HR paper

The Writing on the (Facebook) Wall: The Use of Social Networking Sites in Hiring Decisions

Victoria R. Brown • E. Daly Vaughn

Published online: 4 May 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract The popular media has reported an increase in

the use of social networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook

by hiring managers and human resource professionals

attempting to find more detailed information about job

applicants. Within the peer-reviewed literature, cursory

empirical evidence exists indicating that others’ judgments

of characteristics or attributes of an individual based on

information obtained from SNSs may be accurate.

Although this predictor method provides a potentially

promising source of applicant information on predictor

constructs of interest, it is also fraught with potential lim-

itations and legal challenges. The level of publicly avail-

able data obtainable by employers is highly unstandardized

across applicants, as some applicants will choose not to use

SNSs at all while those choosing to use SNSs customize

the degree to which information they share is made public

to those outside of their network. It is also unclear how

decision makers are currently utilizing the available

information. Potential discrimination may result through

employer’s access to publicly available pictures, videos,

biographical information, or other shared information that

often allows easy identification of applicant membership to

a protected class. For the practice to progress in a positive

direction, evidence for the validity and job-relevance of

information obtained from SNSs needs to be established.

Organizational researchers and practitioners also need to

promote awareness and attempt to create safeguards

against the potential negative outcomes related to misuse of

SNSs by employers.

Keywords Personnel selection � Legal issues � Social networking sites � Social media � Discrimination � Prescreening

According to recent reports in the popular media, an

increasing number of hiring managers are utilizing social

networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook (http://www.

facebook.com), MySpace (http://www.myspace.com), and

Twitter (http://www.twitter.com) to aide in screening and

selecting applicants (e.g., Clark 2006; Grasz 2009). A 2009

survey conducted by CareerBuilder.com found that 45% of

over 2600 hiring managers reported searching SNSs to

learn about job candidates, an increase from the 22%

reported in 2008 (Grasz 2009). Despite the growing use of

this screening method, a search of relevant databases

(PsycINFO, Business Source Primer) indicates that no

research currently exists in peer-reviewed outlets investi-

gating the practical and legal consequences for employers

utilizing this practice or assessing the validity of this method.

Instead, research has examined the social implications of site

membership (e.g., identity formation; Goodings et al. 2007)

and the factors influencing the type of content shared by users

(e.g., Peluchette and Karl 2010).

Given the expanding percentage of employers using

SNSs to gather data on applicants (cf., Grasz 2009 and Du

2007), it is reasonable to expect this practice to affect

various human resource decisions, including hiring, train-

ing, promotion, and termination. The focus of the current

article was to address the use of SNSs within the hiring

process. The objectives are: (a) to create awareness of the

potential negative outcomes related to misuse of SNSs by

V. R. Brown � E. D. Vaughn Department of Psychology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL,

USA

V. R. Brown (&) Department of Psychology, Roosevelt University, 1400 N.

Roosevelt Blvd, Schaumburg, IL 60173, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:219–225

DOI 10.1007/s10869-011-9221-x

employers, (b) to discuss validation and legal issues related

to using this predictor method, and (c) to discuss the

practical implications for organizations and directions for

future research associated with using SNSs for hiring/

screening decisions.

Defining and Describing Social Networking Sites

Social networking sites allow users to create web-based

profiles where individuals can interact. SNSs ‘‘allow indi-

viduals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile

within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users

with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and

traverse their list of connections and those made by others

within the system’’ (Boyd and Ellison 2007, p. 3). A typical

profile may contain images, videos, and biographical

information about the individual. There may be a forum

where other users can write public or private messages.

Many sites allow users to post real-time updates of their

thoughts or actions. The profile owner has control over

most of the information presented, and can adjust the pri-

vacy settings to manage how much of that information is

made public. Generally, the friends, family, and colleagues

within a user’s ‘‘network’’ are given more access to profile

information than the general public.

In recent years, the popularity of SNSs has increased rap-

idly. Founded in February 2004, Facebook is now the largest

SNS in the world (Holahan 2008). Usage statistics reported on

the website at the time of this writing indicate that Facebook

supports over 500 million active users (defined as users

viewing the website within the past 30 days; Facebook, Inc.,

2011, February). As the line between public and private life

becomes more blurred, employers are beginning to examine

available information on the internet from SNSs such as

Facebook that may not be accessible from reviewing a résumé

or conducting an interview.

This screening procedure affords several benefits to

organizations. Social networking sites provide a readily

available public forum to research candidates while

incurring minimal cost, allowing even small businesses to

engage in such practices. The information on SNSs may

provide further evidence related to the veracity of infor-

mation presented on an applicant’s résumé (e.g., education

and work experience). In addition, potential employers

may have access to detailed information that would allow

them to draw conclusions or make inferences about the

applicant’s character or personality that might not be as

easily or economically obtained through traditional means.

Such information may increase or decrease the likelihood

that a candidate is considered for further review.

In the 2009 CareerBuilder survey, 35% of employers

reported not hiring an applicant due to detrimental

information found on a SNS (Grasz 2009). Reasons for

screening out ranged from applicants posting provocative

or inappropriate photographs or information, displaying

poor communication skills, conveying information associ-

ated with alcohol or illegal drug use, revealing information

that falsifies qualifications listed in a résumé, and posting

content disparaging previous work associates. The survey

also revealed that applicants’ profiles may enhance their

chances of being hired or selected for consideration by

providing supportive evidence of their listed qualifications,

portraying a profile indicative of being a good fit with the

employer, and displaying creativity and positive commu-

nication skills. In fact, professional SNSs such as LinkedIn

(http://www.LinkedIn.com) are tailored to provide users

opportunities to market themselves for career opportunities

(e.g., a user can receive recommendations from previous

employers and colleagues which will then be displayed on

the user’s profile). Despite the promising potential that

reviewing SNSs may have for employers, unfettered use of

this screening method presents several legal and ethical

considerations that must be addressed.

Risks Associated with Misuse of SNSs by Employers

Several opportunities for employer misuse must be con-

sidered by organizations when creating policies regarding

searching SNSs in the screening/hiring process. Employers

who choose to use SNSs as an informal method of pre-

dicting applicant employability have many issues to con-

sider. Current risks with informal SNS searches include

perceptions of invasion of applicant privacy, lack of clearly

identifiable theoretical constructs used in the screening

process, and the absence of data to support that the infor-

mation used in screening is job relevant. Another contro-

versial issue surrounding the use of SNSs is the variability

in type and amount of information publicly available across

an applicant pool. This inevitable reality prevents a com-

pletely standardized collection of predictor information

across all applicants. In addition to these concerns, appli-

cants’ shared information might be distorted by social

desirability or high levels of self-monitoring. Finally,

employers must consider the role of context in considering

employability of applicants.

Information on the internet is publicly searchable, and in

itself does not constitute an invasion of applicant privacy.

It is each applicant’s responsibility to maintain their own

privacy settings and monitor information that is publicly

viewable. However, employers must ensure that the poli-

cies enacted by human resource professionals do not

invoke a breach in applicant privacy. In June of 2009, the

city of Bozeman, Montana required all applicants to pro-

vide user names and passwords for ‘‘any and all, current

220 J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:219–225

123

personal or business Web sites, Web pages or memberships

on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums,

to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo,

YouTube.com, MySpace, etc.’’ (Ricker 2009). The city of

Bozeman initially defended this practice by stating that it

was similar to other methods of background investigation.

However, in light of nationwide headlines decrying the

practice it was immediately discontinued. The Bozeman

case illustrates the importance of considering privacy

issues when implementing practices for using SNSs as a

method of investigating applicants.

In addition to invasion of applicant privacy, employers

must give conceptual consideration to the constructs they

are assessing when conducting employment screens. Other

than preliminary survey results, it is uncertain what infor-

mation employers are using in their decision making pro-

cess. This is problematic because the job-relevance of the

constructs indicated by this information cannot be ascer-

tained. According to popular media reports on the use of

SNSs in making selection decisions (c.f. Grasz 2009), some

of the information utilized may not be directly job related.

Without arguments for job-relevance, there is no legal basis

to make screening decisions of applicants based on data

garnered from a SNS profile. In addition, the lack of

standardization from profile to profile will make estab-

lishing job-relevant criteria across candidates incredibly

difficult.

Variability in available information due to the custom-

izability of users’ privacy settings also threatens the stan-

dardized use of SNSs in the hiring process. This lack of

standardization in turn likely hampers the reliability of the

predictor information that may be used when making

selection decisions. In a typical hiring context, managers

will be gaining access to different levels of information

among a pool of applicants. Some applicants might not use

SNSs or may select very stringent privacy settings for

individuals not in their network. Managers might then be at

risk of providing preferential consideration early in the

hiring process based in part on applicants’ personal pref-

erences for privacy settings or general use of SNSs.

Hiring managers electing to peruse information about

candidates are also at risk of committing the fundamental

attribution error (Harvey et al. 1981; Ross 1977), which

occurs when information is construed to be representative

of the person in question regardless of context. While

research indicates that SNS profiles may be an accurate

reflection of the owner (Back et al. 2010; Gosling et al.

2008), negative information or impressions conveyed

through the applicant’s personal profile may not be con-

sidered in the proper context, and could therefore result in a

hasty rejection decision. A recent conference panel dis-

cussion exemplified this potential misuse by providing

photographs of a female asleep on a bathroom floor

(Davison et al. 2009, April). Without context, it could be

assumed that she consumed too much alcohol. As the

panelists discussed, there are other plausible explanations

for the photograph (e.g., jokingly creating the photograph

with friends; being a victim of a practical joke after falling

asleep; asleep on the floor as a result of a medical

condition).

Even under the assumption that the photograph accu-

rately portrays an excessively inebriated individual; the

employer may still be putting themselves at legal risk by

using this evidence as a basis for screening out an appli-

cant. Imagine that in addition to finding the photograph of

the applicant on the bathroom floor, a hiring manager

discovers several pictures uploaded by friends of the

applicant which indicate heavy or excessive use of alcohol.

The employer then determines that the applicant is no

longer suitable for consideration and indicates evidence of

excessive drinking as the reason for removing the applicant

from consideration. As discussed by Davison et al. (2009,

April) this may be considered a violation in accordance

with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA 1990) as

subsequently augmented by the ADA Amendment Act of

2008 (ADAAA). In accordance with the ADA, a qualified

person with a disability is one whom can perform the

essential functions of the job with or without reasonable

accommodation. Alcoholism (or alcohol dependence) is

currently covered under the ADAAA; however, an

employer may deny employment to an applicant whose use

of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct

(EEOC 2008). Suppose this applicant is alcohol dependent

and, since being photographed consuming alcohol, has

undergone a substance abuse treatment program and has no

record of continued use. A hiring manager may unknow-

ingly discriminate by denying access of the applicant in the

hiring process on the basis of a covered disability (Davison

et al. 2009, April).

Establishing Validity

Currently, one of the most problematic issues surrounding

the use of SNSs in selection or screening is the dearth of

validity evidence supporting the appropriateness of using

this method to gather information. Despite the emphasized

critical importance of following selection system validation

procedures in professional guidelines (e.g., AERA 1999;

EEOC 1978; SIOP 2003), no research has investigated the

content or criterion-related validity of the information

gathered by employers. Without well-documented evi-

dence for validity, the conclusions drawn by managers on

the basis of profile searches may be tenuous at best and

might furthermore result in undocumented discriminatory

actions. Consistent with the weaknesses surrounding the

J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:219–225 221

123

use of unstructured interviews (see Guion 1998), the use of

informal decision making methods not supported with

validity evidence in the hiring process may increase the

likelihood of legal repercussions.

Evidence for the content validity of information gath-

ered using SNSs as a method of screening applicants

should first be established. The authors make an important

distinction in explicitly recognizing that searching SNSs

provides what Arthur and Villado (2008) refer to as a

predictor method by which employers indirectly ascertain

information related to predictor constructs. The implica-

tion of this distinction is that organizations must consider

what constructs are represented by the information

obtained through SNSs and whether that information is job-

relevant to establish validity. Subject matter experts within

an organization should candidly discuss the current use of

SNSs as a hiring method, including considerations of what

information is gathered and under what circumstances.

Examples of overtly job related information that could be

gathered by hiring personnel include posted images created

by a graphic design applicant or photographs posted by an

applicant looking to fill a photographer position. In such

cases, content validation might be relatively straightfor-

ward. Hiring managers could support the legal defensibility

by directly linking the information gathered to tasks or

competencies listed in a carefully documented job analysis.

However, Grasz (2009) survey results indicate that much of

the information that hiring managers report using may not

be explicitly job related. In these instances, it may be

indicative of a higher-order construct that is job relevant,

such as cognitive ability, personality, professionalism,

written communication skills, or person-organization fit, to

name a few. A current and detailed job analysis providing

construct-task linkages could be used to support that the

information gathered from a SNS reflects a knowledge,

skill, ability, or other characteristic needed to perform job

tasks.

It is reasonable to question the accuracy of information

provided from examining SNSs as a reflection of higher

order constructs, but initial research is promising. Back

et al. (2010) indicated that associations can be found

between actual personality and ratings of personality pro-

vided by viewers of users’ SNS profiles. Back et al. found

that ratings of all of the Big 5 dimensions of personality

except Neuroticism correlated with aggregated indepen-

dent ratings of personality by viewers of user profiles (r’s

ranged from .27 to .41 with Extraversion and Openness

being most strongly related). Furthermore, ratings provided

by independent viewers of SNS users were not incremen-

tally influenced by the users’ idealized personality self-

image, indicating that SNS profiles can reveal accurate

representations of applicants’ personality. Moreover, Gos-

ling et al. (2008) found that close acquaintances of SNS

users report that the users have presented themselves

accurately on their profiles. This high rate of agreement

may be due to the inability of users to tailor their impres-

sions to suit a specific audience, forcing them to compro-

mise by presenting the most stable aspects of their

personality (Kramer and Winter 2008). This finding is

consistent with previous research asserting that people

present themselves more truthfully to larger audiences

(Schlenker 1980). However, as is true of résumés, biodata

inventories, self-report measures, and other information

provided during the hiring process, profile owners may

choose to present information in a socially desirable

manner. While studies provide encouraging evidence that

online profiles can contain accurate reflections of their

users, managers should keep in mind the potential to

manage impressions by users.

Once information on a SNS is tied to job-relevant con-

structs, a rubric for assessing profiles could facilitate

unbiased collection of information across individuals, as

well as documenting the information collected in case of

future litigation. While lack of standardization may make

the creation of such a rubric difficult, a critical incident

approach may be useful in developing exemplars for

managers to refer to as indicators of positive and negative

profile information related to the constructs of interest.

Once a formalized rubric for gathering information has

been created, organizations could benefit from evaluating

the systematic use of SNSs as a screening method through

concurrent and predictive validity studies. Provided that

organizations could demonstrate incremental validity, it

would still be prudent for practitioners and researchers to

excogitate the legal risks associated with conducting

searches.

Legal Implications

The information available through SNSs introduces a series

of unique legal issues and challenges. Social networking

sites easily allow the potential for individual biases to

affect hiring and screening decisions. Previous field

research has demonstrated that the rate of applicant call-

back differs when submitted résumés provide prototypical

Caucasian names versus prototypical African American

names, with résumés listed under Caucasian names being

50% more likely to receive a callback for an interview

(Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004). In efforts to predict

organizational behavior, behavioral scientists have long

recognized the significance of situational strength in

varying the capacity of expression of individual differences

(Mischel 1968). Much like the hiring manager that may

shuffle through a stack of résumés in a private location,

conducting online searches of applicants provides the

222 J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:219–225

123

hiring manager a ‘weak’ situation in contrast to more for-

mal selection practices such as administration of a work

sample test. In these weak situations, the manager may

more easily express biases based on any number of pro-

tected group status information that can be amassed from

SNSs. This is particularly true in organizations that still do

not have a formalized policy in place or a rubric by which

to document the information gathered.

Employers are not currently required to disclose what

information on a SNS was used in making screening

decisions, which may allow managers to discriminate

against candidates. In fact, through an online search it is

often possible for employers to discreetly identify (unin-

tentionally or otherwise) information related to protected

group status as covered by all major federal employment

discrimination laws. This information includes applicants’

race, color, religion, sex, national origin (covered under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964); age (covered by

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ADEA] of

1967); and disability status (covered by the Americans with

Disabilities Act [ADA] of 1990). In support of the avail-

ability of protected group information accessible through

SNSs, a content analysis of 83 Facebook profiles found that

ethno-racial identities were salient and elaborated within

minority users’ profiles (Grasmuck et al. 2009). Further-

more, this information may be indicated from a profile

picture alone, which is typically available to the public as

part of most SNS default privacy settings. Other informa-

tion that is not currently protected under federal law, such

as the applicant’s sexual orientation, physical attractive-

ness, and smoking habits, may also be accessible by means

of a SNS profile search and has the potential to introduce

bias into the selection procedure.

Recommendations for Research and Practice

As the use of SNSs does not appear to be a passing fad,

research should begin examining how employers and

applicants might harness SNSs to their advantage, as well

as addressing legal and ethical considerations surrounding

this employment practice. The constructs assessed by the

use of SNSs information must be specified, and research

should consider whether the constructs being assessed by

hiring managers result in adverse impact or disparate

treatment (i.e., intentional discrimination) against protected

classes. In addition, employers should assess the job

relatedness of these constructs and ensure consistency with

business necessity as defined within the Civil Rights Act of

1991. Although the authors encourage the continued social

and personality research investigating how various psy-

chological constructs are associated with SNS use, research

embedded within an organizational context is also crucial

for specifically testing the validity of the SNS screening

method as uniquely relevant to a job, geographic location,

organization, or industry. While Back et al. (2010) have

provided a first step toward mapping personality constructs

to SNS profiles, future studies should explore whether

other well-established predictors of job performance, such

as cognitive ability and self-efficacy, can be accurately

predicted by managers after viewing SNS profiles.

Researchers should also address personal aspects beyond

personality that may be inferred from an evaluation of an

individual’s SNS profile. For example, hiring managers

could presume to know other information about an appli-

cant, such as an applicant’s values or how the individual

might fit with an organization. Future studies could use a

similar approach to Back et al. (2010) in areas like person-

organization fit and value congruence.

Concurrent and predictive validation studies using the

techniques currently employed in the traditional selection

and screening literature should be conducted to see if

information related to pertinent constructs gleaned from

applicants’ SNSs could provide incremental value to the

employer. It is important to carry out this research in

a systematic fashion, with clearly defined and logically

operationalized variables to aide in replication and com-

parison across contexts to test for validity generalization.

Validation associated with the method will undoubtedly

vary by the particular constructs assessed using the method

and the level of standardization established through

company policies addressing proper use of SNSs for

employment screening purposes (Arthur and Villado

2008). Continued research in this area will assist future

employment litigation as the courts seek to determine the

merit and job-relatedness of this screening practice.

Although there are currently no decided court cases to

offer definitive legal guidance to employers in the private

sector, there are certain steps that companies may take to

better safeguard against potential liability in a discrimina-

tion suit. Given the large number of hiring managers

already augmenting employee screening with SNS sear-

ches, it is recommended that organizations establish

explicit policies and procedures concerning the use of

SNSs as screening devices (Davison et al. 2009, April). As

with any procedure used in the hiring process, policies

should be developed by the organization’s human resource

(HR) department to ensure fair and uniform procedures in

evaluating SNSs. If HR professionals choose to utilize

SNSs as a method of researching applicants, it is advisable

to search all applicants for that position. Limiting searches

to a case-by-case basis, as Brown University admissions

officers have done when given anonymous tips (Arndt

2007), may introduce bias into the search process.

Human resource departments should provide up-to-date

training on protected class information and what kinds of

J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:219–225 223

123

information would not be legally defendable for screening

out applicants. In addition, HR departments should

encourage employees making hiring decisions to document

all information gathered and used in the screening process

as well as to identify reasons for follow-up or screen out

decisions. The rubrics developed by subject matter experts

should be included in each applicant’s personnel file, as

well as any printed screen shots of profile aspects that may

have affected the screening decision. Another important

consideration for HR professionals electing to allow poli-

cies for searching publicly available information from

SNSs is whether to disclose this practice to applicants.

Doing so may cause applicants to preemptively alter their

profiles in a socially desirable way, thus reducing access to

potentially helpful information. However, failure to do so

may be perceived by applicants learning of this practice at

a later time as an unfair hiring procedure or an invasion of

privacy.

The authors encourage organizations to be proactive in

considering these issues carefully and creating policies in

accordance with these recommendations before formal

legal action is required. Although it may prove difficult to

enforce, it may be necessary for organizations to create a

written policy banning the use of SNSs in the selection

process until evidence of validity can be inferred from a

careful analysis of the standardized use of such practices.

To examine interrater reliability of construct assessment as

well as avoid the potential for discrimination associated

with individual bias (whether unconscious or otherwise),

initial research and practice might benefit by having mul-

tiple raters code profile information where feasible. Thor-

ough records of all SNS information used within the

guidelines of carefully documented policies and procedures

will help practitioners avoid unpleasant legal ramifications

in the future. In addition, organizational research address-

ing the current gaps discussed herein may unleash timely

information on the uses (and abuses) of SNSs in the hiring

process.

References

ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110–325 (September 25,

2008).

American Educational Research Association, American Psychologi-

cal Association, National Council on Measurement in Education.

(1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S. C. A.§12101 et seq. Arndt, R. (2007). Admissions officers poke around on Facebook.

Brown Daily Herald. Retrieved 22 February 2008 from http:// www.browndailyherald.com/campus-news/admission-officers-

poke-around-facebook-1.1673468.

Arthur, W., & Villado, A. (2008). The importance of distinguishing

between constructs and methods when comparing predictors in

personnel selection research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 435–442.

Back, M. D., Stopfer, S. V., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C., Egloff, B., &

Gosling, S. D. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual person-

ality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science. Retrieved from doi:10.1177/0956797609360756.

Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more

Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on

labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94, 991–1013. doi:10.1257/0002828042002561.

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites:

Definition, history and scholarship. Journal of Computer Med- iated Education, 13(1), article 11. Retrieved 5 March 2008 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html.

Clark, A. S. (2006). Employers look at Facebook, too: Companies

turn to online profiles to see what applicants are really like. CBS Evening News, Retrieved 25 February 2010 from http://www. cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/20/eveningnews/main1734920.shtml.

Davison, H. K., Maraist, C. C., Bing, M. N., Papinchock, J.,

Southwell, M., & Tamanini, K. B. (2009). The accidental resume: Legal and practical issues of e-screening. Panel discussion conducted at the 2009 Society of Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.

Du, W. (2007). Job candidates get tripped up by Facebook: Many

students learn the hard way that online image can limit

opportunity. Retrieved 5 March 2008 from http://www.msnbc.

msn.com/id/20202935/print/1/displaymode/1098.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2008). Americans with Disabilities Act: Questions and answers. Retrieved 23 February 2010 from http://www.ada.gov/qandaeng.htm.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission C. S. C, Department of

Labor, & Department of Justice. (1978). Uniform guidelines on

employee selection procedures. Federal Register, 43(166),

38295–38309.

Facebook, Inc. (2011, February). Facebook: Press room. Retrieved 27 February 2011 from http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/

press/info.php?statistics.

Goodings, L., Locke, A., & Brown, S. D. (2007). Social networking

technology: Place and identity in mediated communities. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 463–476.

Gosling, S. D., Gaddis, S., & Vazire, S. (2008). First impressions from

the environments that we create and inhabit. In J. Skowronski &

N. Ambady (Eds.), First impressions (pp. 334–356). New York: Guilford.

Grasmuck, S., Martin, J., & Zhao, S. (2009). Ethno-racial identity

displays on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Commu- nication, 15, 158–188. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01498.x.

Grasz, J. (2009). Forty-five percent of employers use social networking

sites to research job candidates, CareerBuilder survey finds.

CareerBuilder Press Releases. Retrieved 21 February 2010 from http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.

aspx?id=pr519&sd=8%2f19%2f2009&ed=12%2f31%2f2009&

siteid=cbpr&sc_cmp1=cb_pr519_.

Guion, R. M. (1998). Assessment by inventories and interviews. In

Guion (Ed.), Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel decisions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Harvey, J. H., Town, J. P., & Yarkin, K. L. (1981). How fundamental

is the ‘‘fundamental attribution error’’? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 346–349.

Holahan, C. (2008, August). Facebook: No. 1 Globally. Business- Week. Retrieved 22 February 2010 from http://www.business week.com/technology/content/aug2008/tc20080812_853725.htm.

Kramer, N. C., & Winter, S. (2008). Impression Management 2.0: The

relationship of self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy and self-

224 J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:219–225

123

presentation within social networking sties. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods and Applications, 20, 106–113.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley. Peluchette, J., & Karl, K. (2010). Examining students’ intended image

on Facebook: ‘What were they thinking?!’. Journal of Education for Business, 85, 30–37. doi:10.1080/08832320903217606.

Ricker, A. (2009, June 18). City requires Facebook passwords from

job applicants. Bozeman Daily Chronicle. Retrieved 21 February 2010 from http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2009/06/

19/news/10socialnetworking.txt.

Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings:

Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),

Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2003). Princi- ples for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (4th ed.). Bowling Green, OH: Author.

J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:219–225 225

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.