordingly, the following hypotheses are offered:
H2. Perceptions of process fairness will have positive relationship with (a) organizational attractiveness, (b) recommendation intentions, and negative relationship with (c) litigation intentions.
Effects of privacy invasion on fairness, organizational attractiveness, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions Researchers also proposed privacy invasion perceptions as predictor of important organizational outcomes, including organizational attractiveness (Arvey and Sackett, 1993; Bauer et al., 2006; Kuhn and Nielsen, 2008; Stoughton et al., 2015), applying for a job opening (Stone & Bowden, 1989), job acceptance/rejection (Bies, 1993), and organizational citizenship behavior (Alge et al., 2006). Likewise, researchers suggested that using appropriate staffing practices and avoiding invasive items/ questions could have stopped real legal problems (court cases) from taking place ( Jackson and Kovacheff, 1993; Sullivan and Arnold, 2000; Thibodeaux and Kudisch, 2003). Moreover, researchers also indicated that selection methods that are viewed as invasive or non-job related are more likely to lead to litigation intentions
398
PR 45,2
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
(Ababneh and Chhinzer, 2011; Cascio, 1991; Ni and Hauenstein, 1998; Stoughton et al., 2015; Wallace et al., 2006).
Seeking to understand applicant reactions to online screening procedures, Bauer et al. (2006) showed that perceptions of privacy invasion correlate negatively with organizational attraction, recommendation intentions, and test-taking motivation. More importantly, Bauer et al. (2006) demonstrated through the use of a laboratory design that the effect of concern for privacy on recommendation intentions is direct and indirect through process fairness perceptions, while the effect for privacy concern on test-taking motivation and organizational attraction is only indirect, through process fairness perceptions. Through the use of a field sample, Bauer et al. (2006) also demonstrated significant direct and indirect effects for privacy concern on recommendation intentions, test-taking motivation, and organizational attraction. Accordingly, this paper offers the following hypotheses:
H3. Invasion of privacy will directly and indirectly, through process fairness perceptions, influence (a) organizational attractiveness, (b) recommendation intentions, and (c) litigation intentions.
In brief, based on Gilliland’s (1993) justice model, Stone and Stone’s (1990) privacy model, and other related research, the current paper proposes and tests the model presented in Figure 1. As shown, the proposed model suggests that inappropriate/ discriminatory interview questions influence perceptions of privacy invasion, which in turn influence fairness perceptions and organizational outcomes, including organizational attractiveness, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions.
The proposed model also suggests that fairness perceptions predict organizational outcomes. Stated differently, the proposed model posits that perceptions of privacy invasion will fully mediate the effect of inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions on fairness perceptions, which in turns partially mediate the effect of perceptions of privacy invasion on applicant organizational attractiveness and behavioral intentions.
Effects of gender in the employment interview A good number of studies have been conducted on the effects of the interviewer and the interviewee gender in the employment interview (McCarthy et al., 2010). Although some studies found some effects for the interviewer and interviewee gender (Harris, 1989; Saks and McCarthy, 2006), most of the studies (Goldberg, 2005; McCarthy et al., 2010; Sacco et al., 2003) reported that the effects are very small or non-significant. Because of the inconclusive results regarding the gender effects in the employment interview, we decided to examine the effects of the interviewer and interviewee gender in our study but without offering any specific hypotheses.
Org. Attractiveness Recommendation Litigation
Perceptions of Privacy Invasion
Inappropriate/Discriminatory Interview Questions
Fairness Perceptions
Figure 1. Effects of privacy and fairness on
applicant reactions
399
Role of privacy invasion
and fairness
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
Method Participants Senior undergraduate students (n ¼ 232) who were living and actively seeking or about to seek jobs in the UAE participated in this study. Specifically, at the time of completing the study, participants reported the following job search status: actively seeking jobs (49 percent), planning to seek jobs within nine months (36 percent), and planning to seek jobs in more than nine months (15 percent). All participants were recruited from management classes at a midsize university in the UAE and completed the study as part of an in class exercise. Due to incomplete data and/or not correctly answering the manipulation questions, 11 participants were excluded from the final analyses. An examination of the excluded cases did not reveal any systematic pattern in the incomplete responses. The final sample (n ¼ 221) consisted of 64 percent males; 19 percent UAE nationals, 31 percent other Arabs (e.g. Egyptian, Jordanian, Lebanese, Syrian), 15 percent Indian/Pakistani, 7 percent European or American, 6 percent Iranian, with the remaining (21 percent) reporting other nationalities. The participants’ mean age was 20.83 years (SD ¼ 1.73).
Design This study employed a methodology similar to the one used by Saks and McCarthy (2006). Specifically, our study used a 2 (inappropriate/discriminatory questions: interview with vs interview without inappropriate/discriminatory questions) × 2 (gender of the interviewer: male vs female) between-subjects factorial design. With respect to the interview discriminatory questions, half of the participants were randomly assigned to an experimental condition that includes four inappropriate/ discriminatory interview questions (nationality, handicaps, plans for marriage and children, and arrest record) and six non-discriminatory questions. The other half were assigned to a control condition that has ten non-discriminatory interview questions (Saks and McCarthy, 2006). The ten questions asked in each interview condition are shown in the Appendix. The interviewer’s gender was manipulated by referring to the human resource manager as either Mark Anderson or Mary Anderson (see detail in the procedure section below).
It is important to note here that the current study design is different from Saks and McCarthy’s study in two aspects. First, our study did not include the condition with two discriminatory interview questions because this condition generated a negative effect only on job applicant acceptance intentions, an outcome variable that is not examined in our paper. Second, we decided to include nationality in our study because employers in the UAE often asked questions related to the nationality of the job applicants (Ababneh and Chhinzer, 2014). We did not include age as inappropriate interview question because it is less likely to be perceived as inappropriate or discriminatory by young participants (our target sample consists of young undergraduate students whose age is under 25 years).
Procedures Oral presentations and a cover letter were used to explain the purpose of this study and to guarantee the anonymity of responses (no names or code numbers were used in the survey). Upon agreeing to participate, individuals randomly received a package that represents one of the two conditions of the current study. Each package has the following components: the cover letter/consent form; a written page describing a
400
PR 45,2
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
hypothetical employer (XYZ Organization) operating in the UAE; written manipulated interview questions; study measures; and demographic and work-related questions.
After completing the consent form, participants were instructed to read a written page describing a hypothetical organization, named XYZ Organization. The written page described XYZ Organization as a successful and growing organization which was looking for senior undergraduate students for various positions in all areas including accounting, marketing, finance, human resource management, manufacturing, and so on. Participants then were asked to imagine that they have just applied for a position that they are interested in with XYZ Organization and to imagine that after a reasonable amount of time from submitting their application at XYZ, they were invited for a job interview. Upon arrival for XYZ Organization interview, the participants were asked by the receptionist to take a seat. A few minutes later, XYZ’s human resources manager Mark Anderson (Mary Anderson) approached each candidate individually and introduced himself (herself) to the candidate. Once in his (her) office, the human resource manager thanked the candidate for coming and explained that XYZ Organization is growing and currently recruiting people for a number of positions.
Once the participants read the above description and instructions, they were asked to act as if they were actually being interviewed for a real job at XYZ Organization and to answer in writing the ten assigned interview questions on the following pages as if they were in an actual job interview. After answering the questions, the participants read a text in which XYZ’s human resource manager thanked the job candidates for coming to the interview and their interest in XYZ Organization. Next, participants completed the rest of the study measures and the questions regarding their demographic and work-related experiences.
Measures All the measures used in this study came from previous relevant research. Participants answered each item using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from, (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. Total scores were derived by averaging the sum of the items relevant for each scale. Higher values indicated greater levels of the measured construct.
Propriety of the interview questions. Two items adapted from Bauer et al. (2001) were used to assess the appropriateness of the intervew questions: “The content of the interview seemed appropriate” and “The content of the interview did not appear to be prejudiced.”
Invasion of privacy. Three items adapted from Kuhn and Nielsen (2008) were used to measure invasion of privacy: “Some of XYZ Organization’s interview questions invaded my privacy,” “I would feel personally invaded by XYZ Organization’s interview questions,” and “XYZ Organization’s interview questions respect applicants’ privacy rights” (reverse scored).
Interview fairness. Four items adapted from Bauer et al. (2001) and Gilliland (1994) were used to measure interview fairness, including: “I feel the use of the interview by XYZ was fair,” and “Overall, I believe that the use of the interview was fair.”
Organizational attractiveness. Two items adapted from Saks and McCarthy (2006) were used to measure organizational attractiveness: “I would be very pleased to have a job at an organization like XYZ,” and “XYZ is not the kind of organization that I would like to work for” (reverse scored).
Intention to recommend the organization. Two items adapted from Saks and McCarthy (2006) were used to measure recommendation intentions: “I would
401
Role of privacy invasion
and fairness
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
recommend XYZ to a friend who is looking for a job,” and “I would not suggest XYZ to my friends as an organization to work for” (reverse scored).
Litigation intentions. Three items adapted from Seitz et al. (2001) were used to measure litigation intentions: “I think applicants might sue an organization that uses interview questions like the ones used by XYZ Organization,” and “I would be more likely to sue an organization that uses interview questions like the ones XYZ Organization uses than one that does not.”
Results Preliminary analysis Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and χ2 tests were first performed to ensure equivalence of participants in the two study conditions in terms of age, gender, nationality, and education major. The analyses revealed no significant differences among participants across the two conditions on these variables. Also, our preliminary analyses revealed no significant effects for gender, nationality, and education on the dependent variables of this study. Hence, these variables were not included in the final analyses. However, ANOVA analysis revealed that age has significant effects on organizational attractiveness and recommendation intentions. Compared with younger applicants, older applicants were less likely to recommend the organization for other applicants and were also less likely to view the organization as attractive. Therefore, we controlled for age in our final analyses. Table I provides the descriptive statistics of the main variables of this study.
To confirm our manipulation of the appropriateness of the interview questions, we conducted ANOVA. The analysis confirmed that the interview that included the four inappropriate interview questions (M ¼ 5.07) was rated less appropriate than the interview that did not include the inappropriate interview questions (M ¼ 5.81; F (1,219) ¼ 20.48, po0.001). However, despite the significant effect of this study appropriateness manipulation, both groups reported relatively high means. A potential explanation for the high mean in the experimental group is the fact that some of the inappropriate questions (e.g. nationality, marital status) used in our experimental group are relatively common in the UAE. Steiner and Gilliland (1996) indicated that job applicants in a specific country are less likely to react negatively to inappropriate selection practices if such practices are widely used in that country.
We conducted multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to examine whether the interviewer gender, interviewee gender, and inappropriate/discriminatory interview question conditions (independent variables) interact to predict the dependent variables of our study. The results of MANOVA did not reveal any main effects for the interviewer nor the interview gender. The results of MANOVA also did not reveal any significant two-way effects (between interviewee/interviewer gender and discriminatory questions) nor any three-way effects (between discriminatory questions, interviewer gender, and interviewee gender). The only significant effect found was for the inappropriate/discriminatory questions manipulation ( po0.001). Similar to Saks and McCarthy’s finding, our results indicate that the inappropriate/ discriminatory interview questions influence applicant reactions regardless of the interviewer or the interviewee gender.
Following Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step approach, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were first conducted for the main study variables. Next, the structures of the proposed and alternative models were evaluated. To assess all the tested models,
402
PR 45,2
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
V ar ia bl es
M ea n
SD 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8
1. In va si on
of pr iv ac y
3. 17
1. 77
(0 .8 0)
2. P ro ce ss
fa ir ne ss
5. 33
1. 27
– 0. 62 **
(0 .9 3)
3. O rg an iz at io na l at tr ac ti ve ne ss
5. 47
1. 39
– 0. 31 **
0. 49 **
(0 .8 4)
4. R ec om
m en da ti on
in te nt io ns
5. 51
1. 06
– 0. 23 **
0. 36 **
0. 50 **
(0 .6 0)
5. L it ig at io n in te nt io ns
2. 48
1. 45
0. 64 **
– 0. 60 **
– 0. 34 **
– 0. 36 **
(0 .7 9)
6. In ap pr op ri at e/ di sc ri m in at or y in te rv ie w
qu es ti on sa
0. 49
0. 50
0. 49 **
– 0. 33 **
– 0. 12
– 0. 12
0. 39 **
– 7. In te rv ie w er
ge nd
er b
0. 53
0. 50
– 0. 03
– 0. 05
0. 04
– 0. 03
– 0. 02
0. 02
– 8. In te rv ie w ee
ag e
20 .8 3
1. 73
0. 06
0. 03
– 0. 16
– 0. 15
0. 03
– 0. 01
– 0. 07
–
N o te s:
n ¼ 22 1.
R el ia bi lit ie s ar e in
pa re nt he se s al on g th e di ag on al . a In ap pr op ri at e/ di sc ri m in at or y in te rv ie w
qu es ti on s:
1 ¼ in ap pr op ri at e/ di sc ri m in at or y
in te rv ie w
qu es ti on s, 0 ¼ ap pr op ri at e in te rv ie w
qu es ti on s;
b in te rv ie w er
ge nd
er :1
¼ m al e, 0 ¼ fe m al e. *p
o 0. 05 ;* *p
o 0. 01
Table I. Means, standard
deviations, reliabilities, and
correlations for the major variables
403
Role of privacy invasion
and fairness
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
this paper used the χ2 and change in χ2 statistic, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR), the comparative fit index (CFI), and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012; Hu and Bentler, 1999; McDonald and Ho, 2002). Following Hu and Bentler’s (1999) recommendations, this paper uses a RMSEA cut-off value of 0.06 or less, CFI and TLI values of 0.95 or higher, and a SRMR cut-off value of 0.08 or less.
Results of CFA To confirm the distinctiveness of the variables, a series of CFAs using AMOS 20 (Arbuckle, 2011) were conducted. Specifically, a five-factor oblique baseline model was compared to three alterative models. The baseline model consists of five distinct constructs: fairness perceptions, privacy invasion perceptions, organizational attractiveness, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions. As shown in Table II, relative to the three alternative measurement models, the baseline model produced the best fit indices ( χ2 (67) ¼ 114.72, po0.001; RMSEA ¼ 0.06, SRMR ¼ 0.04, CFI ¼ 0.97, TLI ¼ 0.97). Moreover, each item in the baseline model loaded significantly ( po0.001, from 0.57 to 0.93) onto its own latent factor.
Results of structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses To evaluate the proposed model (Figure 1), SEM and bootstrapping via AMOS 20 (Arbuckle, 2011) were used. Given an acceptable ratio of sample size to parameter estimates, latent variables (each construct was represented by all of its indicators) were used to evaluate all the tested models in this study. Because of the moderate correlation between organizational attractiveness and recommendation intentions (r ¼ 0.50), the residual errors of these two constructs were allowed to correlate in all the tested models (Bauer et al., 2006). Since our preliminary analysis revealed that age has significant effects on organizational attractiveness and recommendation intentions, we controlled for age in all the models that we tested in this paper.
As shown in Table III, the proposed model results provide a very good fit for the data ( χ2 (92) ¼ 135.70, po0.001; RMSEA ¼ 0.05, SRMR ¼ 0.04, CFI ¼ 0.98, TLI ¼ 0.97). To determine whether the proposed model (see Figure 2) presents the best fit for the data, and to evaluate the hypothesized mediation effects, the proposed model was compared to three alternative models that either deleted paths from the proposed model or added paths to the proposed model. Alternative Model 1 is identical to the proposed model (Figure 2), except for the addition of a direct path from the inappropriate/ discriminatory interview questions to fairness perceptions. By including this direct path, Alternative Model 1 suggests that privacy perceptions partially mediate (rather than fully mediate as suggested in the proposed model) the relationship between inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions and fairness perceptions.
Alternative Model 2 is identical to the proposed model (see Figure 2), except for the addition of three direct paths from the inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions to organizational attractiveness; recommendation intentions; and litigation intentions. By adding these three direct paths, Alternative Model 2 suggests that privacy perceptions partially mediate (rather than fully mediated as suggested in the proposed model) the relationship between inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions and organizational outcome. The SEM results (see Table III) demonstrated that none of the paths added in Alternative Model 1 or in Alternative Model 2 was significant. Moreover, neither Alternative Model 1 nor Alternative Model 2 significantly improved the fit indices over those of the proposed model.
404
PR 45,2
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
M od el
F ac to r
χ2 Δ χ2
a df
Δ df
a R M SE
A SR
M R
C F I
T L I
B as el in e
m od el
F iv e ob liq
ue fa ct or
m od el :f ai rn es s, pr iv ac y,
or ga ni za ti on
at tr ac ti ve ne ss ,
re co m m en da ti on s, an d lit ig at io ns
11 4. 72
– 67
– 0. 06
0. 04
0. 97
0. 97
M od el 1
F ou r ob liq
ue fa ct or
m od el :t he
co m bi na ti on
of fa ir ne ss
an d pr iv ac y;
or ga ni za ti on
at tr ac ti ve ne ss ,r ec om
m en da ti on s, an d lit ig at io ns
24 5. 93
13 1. 21 ** *
71 4
0. 11
0. 07
0. 91
0. 88
M od el 2
T w o or th og on al fa ct or
m od el :t he
co m bi na ti on
of fa ir ne ss
an d pr iv ac y; th e co m bi na ti on
of or ga ni za ti on al
at tr ac ti ve ne ss ,r ec om
m en da ti on s, an d lit ig at io ns
45 2. 05
33 7. 33 ** *
76 9
0. 15
0. 09
0. 80
0. 76
M od el 3
O ne
fa ct or
m od el :a ll it em
s gr ou pe d un
de r a si ng
le fa ct or
52 4. 87
41 0. 15 ** *
77 10
0. 16
0. 10
0. 76
0. 71
N o te s:
a T he se
va lu es
re pr es en t th e di ff er en ce
in χ2
an d df
be tw
ee n th e ne st ed
m od el
an d th e fi ve -f ac to r ob liq
ue m od el
(b as el in e m od el ). Si gn
if ic an t Δ χ2
in di ca te s th at
th e fi ve
ob liq
ue fa ct or
m od el (b as el in e m od el ) pr ov id es
a be tt er
fi t th an
th e al te rn at iv e m od el s. ** *p
o 0. 00 1
Table II. Comparison of measurement models for the study variables
405
Role of privacy invasion
and fairness
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
M od el
F ac to r
χ2 Δ χ2
df Δ df
a R M SE
A SR
M R
C F I
T L I
P ro po se d
m od el
P ro po se d m od el
(F ig ur e 1)
13 5. 70
– 92
– 0. 05
0. 04
0. 98
0. 97
A lt er na ti ve
M od el 1
Id en ti ca l to
th e pr op os ed
m od el ,b
ut an
ad di ti on al
di re ct
pa th
fr om
in ap pr op ri at e/
di sc ri m in at or y in te rv ie w
qu es ti on s to
fa ir ne ss
pe rc ep ti on s w as
ad de d
13 4. 26
− 1. 44
a 91
1 0. 05
0. 04
0. 98
0. 97
A lt er na ti ve
M od el 2
Id en ti ca l to
th e pr op os ed
m od el ,b
ut th re e ad di ti on al
di re ct
pa th s fr om
in ap pr op ri at e/
di sc ri m in at or y in te rv ie w qu
es ti on s to
or ga ni za ti on
at tr ac ti ve ne ss ,r ec om
m en da ti on s, an d
lit ig at io ns
w er e ad de d
13 5. 32
− 0. 38
a 89
3 0. 05
0. 04
0. 98
0. 96
A lt er na ti ve
M od el 3
Sa m e as
th e pr op os ed
m od el ,b
ut th e di re ct
pa th s fr om
pr iv ac y in va si on
to or ga ni za ti on
at tr ac ti ve ne ss ,r ec om
m en da ti on s, an d lit ig at io ns
w er e de le te d
18 1. 02
45 .3 2a
95 3
0. 06
0. 06
0. 96
0. 94
A lt er na ti ve
M od el 4
Sa m e as
th e pr op os ed
m od el ,b
ut pr iv ac y in va si on
is no t in cl ud
ed .A
n ad di ti on al
di re ct
pa th
fr om
in ap pr op ri at e/ di sc ri m in at or y in te rv ie w
qu es ti on s to
fa ir ne ss
pe rc ep ti on s w as
ad de d
91 .8 2
43 .8 8a
58 34
0. 08
0. 05
0. 95
0. 91
N o te : a T he se
va lu es
re pr es en t th e di ff er en ce
in χ2
an d df
be tw
ee n th e pr op os ed
m od el an d th e al te rn at iv e m od el s
Table III. Results of structural equation analyses for the hypothesized model (Figure 1) and the four alternatives (Models 1, 2, 3, and 4)
406
PR 45,2
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
To determine whether the proposed model (Figure 2) presents the most parsimonious representation of the data, the proposed model was compared to Alternative Model 3, which is identical to the proposed model except for the deletion of the three direct paths from privacy invasion to organizational attractiveness; recommendation intentions; and litigation intentions. As shown in Table III, deleting the direct paths from privacy invasion to organizational outcomes, as suggested in Alternative Model 3, significantly worsen the model fit indices relative to the proposed model. In brief, the results of the above three alternative models suggest that the proposed model as reflected in Figure 2 presents the best representation for the data.
To strengthen our findings, we also tested a fourth alternative model that completely deletes the privacy invasion factor from our proposed model. As shown in Table III, Alternative Model 4 has inferior fit indices in comparison to our proposed model. More importantly, when we did not include the privacy invasion factor, the explained variance in fairness perceptions dropped significantly from 0.53 to 0.12. Similarly, the explained variance in litigation intentions dropped from 0.66 to 0.49. The explained variance in both organizational attractiveness and recommendation intentions also dropped but in very small magnitude (less than 0.02).
Hypothesis testing To test the significance of the indirect effect predicted in H1, AMOS procedures were used to produce the point estimate for the standardized indirect effect and its 95 percent bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). The AMOS results revealed that the point estimate for the indirect effect for the inappropriate/ discriminatory questions on process fairness via privacy invasion is −0.384, with a 95 percent bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval of −0.495- −0.314. The bootstrapping results, together with the non-significant path found in Alternative Model 1 between inappropriate/discriminatory questions and process fairness, suggest that privacy invasion fully mediated the relationship between the inappropriate interview questions and process fairness. Accordingly, these results provide support for H1.
As reflected in Figure 2, the standardized coefficients of the proposed model show that participants’ fairness perceptions have significant direct effects on organizational
Inappropriate/ Discriminatory Interview Questions
Privacy Invasion
Process Fairness Perceptions
Organizational Attractiveness
Recommendation Intentions
Litigation Intentions
–0.73***
(0.28)
0.05
–0.25***
0.61***
0.70***
19
0.56***
(0.53) (0.37)
(0.31)
(0.66)
0.53***
Notes: Significant paths indicated with a solid line and non-significant paths indicated with a dashed line; explained variance are reported in brackets. *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
Figure 2. Standardized
coefficients for the proposed model results
407
Role of privacy invasion
and fairness
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
attractiveness ( β ¼ 0.70, po0.001), recommendation intentions ( β ¼ 0.56, po0.001), and litigation intentions ( β ¼ −0.25, po0.01). Hence, these findings support H2a-2c.
To test the mediation predicted in H3a-3c, AMOS procedures were used to produce the point estimates for the standardized indirect effects and their 95 percent bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals. The AMOS results for the proposed model reveal that the point estimate for the indirect effect for privacy invasion on organizational attractiveness via process fairness is –0.514, with a 95 percent bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval of −0.747- −0.390; the point estimate for the indirect effect for privacy invasion on recommendation intentions via process fairness is −0.406, with a 95 percent bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval of −0.621- −0.196; the point estimate for the indirect effect for privacy invasion on litigation intentions via process fairness is 0.184, with a 95 percent bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval of 0.048-0.308. As the above confidence intervals do not include zero, the bootstrapping results suggest that process fairness perceptions mediate the effect of privacy invasion on organizational attractiveness, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions. Based on these bootstrapping results and the significant direct effect (see Figure 2) for privacy invasion on litigation intentions, it can be concluded that process fairness partially mediate the effect of privacy invasion on litigation intentions. Accordingly, these results provide support for H3c. Similarly, based on the above bootstrapping results and the non-significant direct effects (see Figure 2) for privacy on organizational attractiveness and recommendation intentions, it can be concluded that process fairness fully mediate (rather than partially mediate as predicted in the proposed model) the effects of privacy invasion on organizational attractiveness and recommendation intentions. Accordingly, H3a and 3b are not supported.
Discussion This paper contributes to the literature on employment interview and job applicant reactions in a number of ways. First, results of this paper support Saks and McCarthy’s (2006) findings by demonstrating the negative effects of inappropriate interview questions on fairness perceptions, organizational perceptions, and recommendation intentions in a non-Western context. Second, results of this study extends Saks and McCarthy’s (2006) findings by showing the negative effects of inappropriate interview questions on privacy invasion perceptions and litigation intentions. Since the UAE does not have clear legislation or guidelines on what would be considered legal or illegal interview questions, this paper indicates that applicant negative reactions toward inappropriate interview questions take place regardless of the presence or absence of clear laws that forbid asking such questions. This is a very important finding because one might expect that the negative effects of inappropriate/discriminatory questions would not take place in absence of clear legislation that makes it illegal for employers to ask such questions.
Third, and most importantly, this study further highlights the mechanism through which inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions influence applicants’ organizational attractiveness, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions. Particularly, our findings show that inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions trigger privacy invasion perceptions, which in turn influence fairness perceptions. Fairness perceptions, in turn, influence applicant organizational attractiveness, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions. Our findings also show that privacy invasion perceptions directly and indirectly, via fairness perceptions, influence litigation intentions. However, instead of the predicted partial mediation, the results of this study demonstrate that fairness perceptions fully mediate the effect of privacy on
408
PR 45,2
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
organizational attractiveness and recommendation intentions. These findings suggest that privacy invasion and fairness perceptions are very important constructs to understand the process in which inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions influence applicants’ organizational perceptions and behavioral intentions.
Theoretical implications While prior studies focussed on the role of fairness in understanding applicant reactions to inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions (Saks and McCarthy, 2006), our study is the first to demonstrate the role of privacy invasion in understanding applicant reactions to inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions. In particular, the results of this paper show that privacy and fairness perceptions are different constructs and should be treated accordingly. This result is in line with researchers who argue that although privacy and fairness are related they are different constructs (e.g. Stone-Romero et al., 2003). Our findings also show that privacy invasion precedes and influences process fairness perceptions. Moreover, results of our model demonstrate that by including privacy invasion the explained variance in fairness perceptions and litigation intentions was enhanced significantly compared to an alternative model that excluded privacy invasion.
Although it might be argued that inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions will trigger negative applicant reactions only when there are specific rules and regulations that clearly forbid and penalize asking such questions, findings of our study demonstrate that even in a context where rules or guidelines that forbid inappropriate/ discriminatory interview questions are unclear or lacking, as it is the case in the UAE, asking inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions elicit less favorable perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions among job applicants. However, it is worth noting that although the findings of our study show that inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions significantly increased applicants’ intentions to pursue legal complaints, the participants in our study reported relatively low intentions to pursue litigations. This low-litigation intentions might be explained by the potential lack of utility from pursuing litigation within the UAE context. Specifically, legislations in the UAE and other countries in the GCC region compensate victims of discrimination/unlawful treatment for actual damages only but do not recognize compensation for punitive damages (compensation that goes beyond the actual damages and intend to deter defendants from engaging in discriminatory behavior) like the case of the USA and some other Western countries. In addition, the litigation process in the UAE and other countries in the GCC region is relatively lengthy. Moreover, individuals who engage in litigation might face difficulties in securing new jobs with other employers.
Therefore, a potential explanation for the low-litigation intentions among our participants is the lack of perceived instrumentality of litigation and the low-expected value of the outcome that would be gained from engaging in litigation within the UAE context. The expectancy theory informs us that “the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual” (Lawler, 1973, p. 45). Accordingly, one would expect high-litigation intentions among victims of discrimination in contexts where strict laws against discrimination are applied and where relatively high compensation for victims can also be expected as is the case in the US context.
Another potential explanation for finding low-litigation intentions in our study is the collectivist and tribal cultural norms of Emiratis that make them more prone toward conciliatory measures and avoidance of conflict ( Jones, 2008). In the case of non-Emiratis,
409
Role of privacy invasion
and fairness
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
the low-litigation intentions might be caused by the transitory nature of their status in the country and lack of perceived utility from pursuing legal action as discussed above.
Practical implications Removing the inappropriate/discriminatory questions from the employment interview is necessary to eliminate the negative consequences of asking such questions on applicants’ perceptions, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions (Saks and McCarthy, 2006). Although this study did not examine why inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions might be asked in the UAE context, the findings of this study suggest that applicant negative reactions toward inappropriate interview questions take place regardless of the presence or absence of clear regulations that outlaw asking such questions. Thus, this study recommends that organizations educate and train their interviewers to avoid asking any question that is likely to be perceived by job applicants as invasive, illegal, inappropriate, and/or discriminatory (Saks and McCarthy, 2006). It is worth noting here that prior research has reported that less than 35 percent of interviewers were trained to conduct a job interview (Chapman and Zweig, 2005).
Though it might be practically important for employers in the UAE context to ask questions related to nationality, marital status, and so on to obtain visas for foreign workers or to fulfill a recent UAE “cultural diversity” policy, we recommend that managers and HR practitioners ask such questions in separate step in the selection process. For example, in North America, information on race, disabilities, gender, or marital status of applicants are often collected after the hiring decision is made or collected in a way that does not impact the hiring decision. More importantly, when data are collected on race, gender, disabilities, marital status, and nationalities of applicants, the data must not be available to any person who is involved in making the hiring decision.
We also recommend that managers and HR practitioners provide job applicants with clear justification/explanations for why the employer is asking such potentially inappropriate questions. Research in North America has demonstrated that providing job applicants with explanation/justification for why inappropriate selection procedures have been used mitigates applicants’ negative reactions (Truxillo et al., 2009).
Limitations Although the present paper enhances our understanding of applicant reactions to inappropriate interview questions and the role of privacy invasion and fairness in explaining these reactions, a number of limitations should be noted. First, the generalizability of our findings could be limited because of using scenario-based staffing situations. However, scenario-based approach was employed in this paper for several reasons. First, the study aimed to determine whether the effects hypothesized would be established under controlled settings. Second, our study responded to researchers who call for more experimental studies on privacy and applicant reactions (Chan et al., 1998; Ryan and Ployhart, 2000; Stone-Romero et al., 2003). Third, the scenario approach was used because ethical considerations inhibit manipulating the interview selection procedures with a “real-world” organization and “real-world” applicants as done in this study. Fourth, organizations are unwilling to participate in experimental studies as the one conducted in this study because they are afraid of legal consequences (Gilliland, 1993). To minimize the limitation of using scenario approach, we recruited senior undergraduate students who were seeking employment or about to seek employment and asked them through written and oral presentations to complete all of the relevant materials as if they were experiencing an actual organizational staffing process.
410
PR 45,2
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
Second, the results of this study may be limited in that it measured job applicant intentions rather than their actual behaviors. Thus, it can be potentially argued that there might be differences between what applicants intend to do and what they actually do. However, the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) proposes behavioral intention as the best predictor of individuals’ behavior. Research from different context provide results that support TRA proposition (Armitage and Conner, 2001; Vinokur and Caplan, 1987).
Future research In addition to the research ideas noted above, future research need to address why interviewers ask inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions. Finding why these questions are asked in the first place will surely help organizations eliminating the negative consequences of the inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions. In our paper, we examined the effects of four inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions together. However, the effect could be generated from one question or a combination of two questions. Therefore, future research should examine the effect of each inappropriate question separately and the effects of combing two or three questions (Saks and McCarthy, 2006). While our paper focussed on understanding the effects of inappropriate interview question on applicants’ attitudes, perceptions, and behavioral intentions, future research should also focus on understanding applicants’ actual behavior.
Finally, there is little research on how the employment interview is conducted in different parts of the world. We believe that studies on cross-national comparisons are needed to highlight how national culture and legal systems influence the employment interview practices and job applicant reactions (Posthuma et al., 2014).
Note 1. Although many researchers and legislative bodies in Western countries label questions
related to age, nationality, marital status, arrest records, and disabilities as discriminatory or illegal questions, this paper labels these questions as inappropriate because there are no clear laws/guidelines in many developing economies including the UAE regarding which of these questions are illegal/discriminatory.
References
Ababneh, K.I. and Chhinzer, N. (2011), “The antecedents and consequences of fairness reactions to personal selections methods: a Canadian study”, paper presented at the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Annual Conference, Montreal, July 2-5.
Ababneh, K.I. and Chhinzer, N. (2014), “Job applicant reactions to selection methods in the United Arab Emirates (UAE)”, International Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 32-48.
Ababneh, K.I., Hackett, R.D. and Schat, A.C. (2014), “The role of attributions and fairness in understanding job applicant reactions to selection procedures and decisions”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 111-129.
Abdalla, I.M., Al‐Waqfi, M.A, Harb, N., Hijazi, R.H. and Zoubeidi, T. (2010), “Labour policy and determinants of employment and wages in a developing economy with labour shortage”, Labour, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 163-177.
Alge, B.J. (2001), “Effects of computer surveillance on perceptions of privacy and procedural justice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 797-804.
411
Role of privacy invasion
and fairness
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
Alge, B.J., Ballinger, G.A., Tangirala, S. and Oakley, J.L. (2006), “Information privacy in organizations: empowering creative and extrarole performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 221-232.
Al-Suwaidi, A. (2011), “The United Arab Emirates at 40: a balance sheet”, Middle East Policy, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 44-58.
Al-Waqfi, M.A. and Al-faki, A. (2015), “Gender-based differences in employment conditions of local and expatriate workers in the GCC context: empirical evidence from the United Arab Emirates”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 397-415.
Al-Waqfi, M.A. and Forstenlechner, I. (2012), “Of private sector fear and prejudice: the case of young citizens in an oil-rich Arabian Gulf economy”, Personnel Review, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 609-629.
Al-Waqfi, M.A. and Forstenlechner, I. (2014), “Barriers to Emiratization: the role of policy design and institutional environment in determining the effectiveness of emiratization”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 167-189.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Anderson, N. and Witvliet, C. (2008), “Fairness reactions to personnel selection methods: an international comparison between the Netherlands, the United States, France, Spain, Portugal, and Singapore”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Anderson, N., Salgado, J.F. and Hulsheger, U.R. (2010), “Applicant reactions in selection: comprehensive meta-analysis into reaction generalization versus situational specificity”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 291-304.
Arbuckle, J.L. (2011), Amos (Version 20) [Computer Program], SPSS, Chicago, IL.
Armitage, C.J. and Conner, M. (2001), “Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 471-499.
Arvey, R.D. and Sackett, P.R. (1993), “Fairness in selection: current developments and perspectives”, in Schmitt, N. and Borman, W. (Eds), Personnel Selection, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 171-202.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (2012), “Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 8-34.
Bauer, T.N., Truxillo, D.M., Sanchez, R.J., Craig, J.M., Ferrara, P. and Campion, M.A. (2001), “Applicant reactions to selection: development of the selection procedural justice scale (SPJS)”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 387-419.
Bauer, T.N., Truxillo, D.M., Tucker, J.S., Weathers, V., Bertolino, M., Erdogan, B. and Campion, M.A. (2006), “Selection in the information age: the impact of privacy concerns and computer experience on applicant reactions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 601-621.
Bennington, L. (2001), “Age discrimination: converging evidence from four Australian studies”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 125-134.
Bies, R.J. (1993), “Privacy and procedural justice in organizations”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 69-86.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”, in Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (Eds), Research on Negotiations in Organizations, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55.
Bloch, J. (2011), “Teaching job interviewing skills with the help of television shows”, Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 7-21.
412
PR 45,2
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
Blommaert, L., Coenders, M. and van Tubergen, F. (2014), “Ethnic discrimination in recruitment and decision makers’ features: evidence from laboratory experiment and survey data using a student sample”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 116 No. 3, pp. 731-754.
Breaugh, J.A. and Starke, M. (2000), “Research on employee recruitments so many studies, so many remaining questions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 405-434.
Budhwar, P. and Mellahi, K. (2007), “Introduction: human resource management in the Middle East”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 2-10.
Caldas, M.P., Tonelli, M.J. and Lacombe, B.M.B. (2011), “IHRM in developing countries: does the functionalist vs critical debate make sense South of the Equator?”, BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 433-453.
Carlsson, M. and Rooth, D.O. (2007), “Evidence of ethnic discrimination in the Swedish labor market using experimental data”, Labour Economics, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 716-729.
Cascio, W.F. (1991), Applied Psychology in Personnel Management, 4th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook (2014), “United Arab Emirate”, available at: www. cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ae.html (accessed April 15, 2015).
Chan, D., Schmitt, N., Sacco, J.M. and DeShon, R.P. (1998), “Understanding pretest and posttest reactions to cognitive ability and personality tests”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 471-485.
Chapman, D.S. and Zweig, D.I. (2005), “Developing a nomological network for interview structure: antecedents and consequences of the structured selection interview”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 673-702.
Clarke, R. (1999), “None of their business – questions that should not be asked in job interviews”, Black Enterprise, Vol. 30 No. 2, p. 65.
Conway, J.M. and Peneno, G.M. (1999), “Comparing structured interview question types: construct validity and applicant reactions”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 485-506.
Dipboye, R.L., Macan, T. and Shahani-Denning, C. (2012), “The selection interview from the interviewer and applicants perspective: can't have one without the other”, in Schmitt, N. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Selection and Assessment, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 323-352.
Eddy, E.R., Stone, D.L. and Stone-Romero, E.E. (1999), “The effects of information management policies on reactions to human resource information systems: an integration of privacy and procedural justice perspectives”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 335-358.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Gilliland, S.W. (1993), “The perceived fairness of selection systems – an organizational justice perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 694-734.
Gilliland, S.W. (1994), “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 5, pp. 691-701.
Gilliland, S.W. (1995), “Fairness from the applicants perspective – reactions to employee selection procedures”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 11-19.
Goldberg, C.B. (2003), “Applicant reactions to the employment interview: a look at demographic similarity and social identity theory”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 561-571.
413
Role of privacy invasion
and fairness
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
Goldberg, C.B. (2005), “Relational demography and similarity-attraction in interview assessments and subsequent offer decisions are we missing something?”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 597-624.
Goldman, B.M. (2001), “Toward an understanding of employment discrimination claiming: an integration of organizational justice and social information processing theories”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 361-386.
Goldman, B.M. (2003), “The application of referent cognitions theory to legal-claiming by terminated workers: the role of organizational justice and anger”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 705-728.
Greenberg, J. (1986), “Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 340-342.
Hackett, R.D., Lapierre, L.M. and Gardiner, H.P. (2004), “A review of Canadian human rights cases involving the employment interview”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 215-228.
Harris, M.M. (1989), “Reconsidering the employment interview: a review of recent literature and suggestions for future research”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 691-726.
Harris, M.M., Hoye, G.V. and Lievens, F. (2003), “Privacy and attitudes towards internet-based selection systems: a cross-cultural comparison”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 11 Nos 2-3, pp. 230-236.
Hausknecht, J.P., Day, D.V. and Thomas, S.C. (2004), “Applicant reactions to selection procedures: an updated model and meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 639-683.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Huffcutt, A.I., Van Iddekinge, C.H. and Roth, P.L. (2011), “Understanding applicant behavior in employment interviews: a theoretical model of interviewee performance”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 353-367.
Jablin, F.M. and Tengler, C.D. (1982), “Facing discrimination in on-campus interviews”, Journal of College Placement, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 57-61.
Jackson, D. and Kovacheff, J. (1993), “Personality questionnaires in selection: privacy issues and the Soroka case”, The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 45-51.
Jones, S. (2008), “Training and cultural context in the Arab Emirates: fighting a losing battle?”, Employee Relations, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 48-62.
Kinicki, A.J., Lockwood, C.A., Hom, P.W. and Griffeth, R.W. (1990), “Interviewer predictions of applicant qualifications and interviewer validity: aggregate and individual analyses”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 5, pp. 477-486.
Kuhn, K.M. and Nielsen, M.L. (2008), “Understanding applicant reactions to credit checks: uncertainty, information effects and individual differences”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 307-320.
Lawler, E.E III (1973), Motivation in Work Organizations, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA.
Leventhal, G.S. (1980), “What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationship”, in Gergen, M.S.G.K.J. and Willis, R.H. (Eds), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum, New York, NY, pp. 27-55.
Lind, E.A., Greenberg, J., Scott, K.S. and Welchans, T.D. (2000), “The winding road from employee to complainant: situational and psychological determinants of wrongful-termination claims”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 557-590.
414
PR 45,2
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
McCarthy, J.M., Van Iddekinge, C.H. and Campion, M.A. (2010), “Are highly structured job interviews resistant to demographic similarity effects?”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 325-359.
McDonald, R.P. and Ho, M.H.R. (2002), “Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 64-82.
McNall, L.A. and Roch, S.G. (2007), “Effects of electronic monitoring types on perceptions of procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and privacy1”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 658-682.
Macan, T. (2009), “The employment interview: a review of current studies and directions for future research”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 203-218.
Madera, J.M. and Hebl, M.R. (2012), “Discrimination against facially stigmatized applicants in interviews: an eye-tracking and face-to-face investigation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 317-330.
Marshall, D. (2007), “Discrimination in interviews”, Human Resource Management International Digest, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 3-4.
Marshall, G.W., Stamps, M.B. and Moore, J.N. (1998), “Preinterview biases: the impact of race, physical attractiveness, and sales job type on preinterview impressions of sales job applicants”, The Journal of Personal Selling and Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 21-38.
Mashood, N., Verhoeven, H. and Chansarkar, B. (2009), “Emiratisation, omanisation and saudisation-common causes: common solutions”, 10th International Business Research Conference, Dubai, April 16-17.
Morgeson, F.P., Reider, M.H., Campion, M.A. and Bull, R.A. (2008), “Review of research on age discrimination in the employment interview”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 223-232.
Mullen, L.G., Thakur, R. and Hensel, K. (2007), “Illegal questioning: a study of marketing students’ recent interview experiences during their career searches”, Journal for the Advancement of Marketing Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 27-39.
Ni, Y. and Hauenstein, N.M.A. (1998), “Applicant reactions to personality tests: effects of item invasiveness and face validity”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 391-406.
Peluchette, J. and Karl, K. (2009), “Examining students’ intended image on Facebook: ‘what were they thinking?!’ ”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 30-37.
Posthuma, R.A., Morgeson, F.P. and Campion, M.A. (2002), “Beyond employment interview validity: a comprehensive narrative review of recent research and trends over time”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 1-81.
Posthuma, R.A., Levashina, J., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., Tsai, W., Wagstaff, M. and Campion, M.A. (2014), “Comparing employment interviews in Latin America with other countries”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 943-951.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Rosenbaum, B.L. (1973), “Attitude toward invasion of privacy in the personnel selection process and job applicant demographic and personality correlates”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 333-338.
Rosse, J.G., Miller, J.L. and Stecher, M.D. (1994), “A field-study of job applicants reactions to personality and cognitive-ability testing”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 987-992.
Rustemli, A. and Kokdemir, D. (1993), “Privacy dimensions and preferences among Turkish students”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 133 No. 6, pp. 807-814.
415
Role of privacy invasion
and fairness
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
Ryan, A.M. and Ployhart, R.E. (2000), “Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: a critical review and agenda for the future”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 565-606.
Rynes, S.L. and Connerley, M.L. (1993), “Applicant reactions to alternative selection procedures”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 261-277.
Sacco, J.M., Scheu, C.R., Ryan, A.M. and Schmitt, N. (2003), “An investigation of race and sex similarity effects in interviews: a multilevel approach to relational demography”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 852-865.
Saks, A.M. and McCarthy, J.M. (2006), “Effects of discriminatory interview questions and gender on applicant reactions”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 175-191.
Salgado, J.F., Viswesvaran, C. and Ones, D.S. (2001), “Predictors used for personnel selection: an overview of constructs, methods and techniques”, in Anderson, N., Ones, D.S., Simangil, H.K. and Viswesvaran (Eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 165-199.
Saunders, D.M., Leck, J.D. and Vitins, G. (1990), “Pre-employment enquiries in Canada: the law and society are dancing to different music”, The Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association, Berkeley, CA, pp. 165-199.
Schmidt, F.L. and 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, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 262-274.
Schwab, K., Sala-i-Martin, X. and Greenhill, R. (2011), “The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012”, available at: www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_Report_2011-12.pdf (accessed April 15, 2015).
Seitz, R., Truxillo, D.M. and Bauer, T.N. (2001), “Test familiarization: effects on reactions to written and video tests”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA, April.
Simmons, D.D. (1968), “Invasion of privacy and judged benefit of personality-test inquiry”, The Journal of General Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 177-181.
Smither, J.W., Reilly, R.R., Millsap, R.E., Pearlman, K. and Stoffey, R.W. (1993), “Applicant reactions to selection procedures”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 49-76.
Steiner, D.D. and Gilliland, S.W. (1996), “Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in France and the United States”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 134-141.
Stone, D.L. and Bowden, C. (1989), “Effects of job applicant drug testing practices on reactions to drug testing”, Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, pp. 290-294.
Stone, D.L. and Jones, G.E. (1997), “Perceived fairness of biodata as a function of the purpose of the request for information and gender of the applicant”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 313-323.
Stone, D.L. and Kotch, D.A. (1989), “Individuals’ attitudes toward organizational drug testing policies and practices”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 518-521.
Stone, E.F. and Stone, D.L. (1990), “Privacy in organizations: theoretical issues, research findings, and protection mechanisms”, in Ferris, G.A. and Rowland, K.M. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 8, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 349-411.
Stone-Romero, E.F., Stone, D.L. and Hyatt, D. (2003), “Personnel selection procedures and invasion of privacy”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 343-368.
416
PR 45,2
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
Stoughton, J.W., Thompson, L. and Meade, A. (2015), “Examining applicant reactions to the use of social networking websites in pre-employment screening”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 73-88.
Sullivan, L. and Arnold, D.W. (2000), “Invasive questions lead to legal challenge, settlement and use of different test”, Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 142-143.
Thibodeaux, H.F. and Kudisch, J.D. (2003), “The relationship between applicant reactions, the likelihood of complaints, and organization attractiveness”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 247-257.
Thurman, R.J., Katz, E., Carter, W., Han, J., Kayala, E., McCoin, N. and Storrow, A.B. (2009), “Emergency medicine residency applicant perceptions of unethical recruiting practices and illegal questioning in the match”, Academic Emergency Medicine, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 550-557.
Topor, D.J., Colarelli, S.M. and Han, K. (2007), “Influences of traits and assessment methods on human resource practitioners’ evaluations of job applicants”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 361-376.
Truxillo, D.M. and Bauer, T.N. (1999), “Applicant reactions to test score banding in entry-level and promotional contexts”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 322-339.
Truxillo, D.M., Bodner, T.E., Bertolino, M., Bauer, T.N. and Yonce, C.A. (2009), “Effects of explanations on applicant reactions: a meta‐analytic review”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 346-361.
Vinokur, A. and Caplan, R.D. (1987), “Attitudes and social support – determinants of job-seeking behavior and well-being among the unemployed”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 12, pp. 1007-1024.
Wallace, J.C., Page, E.E. and Lippstreu, M. (2006), “Applicant reactions to pre-employment application blanks: a legal and procedural justice perspective”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 467-488.
Woodzicka, J.A. and LaFrance, M. (2005), “The effects of subtle sexual harassment on women’s performance in a job interview”, Sex Roles, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 67-77.
World Bank (2012), “World Data Bank”, available at: http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home. do (accessed October 15, 2012).
Appendix. Questions used in each condition Control group questions What is the nature of your previous work experience? Have you had any work experience in XYZ business? What kinds of things do you look for in a job? What types of interests or hobbies are you involved in? What do you consider to be your greatest strengths? What do you consider to be your greatest weaknesses? What university subjects do you like the most? What qualities should a successful manager possess? What are your long-range career objectives? What do you think you have to offer a company like XYZ Organization?
Experimental group questions – four discriminatory questions (in bold text) What is your nationality? What is the nature of your previous work experience? What kinds of things do you look for in a job?
417
Role of privacy invasion
and fairness
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
Have you ever been arrested for a crime? What do you consider to be your greatest strengths? Do you have any handicaps? What university subjects do you like the most? What qualities should a successful manager possess? Do you have any future plans for marriage and children? What do you think you have to offer a company like XYZ?
Corresponding author Associate Professor Mohammed A. Al-Waqfi can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
418
PR 45,2
D ow
nl oa
de d
by A
M E
R IC
A N
U N
IV E
R S
IT Y
I N
D U
B A
I A
t 03
:2 5
05 J
ul y
20 16
( P
T )
- Outline placeholder
- Appendix.Questions used in each condition
