UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Video-tape in interviewing : an analysis of ratings and attitudes Lee, Alec John 1972

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1972_A4_5 L43.pdf [ 9.42MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0103919.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0103919-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0103919-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0103919-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0103919-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0103919-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0103919-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0103919-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0103919.ris

Full Text

VIDEO-TAPE IN INTERVIEWING: AN ANALYSIS OF RATINGS AND ATTITUDES  by ALEC JOHN LEE B.Comm., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia,  1969  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OP THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION  i n t h e Department of Commerce and B u s i n e s s  Administration  WE ACCEPT THIS THESIS AS CONFORMING TO THE REQUIRED STANDARD  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h August,  1972  Columbia  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s an advanced degree at  in p a r t i a l  fulfilment  requirements  the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ,  the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r I further  o f the  reference  I agree t h a t and s t u d y .  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s  thesis  f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . of  It  this thesis for financial  or  i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n gain shall  written permission.  Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Vancouver 8, Canada  for  Columbia  not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  ABSTRACT  T h i s study was of i n t e r v i e w i n g .  The  i n t e n d e d t o examine t h r e e first  was  aspects  an e x p l o r a t i o n f o r any  s y s t e m a t i c d i f f e r e n c e s between r a t i n g s g i v e n by i n t e r v i e w e r s in  a c t u a l f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r v i e w s and r a t i n g s g i v e n by group  (N=3) The  and i n d i v i d u a l o b s e r v e r s second a s p e c t was  of video-taped  interviews.  a comparison between group *(N=3) and  i n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g s i n terms o f mean v a r i a b l e r a t i n g s , r e liability  and h a l o e r r o r .  of i n t e r v i e w e e s  The  third  and r a t i n g viewers  s e c t i o n sought a t t i t u d e s  o f the u t i l i t y  of video-  tape i n employment i n t e r v i e w s . The this  i n t e r v i e w e e s f o r the f i r s t  and t h i r d  study were t h i r t y - f o u r f o u r t h - y e a r Commerce  from the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. viewers  The  aspects  of  students  video-tape  and i n t e r v i e w e r s were t h i r t y members o f the Bank o f  Montreal's  managerial  staff.  F o r the second s e c t i o n the  i n t e r v i e w e e s were t h r e e f o u r t h - y e a r Commerce s t u d e n t s  from  the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia and the v i d e o - t a p e  viewers  were one hundred and students viewers  e i g h t y - f i v e Commerce undergraduate  a l s o from the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. and i n t e r v i e w e r s were r e q u e s t e d  to evaluate  The  inter-  viewees a l o n g t h i r t e e n dimensions and t o d e c i d e whether o r not to c a l l  back the interviex^ees f o r f u r t h e r i n t e r v i e w s .  Minimal d i f f e r e n c e s were found between i n t e r v i e w e r  - n i -  an d g r o u p  observer ratings  were f o u n d t o  be  both interviewer  and  and  observer ratings.  group  significantly higher  moderate to  e x i s t i n g between group  H a l o e r r o r was individual  i n d i v i d u a l observer  uniformly  e s t i m a t e s were g e n e r a l l y differences  while  possibly  ratings.  the  use  The  viewers,  The  of video-tape on  the  low  and  a contributing attitudes  of  i n interviewing  ratings than  Reliability  w i t h no  significant  individual  ratings.  f a c t o r f o r group interviewees were q u i t e  o t h e r hand, d i s p l a y e d  only  a  and  toward favorable.  moderate  enthusiasm. In  the  discussion,  attention  was  given  for  r e v i s i n g the  Bank o f M o n t r e a l ' s i n t e r v i e w  and  interviewing  procedure.  to  methods  ratings  form  -iv-  Table of Contents CHAPTER 1  INTRODUCTION Outline of the Paper  2  RESEARCH SUMMARY The Interview Future Research Directions  3  METHODOLOGY  1 4 6 6 26 4-1  Differences i n Ratings - Interviewers vs Viewers  4-1  Groups vs Individuals  56  Attitudes Toward the Use of Video-Tape i n Interviews  63  4-  RESULTS  66 72  5  Interviewers vs Viewers Attitudes Toward Video-Tape In Interviewing DISCUSSION  6  93 101  Interviewers vs Viewers  101  Group vs Individual Viewers  105  Attitudes Toward Video-Tape  124  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  BIBLIOGRAPHY  128 132  APPENDIXES A  THE CAMPUS INTERVIEW  140  B  APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT  146  -V-  C  VIDEOTAPED INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE . . . .  148  D  VIDEO-TAPE VIEWERS QUESTIONNAIRE  154  E  SUMMARY SHEET  158  -vi-  L i s t of Tables  Table  Page Chapter 2  1  The R e l i a b i l i t y of Judgments of Individuals 36  and of Groups Chapter g: 1  Schedule of Interviewing  2  Interviewer C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  3  Viewer C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  47  4  Analyses of Variance  48  5  Description of Interviewees  59  6  Sampling D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r Data A c q u i s i t i o n  60  1  Chapter 4 Means, Standard Deviations, and S i g n i f i c a n t Differences f o r Interviewers', Groups', and I n d i v i d u a l s ' Ratings  67  2  O v e r a l l Comparison Among Samples  68  3  Convergent and Discriminant V a l i d i t i e s of Interviewers-Groups, Interviewers--Individuals, and Individuals-Groups  69  Group, Individual and Interviewer Interviewer I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s C a l l Back - Reject Decision  71  5  Mean T r a i t s Rating - Total Groups and Individuals  73.  -6  Mean T r a i t Ratings - Groups vs Individuals .  7^  7  O v e r a l l Rating - Group and Individuals . . .  75  8  C a l l Back-Reject Decision - Groups vs Individuals  76  9  Rotated Factor Matrix - Individuals  4  and Viewing  . . .  4 J 45  . . . .  77  _vii-  Table  Page  10  Rotated Factor Matrix - Groups  78  11  Correlations Between Variables and C a l l Back-Reject Decision-Groups and Individuals  80  Canonical Correlations Between the Two Sets of Factor Scores  81  13  Intra-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y - Groups and Individuals  82  14  Intra-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y - Groups and Individuals - Pearson's r  84  15  Intra-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y - Groups and Individuals - Percent Perfect Agreement  16  Mean Variable Ratings: Groups and Individuals  12  .  85  Test and Retest 86  17  C a l l Back-Reject Decision - Groups and Individuals - Intra-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y . .  87  18  C a l l Back-Reject Decisions Decision S h i f t  - Group 88  19  C a l l Back-Reject Decisions Decision S h i f t  - Individuals  20  Inter-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y - Group vs Individuals - Standard Deviation Scores  .  89  21  Inter-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y - Groups vs Individuals - Standard Deviation Scores  .  90  22  Inter-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y - Groups vs Individuals - Inter-Correlations .....  91  23  Extent and Cause of Interviewee Distraction  94  24  Extent of Difference i n Interviewee's Behaviour In a Video-Taped Interview Compared with a Face-to-Face Interview (N=34)  95  Enthusiasm f o r Video-Taped I n i t i a l Screening Interviews i n S e l e c t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y Graduates f o r Employment (N=34)  97  25  88  -viii-  Table 26  Page How would Most Graduating Students React i f Asked by a Company to Undergo a Video-Taped Interview Conducted by the Placement O f f i c e  97  Student (Interviewee) Rankings of the Three Most Serious Reservations or Objections re Video-Taped Screening Interviews  97  28  Degree of Realism i n Portraying Interviewee C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - Viewers (N=17)  99  29  Enthusiasm Toward the Possible General Use of Video-Taped I n i t i a l Screening Interviews f o r S e l e c t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y Graduates - Viewers  27  100  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I t i s a pleasant task to acknowledge the cooperation of colleagues and f r i e n d s i n the preparation of t h i s manuscript.  I wish to express my sincere appreciation to  Dr. Larry F. Moore whose comments from afar strengthened the analyses and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s given here.  Gratitude  must also be given to Dr. Vance F. M i t c h e l l , Dr. Gordon Walter, Dr. Ronald Taylor and Professor Merle Ace whose h e l p f u l and supportive observations cast l i g h t upon many a dark moment i n my thoughts.  Mr. George Strachan and Mr.  James Watt from the Bank of Montreal deserve thanks f o r permitting me to study t h e i r organization.  Their i n t e r e s t  and encouragement c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e d that the gap between the business world and the academic community may and p r o f i t a b l y be bridged. express recognition. next step. this thesis.  readily  L a s t l y , my wife Mary merits  She spurred me on to always go the  To her, my s p e c i a l thanks.  To her, I dedicate  -1-  CHAPTER  1  INTRODUCTION  V i d e o - t a p e i s b e i n g p u t t o more and more u s e s i n i n d u s t r y and i i n d n i s t r i a l r e s e a r c h . from i n d u s t r i a l t r a i n i n g semination,  A p p l i c a t i o n s range  ( S t r o h , 1969), i n f o r m a t i o n  s u r v e i l l a n c e , ego development (Kennedy, 1970)  t o : improvements i n s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e  (Walter,  i n d u s t r i a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h and  dis-  1971) and  (Wexley, Y u k l ,  Kovacs  Sanders, 1972). Moore and C r a i k (1972) saw t h e tremendous p o t e n t i a l  which v i d e o - t a p e ection.  may have f o r a s s i s t i n g i n p e r s o n n e l  These r e s e a r c h e r s  v i s u a l i z e d t h e important  t r i b u t i o n which i n s t a n t p l a y b a c k , m u l t i p l e v i e w i n g , a b i l i t y and o t h e r v i d e o - t a p e complex and important p r o c e s s  selcontransfer-  f e a t u r e s c o u l d make i n t h e of interviewing.  Indeed, many  o r g a n i z a t i o n s have t a k e n advantage o f t h i s p o t e n t i a l and have i n s t i t u t e d a system o f i n t e r v i e w i n g which video-tape  as a c r i t i c a l  element.  volunteers  f o r an o v e r s e a s Canadian G o o d w i l l  incorporates  In i t s selection of Tour, t h e  Canadian P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission r e c e n t l y u t i l i z e d tape t o r e c o r d i n t e r v i e w s by  administrators  video-  i n Vancouver f o r subsequent  i n Ottawa.  viewing  A b i l i t y Search, a Washington,  D.C. f i r m t h a t s p e c i a l i z e s i n r e c r u i t i n g systems a n a l y s t s and  operations  research personnel,  use t h e v i d e o - t a p e d  i n t e r v i e w as a replacement f o r t h e more common resume. Through t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n c a n d i d a t e s t h e i r video-tapes  a r e i n t e r v i e w e d and  a r e sent t o a number o f p a r t i c i p a t i n g  companies f o r s c r e e n i n g  ( B u s i n e s s Week, 1971).  I n December, 1970, t h e p e r s o n n e l British  Columbia R e g i o n a l  expressed  department o f t h e  O f f i c e o f t h e Bank o f Montreal  an i n t e r e s t i n t h e p o s s i b l e use o f v i d e o - t a p e as  an a i d t o t h e i r p e r s o n n e l  s e l e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e and, more  s p e c i f i c a l l y , to interviewing.  The Bank's o r i g i n a l  concern  r e v o l v e d around t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f v i d e o t a p i n g i n one c e n t r e an i n t e r v i e w w i t h a c a n d i d a t e the Bank i n another video-taped  who wished employment  with  c e n t r e , and send t o t h a t c e n t r e t h e  i n t e r v i e w r a t h e r than the candidate  himself.  The p r i n c i p a l q u e s t i o n was n o t whether such a p r o c e d u r e would be f e a s i b l e , as t h e f o r e g o i n g examples i n d i c a t e t h a t it  i s , b u t whether o r n o t a v i d e o - t a p e d  i n t e r v i e w would  i n t r o d u c e some b i a s which would n o t e x i s t w i t h i n a f a c e to-face interview. present  study.  T h i s i s s u e formed t h e impetus f o r t h e  A r e s e a r c h p r o p o s a l was g i v e n t o t h e Bank's  Employment and Employee R e l a t i o n s Manager who p e r m i t t e d a study n o t o n l y o f t h i s a r e a b u t a l s o o f a number o f o t h e r related topics.  These o t h e r t o p i c s a r e b r i e f l y  described  below. Interviewing research.  Video-tape  as w e l l as a u d i o -  tape has been used by a number o f r e s e a r c h e r s t o e x p l o r e aspects  o f t h e i n t e r v i e w ( C r i s s y , 1952; K a s l and Mahl, 1956;  Wiens e t a l , 1966; Grant and Bray, 1969; Blakeney and  MacNaughton, 1971; Wexley, Y u k l , Kovacs and Sanders, 1972). However, t o date,no one has s e r i o u s l y q u e s t i o n e d of video-tape  o r audio-tape  t h e use  f o r t h i s type o f r e s e a r c h .  McLuhan (1964) argued t h a t t h e medium over which a message i s communicated forms p a r t o f t h e message i t s e l f .  If  t h i s i s t h e case, then these r e s e a r c h e r s a r e n o t s t u d y i n g j u s t t h e i n t e r v i e w b u t t h e taped i n t e r v i e w . p o s s i b i l i t y i n mind, t h i s p a p e r addresses  With t h i s  i t s e l f t o the  q u e s t i o n o f whether o r n o t r a t i n g s made i n a f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r v i e w d i f f e r - f r o m r a t i n g s made w i t h a v i d e o - t a p e d interview.  The mode o f i n t e r v i e w p r e s e n t a t i o n may be an  i n f l u e n c i n g moderator a f f e c t i n g t h e outcomes o f t h e abovestated  research. Groups v s I n d i v i d u a l s .  Panel  interviews are often  used f o r s e l e c t i o n purposes ( T a f t , 1959; OSS, 1948). ever, l i t t l e  How-  r e s e a r c h has taken p l a c e t o d i r e c t l y examine  d i f f e r e n c e s i n r a t i n g s as g i v e n by p a n e l s  and as g i v e n  by i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w e r s .  work i s r e p o r t e d  Considerable  which examines groups v s i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n s (Maier, 1967; Lorge e t a l , 1958; H a l l and W i l l i a m , 1970).  These works,  though, have taken p l a c e o u t s i d e t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e i n t e r view.  T h i s p a p e r l o o k s a t groups v s i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s  within this  context.  I n t e r v i e w R a t i n g Forms.  Many o r g a n i z a t i o n s  evaluate  i n t e r v i e w e e s on an i n t e r v i e w r a t i n g form u s u a l l y c o n s i s t i n g o f an a c c e p t - r e j e c t d e c i s i o n and a s e r i e s o f t r a i t s ,  each  t o be r a t e d on a t h r e e - p o i n t , f i v e - p o i n t o r s e v e n - p o i n t  _4-  rating scale. little forms.  The Bank o f Montreal  i s no e x c e p t i o n .  work, though, has been devoted  Very  to analyzing these  T h i s paper examines the Bank's r a t i n g form i n terms  of i n t r a -  and i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y  and h a l o  error.  A t t i t u d e s Toward Video-Tape i n I n t e r v i e w s . paper by Moore and  G r a i k (1972) l o o k e d a t the a t t i t u d e s  which s t u d e n t s and p e r s o n n e l use  A recent  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have toward the  o f v i d e o taped i n t e r v i e w s .  None of the members o f these  samples were asked t o f o r m a l l y a s s e s s the s u i t a b i l i t y the c a n d i d a t e s t h e y viewed.  Indeed, except  at the taped i n t e r v i e w s , the viewers from the i n t e r v i e w s e t t i n g .  of  f o r only looking  were q u i t e removed  T h i s paper f o c u s e s upon the  a t t i t u d e s toward v i d e o - t a p e h e l d by a c t u a l i n t e r v i e w e e s who  were b e i n g v i d e o - t a p e d  and by viewers  who  formally rated  the a p p l i c a n t s ' s u i t a b i l i t y . O u t l i n e o f the Paper The  areas e x p l a i n e d above are grouped i n t o  main s u b s e c t i o n s f o r a n a l y s i s . d e t e r m i n i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any  The  first  three  a r e a i s aimed a t  systematic d i f f e r e n c e s  between r a t i n g s g i v e n by i n t e r v i e w e r s i n a c t u a l f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r v i e w s and r a t i n g s g i v e n by o b s e r v e r s of v i d e o interviews.  The  second a r e a i s an examination  of  taped differ-  ences between group and i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s i n terms of mean variable ratings, overall ratings, c a l l back-reject  de-  c i s i o n s , h a l o e r r o r and i n t e r - and i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y . " The  third  a r e a e x p l o r e s the a t t i t u d e s o f i n t e r v i e w e e s  and  -5-  o b s e r v i n g r a t e r s toward the use terviewing.  of video-tape i n i n -  -6-  CHAPTER  2  RESEARCH SUMMARY This review i s segmented i n t o two basic sections.  The  f i r s t i s a summary of research on the employment interview, while t h i s study does not d i r e c t l y i n v e s t i g a t e the f i n d i n g s reported i n t h i s section, i t was f e l t to be worthwhile to provide such a summary i n order to h i g h l i g h t and explain considerations which were made i n designing t h i s  study's  methodology and to o f f e r a perspective within which t h i s research took place.  The second section i s a review of some  future d i r e c t i o n s which research i n the employment interview may take.  As i s described, some of these d i r e c t i o n s are  examined i n t h i s SECTION 1:  study.  THE INTERVIEW  The employment interview has long been a t o p i c of concern f o r both the personnel  administrator and the researcher.  Through the years, the u t i l i t y of the interview has been sorely c r i t i c i z e d and, as a job performance p r e d i c t o r , has received l a r g e l y p e s s i m i s t i c reviews. remains.  Yet i t s widespread use s t i l l  Throughout the years at l e a s t 90-95^ of organizations  surveyed  employed the personnel interview i n t h e i r s e l e c t i o n  processes  (Spriegel and James, 1958), and as Carlson et a l  (1971) point out, i t i s u n l i k e l y that t h i s condition w i l l change.  The personnel interview has remained i n existence  not as a r e s u l t of any major supporting empirical  evidence  but t h r o u g h some p r o c e s s thrived  wherein i t t h r i v e s t o d a y because i t  yesterday. Given t h i s s i t u a t i o n , t h e n ,  personnel  the g o a l o f r e s e a r c h i n t h e  i n t e r v i e w s h o u l d n o t be t o d i s c r e d i t i t so much  as t o improve i t . T h i s i s the o r i e n t a t i o n f o l l o w e d i n t h i s paper. The  l i t e r a t u r e i n personnel  interviewing i s dealt  w i t h c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y , w i t h h e a v i e r emphasis and more d e t a i l b e i n g g i v e n on t h e r e c e n t work. are based upon the major r e s e a r c h  Comments on e a r l i e r  studies  summary o f Wagner (194-9) ,  U l r i c h and Trumbo (1965), M a y f i e l d (1964) and Wright (1969).  Interviewing The  Review  preponderance o f o p i n i o n and how-to-do-it manuals f o r  i n t e r v i e w i n g became apparent i n Wagner's (1949) summary.  Of  the 106 s t u d i e s he reviewed o n l y 2 5 o f f e r e d q u a n t i t a t i v e information. w i t h i n these  A l s o , as U l r i c h and Trumbo (1965) p o i n t e d o u t , 2 5 s t u d i e s a number o f m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  weaknesses  c o u l d be r e a d i l y l o c a t e d . U l r i c h and Trumbo (1965) drew l a r g e l y s i m i l a r as Wagner (1949).  F i r s t , g r e a t e r s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n i n terms o f  i n f o r m a t i o n used as a b a s i s f o r p e r s o n n e l called for. obtained  conclusions  s e l e c t i o n was  By p e r m i t t i n g v a r i a t i o n i n the type o f i n f o r m a t i o n  and t h e form o f i n t e r v i e w s t r u c t u r e employed, v a r i a t i o n  i n d e c i s i o n a l outcomes i s i n e v i t a b l e . drawing comparable d a t a  should boost  Structured  interviews  r e l i a b i l i t y and t h e r e b y  serve t o i n c r e a s e t h e upper b o u n d a r i e s o f p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y .  -8Second, a n c i l l a r y i n f o r m a t i o n should be was  ( e . g . t e s t s and  employed more h e a v i l y i n p e r s o n n e l  c l o s e l y l i n k e d t o the f i r s t  credentials) decisions.  This  conclusion i n that t e s t s  the l i k e are u s u a l l y s t a n d a r d i z e d  and not  and  so much suspect  to  i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as are data drawn s o l e l y from  the  interview.  the  F i n a l l y , i t was  i n t e r v i e w be reduced.  suggested t h a t the  Rather than attempting  scope o f to assess  l a r g e number o f such complex p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t s intelligence, leadership a b i l i t y ,  a p t i t u d e , and  a h a l f - h o u r i n t e r v i e w , the i n t e r v i e w e r o n l y a few  such a r e a s .  U l r i c h and  should  a  as  so on i n  f o c u s i n upon  Trumbo suggested two  impor-  t a n t f a c t o r s to which the i n t e r v i e w e r c o u l d devote h i s viewing  time.  and m o t i v a t i o n  These were p e r s o n a l  relations (sociability)  t o work.  t r a i t s r e c e i v e d some  These two  e m p i r i c a l evidence s u p p o r t i n g (Woodworth et a l , 1957; et a l , 1962), w h i l e  t h e i r presence i n the  interview  Rimland, I960; Rundquist, 194-7; O t i s  o t h e r t r a i t s have been g e n e r a l l y found  to be b e t t e r p r e d i c t e d by a l t e r n a t e and and  inter-  l i k e l y more v a l i d  r e l i a b l e means. Mayfield  (1964), i n another r e v i e w , drew 15  from h i s r e s e a r c h  summary.  These may  be  grouped i n t o  b a s i c c a t e g o r i e s , a ) i n t e r v i e w e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and g i c a l and  s t r u c t u r a l properties of  Interviewer  conclusions two  b) methodolo-  interviews.  characteristics:  (1) I n t e r v i e w e r s approaches t o d i f f e r e n t  are g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t e n t i n t h e i r interviewees.  -9(2)  Interviewers frequently i n t e r p r e t or weight the  same information generally d i f f e r e n t l y . (3)  Interviewer p r e d i c t i o n s based on a combination  of interview data and scores from t e s t s of proven v a l i d i t y are u s u a l l y no b e t t e r (and sometimes worse) than p r e d i c t i o n s based on t e s t scores alone.  This r a i s e s questions as to the  e f f i c a c y of Wagner's (194-9) and U l r i c h and Trumbo's  (1965)  suggestions that a n c i l l a r y information should accompany interview data when making employment d e c i s i o n s . (4) The a t t i t u d e s of interviewers do a f f e c t the i n t e r pretations of what the interviewees say. (5)  In unstructured interviews, the interviewer generally  t a l k s more than the interviewee. (6) Interviewers generally are influenced more by unfavourable (7)  than by favourable  information.  In an unstructured interview, interviewers tend to  make t h e i r decisions f a i r l y e a r l y . Methodological  and s t r u c t u r a l properties of interviews  (8) The interview can be r e l i a b l y divided i n t o various types of u n i t s .  This permits a microanalytic approach to  studying interview a c t i v i t i e s and dynamics. (9)  The i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of the interview appears  to be r e l a t i v e l y high.  Test-retest time spans are of varying  length, though, and no work has been done to i s o l a t e the e f f e c t which memory plays upon the r e t e s t outcomes.  -10  (10)  An u n s t r u c t u r e d  i n t e r v i e w w i t h no p r i o r  u s u a l l y r e s u l t s i n low i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y  information  f o r a general  suitability rating. (11) M a t e r i a l i s n o t c o n s i s t e n t l y c o v e r e d i n an unstructured  interview.  (12) I n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y i s g e n e r a l l y h i g h e r s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w than f o r an u n s t r u c t u r e d  for a  interview.  E v i d e n c e a l s o seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t " s t r u c t u r i n g an i n t e r v i e w i n c r e a s e s i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y when  i n t e r v i e w e r s from t h e  same company use t h e same form, but t h a t two d i f f e r e n t forms may l e a d t o c o m p l e t e l y w i t h t h e same (13)  structured  d i f f e r e n t r a t i n g s when used  interviewee."  A l t h o u g h r e l i a b i l i t i e s may be s a t i s f a c t o r y i n some  types o f interview  s i t u a t i o n s , v a l i d i t i e s are g e n e r a l l y q u i t e  low. (14) O n l y t h e i n t e l l i g e n c e t r a i t has  o f an  been found t o be judged s a t i s f a c t o r i l y .  interviewee T h i s appears t o  c o n t r a d i c t U l r i c h and Trumbo's (1965) c o n c l u s i o n motivation  t o work and p e r s o n a l  that  relations (sociability)  show the g r e a t e s t evidence o f v a l i d i t y i n i n t e r v i e w e r d e c i s i o n s . Each r e v i e w e r has e x c l u d e d t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f the o t h e r . M a y f i e l d made no mention o f m o t i v a t i o n  t o work and s o c i a b i l i t y  and U l r i c h and Trumbo d i d n o t c o n s i d e r t h e p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y of i n t e l l i g e n c e .  A l o o k a t t h e b i b l i o g r a p h i e s o f each review  r e v e a l s t h a t n e i t h e r i n c l u d e d those r e s e a r c h to the other's  conclusion.  studies relevant  -11(15)  Answers g i v e n by i n t e r v i e w e e s  a r e a f f e c t e d by t h e  form i n which t h e q u e s t i o n i s asked. Mayfield also discussed  some o f t h e overwhelming method-  o l o g i c a l problems which a r i s e when attempting of i n t e r v i e w s .  t o compare s t u d i e s  There i s f r e q u e n t l y a v a r i a t i o n among s t u d i e s  i n t h e amount o f s t r u c t u r e imposed on r a t i n g forms and i n t h e types o f t r a i t s o r behavioural are asked t o make judgments.  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on which Interview  subjects  length i s often  quite  v a r i a b l e as i s t h e type o f j o b f o r which a p p l i c a n t s a r e b e i n g rated.  Furthermore, t h e c r i t e r i a o f success  i n prediction  are f r e q u e n t l y d i f f e r e n t and o f t e n d i f f i c u l t  to i n t e r p r e t .  These c r i t e r i a range from u s i n g j o b performance measures as dependent v a r i a b l e s t o v a l i d a t i n g t r a i t s by u s i n g measures o f t h e same t r a i t s . issue at great  other  C r i s s y (1952) d e a l t w i t h  this  length.  Throughout h i s review M a y f i e l d assumed t h a t t h e most f r e q u e n t l y used type o f employment i n t e r v i e w i s u n s t r u c t u r e d . However, he o f f e r e d no i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f what means and gave no e m p i r i c a l evidence t o support Two o f t h e above c o n c l u s i o n s  "unstructured" this  drawn by M a y f i e l d ( i . e .  i n t e r v i e w e r s a r e g e n e r a l l y i n f l u e n c e d by u n f a v o u r a b l e than f a v o u r a b l e  information  assumption.  rather  and i n t e r v i e w e r s tend t o make  d e c i s i o n s e a r l y i n t h e i n t e r v i e w ) were d e r i v e d from t h e s e r i e s of studies presented  by Webster (1964-).  T h i s most important book r e a l l y recent  s e t t h e stage f o r t h e  developments i n i n t e r v i e w i n g r e s e a r c h .  B a s i c a l l y , what  -1*2-  Webster and h i s a s s o c i a t e s d i d was  t o address themselves t o  problems o f i d e n t i f y i n g the p r o c e s s e s  and  c o n d i t i o n s i n an  i n t e r v i e w which produce employment d e c i s i o n s . l o o k i n g at the v a l i d i t y o r r e l i a b i l i t y looked  at how  R a t h e r than  of d e c i s i o n s  they  the d e c i s i o n s themselves were developed.  Webster's (1964-) work summarized nine y e a r s o f h i s r e s e a r c h and t h a t o f h i s c o l l e a g u e s and  former graduate s t u d e n t s  M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y ( n o t a b l y , B.M. C.W.  Anderson, A r e t a C r o w e l l  S p r i n g b e t t , D.  at  Sydiaha,  and P a t r i c i a Rowe).  Webster's a n a l y s i s drew seven major c o n c l u s i o n s . 1.  Interviewers  seek t o match men  develop a s t e r e o t y p e  and  stereotypes.  o f a good c a n d i d a t e  T h i s f i n d i n g was  r e p o r t e d by S y d i a h a (1958) and l a t e r supported  and  initially  by Rowe (1963).  Rowe's r e s e a r c h a l s o p o i n t e d out t h a t s t e r e o t y p e s tend t o  be  "good" r a t h e r than "bad."  2. to  A b i a s i s e s t a b l i s h e d e a r l y i n the i n t e r v i e w and be  f o l l o w e d e i t h e r by  decision.  a favourable  T h i s f i n d i n g was  o r by an  tends  unfavourable  i n i t i a l l y r e p o r t e d by  Springbett  (1954) and l a t e r s u b s t a n t i a t e d by Sydiaha (1961), Anderson (I960) and Lambert et_ al_ ( I 9 6 0 ) .  Furthermore, Anderson showed  t h a t i n t e r v i e w e r s tend to speak more when a d e c i s i o n to h i r e i s made than when a d e c i s i o n to r e j e c t i s made.  3.  Interviewers  by f a v o u r a b l e  are more i n f l u e n c e d by u n f a v o u r a b l e  information.  T h i s f i n d i n g was  first  than  suggested  -13-  by C r i s s y and B o l s t e r and  Regan (1951).  S p r i n g b e t t , 1961,  L a t e r evidence and  (Springbett,  Rowe, i 9 6 0 ) l e n t  credence  t o t h i s d i s c o v e r y as d i d the more r e c e n t works o f M i l l e r Rowe (1967), M a y f i e l d and C a r l s o n  (1966) and  1958;  Blakeney  and  and  McNaughton (1971).  4.  Interviewers  seek i n f o r m a t i o n t o support  or refute  hypotheses and when s a t i s f i e d , t h e y t u r n t h e i r a t t e n t i o n elsewhere.  Crowell  (1961) b a s i c a l l y suggested t h a t  interviewers  change the emphasis they p l a c e on p a r t s o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n o r d e r to c o n f i r m the evidence the o t h e r  5.  f o r t h i s f i n d i n g was  Webster r e p o r t e d  not  as c o n c l u s i v e as f o r  Empathy r e l a t i o n s h i p s are s p e c i f i c t o  individual  S y d i a h a (1962) d i s c u s s e d the problems which  a r i s e by t r e a t i n g the e x t e n t  s h i p can be o b t a i n e d  to which an empathic  between i n t e r v i e w e r and The  out o f the evidence  showing t h a t the  based d e c i s i o n may  he  reported  not be  most n o t a b l e problem a r i s e s  c o n s i s t e n t from one  L a r g e l y , S y d i a h a expressed  relation-  a p p l i c a n t as a  basis for selection decisions.  another.  that  ones.  interviewers. may  e a r l y impressions.  empathically  individual  caution against  to  using  common sense o r i n t u i t i o n as a s e l e c t i o n d e c i s i o n g u i d e . He  s t a t e d t h a t w i t h t h i s approach "the d e c i s i o n making cues  w i l l be u n s p e c i f i e d , unknown o r s p e c i f i c t o the  6.  Feeding  the d e c i s i o n .  interviewer".  i n f o r m a t i o n t o a judge p i e c e by p i e c e Crowell  (1961) r e p o r t e d evidence  affects  which suggests  r-14~ t h a t when judges  are g i v e n a l l i n f o r m a t i o n  t h e i r d e c i s i o n s are d i f f e r e n t from and information  i s g i v e n p i e c e by p i e c e .  b e t t e r than when Her  performed i n a l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g and, "generalization  ... t o the  t e n t a t i v e l y with  order  was  as Webster s t a t e d ,  a good d e a l o f c a u t i o n " .  Experienced  experiment  employment i n t e r v i e w must be made  which aims at r e p l i c a t i n g t h i s  7.  simultaneously,  No  study c o u l d be  other  research  located.  i n t e r v i e w e r s rank a p p l i c a n t s i n jbhe same  a l t h o u g h t h e y d i f f e r i n the p r o p o r t i o n t h e y w i l l  T h i s f i n d i n g was  r e p o r t e d by Rowe (1963) and  major p i e c e o f r e s e a r c h which r e c o g n i z e d i n t e r v i e w e r s and,  represented  p a t t e r n o f acceptance among j u d g e s . p r o p o r t i o n of candidates f r e q u e n t l y accepted  accept  "Those who  i n d i v i d u a l s who  disposed  toward men  s e l e c t i v e i n t e r v i e w e r s . " More e x p e r i e n c e d  first  independent  Rowe found an  by a l l j u d g e s ; those who  p r o p o r t i o n are f a v o u r a b l y  the  d i f f e r e n c e s among  hence, t r e a t e d i n t e r v i e w e r s as an  variable affecting selection decisions.  accept.  accept  ordered a  small  are most  accept  a large  accepted  by more  i n t e r v i e w e r s were  found t o be more s e l e c t i v e .  The term "judges" i s employed r a t h e r than " i n t e r v i e w e r s " s i n c e the r e s e a r c h i n v o l v e d p e r s o n s who made judgments based on h i g h l y s e l e c t i v e and c o n t r o l l e d items o f w r i t t e n o r g r a p h i c i n f o r m a t i o n and not on i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r e d i n an a c t u a l personal interview. " I n t e r v i e w e r s " p e r se were not used i n the samples n o r were i n t e r v i e w s p e r se a c t u a l l y c a r r i e d out.  -15T h i s s e r i e s o f c o n c l u s i o n s marked a change i n the d i r e c t i o n taken when r e s e a r c h i n g the i n t e r v i e w .  The  which l e d t o d e c i s i o n a l outcomes became the f o c u s  processes  rather  than the e a r l i e r approach o f a n a l y z i n g the outcomes themselves i n terms o f t h e i r v a l i d i t i e s and r e l i a b i l i t i e s . to  say t h a t v a l i d i t y  and  reliability  o n l y were p l a c e d i n a more c a u s a t i v e  l o s t importance.  They  perspective.  More c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h on the employment has been performed n o t a b l y by two  T h i s i s not  interview  r e s e a r c h teams.  teams were r e s p e c t i v e l y Eugene M a y f i e l d and  These  Robert  Carlson  o f the L i f e Insurance Agency Management A s s o c i a t i o n (LIAMA) and  M i l t o n Hakel and h i s a s s o c i a t e s at the U n i v e r s i t y of Ohio  and  the U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota. The  LIAMA team undertook t h e i r program of r e s e a r c h i n  an attempt t o u n d e r s t a n d the mechanism o f the i n t e r v i e w to  improve the use  insurance designs  of t h i s s e l e c t i o n d e v i c e i n the  i n d u s t r y (Carlson et _al, 1971).  were b a s i c a l l y the same as those  Their  and  life experimental  employed i n the  M c G i l l s t u d i e s ; d e c i s i o n a l outcomes were dependent v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t e d by c o n t r o l l i n g and m o d i f y i n g  processes  and  influences  w i t h i n the i n t e r v i e w s t r u c t u r e . It  i s worth n o t i n g at t h i s p o i n t t h a t the LIAMA group  and the M c G i l l group g e n e r a l l y used a paper and p e n c i l approach when p r e s e n t i n g the i n t e r v i e w e e s  t o the i n t e r v i e w e r s  That i s , the i n t e r v i e w e e s were not p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t were d e s c r i b e d on p a p e r .  M a y f i e l d and  Carlson  (raters). but  (1966) d e s c r i b e d  -16. t h i s approach as b e i n g  q u i c k , t h e r e b y p e r m i t t i n g a wide scope  of a p p l i c a n t information convenient,  t o be g i v e n , and e x p e r i m e n t a l l y  i n that i t "allows  c o n t r o l o f t h e many o u t s i d e  v a r i a b l e s which o t h e r w i s e might a f f e c t t h e r e s u l t s " . f u r t h e r stated that " r e s u l t s obtained l a t e r be compared t o those o b t a i n e d presented  by t h i s method c o u l d  when i n f o r m a t i o n i s  by o t h e r means... t o determine i f t h e mode o f  p r e s e n t a t i o n has any e f f e c t " . one  They  Video-tape may c e r t a i n l y be  o f t h e s e " o t h e r means" w i t h which t o compare. Carlson  e t a l i d e n t i f i e d f o u r main c l a s s e s o f i n f l u e n c e s  which operate t o a f f e c t o r l i m i t t h e i n t e r v i e w e r ' s  decisions.  These were: 1.  The p h y s i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e interviewee;  2.  The p h y s i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e interviewer;  3.  The s i t u a t i o n / e n v i r o n m e n t  i n which the i n t e r v i e w e r  works; 4.  The t a s k o r type o f judgment t h e i n t e r v i e w e r must make. A d e t a i l e d summary o f t h e i r r e s e a r c h  f i n d i n g s may be  found i n t h e i r r e c e n t paper ( C a r l s o n , Thayer, M a y f i e l d and Peterson,  1971).  Some o f t h e more important r e s u l t s a r e as  follows: 1.  Using  and p e r s o n a l  both photographs t o r e p r e s e n t h i s t o r y descriptions to depict  backgrounds, C a r l s o n photograph alone  p h y s i c a l appearance interviewees'  (1967) found t h a t t h e r a t i n g o f t h e  had a minimal e f f e c t on t h e mean r a t i n g o f t h e  overall applicant.  Appearance accounted f o r l e s s than 3%  o f the v a r i a n c e i n t h e mean r a t i n g o f the a p p l i c a n t w h i l e t h e p e r s o n a l h i s t o r y accounted f o r about 40$.  Furthermore,  photographs were found t o be most i n f l u e n t i a l when t h e y ented t h e p e r s o n a l h i s t o r y d e s c r i p t i o n .  complem-  However, t h e impor-  tance o f appearance cannot be u n d e r e s t i m a t e d .  In a b r i e f  summary o f s t u d i e s e x p l o r i n g t h e e f f e c t s o f appearance  ..  on i n t e r p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n , Hakel e t a l (1970) s t a t e d t h a t appearance alone  can r e s u l t i n l a s t i n g and w e l l - s t r u c t u r e d  interpersonal impressions.  I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t i n t h e  s t u d i e s Hakel et_ al_ d e s c r i b e a c t u a l p h y s i c a l presence formed the b a s i s o f appearance r a t h e r than the photograph employed by C a r l s o n . in  2.  technique  T h i s may e x p l a i n some o f the d i s c r e p a n c y  emphasis p l a c e d on the p e r s o n a l  characteristic.  I n an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e e x t e n t t o which i n t e r v i e w e r  experience  a f f e c t s d e c i s i o n a l outcomes, C a r l s o n  there i s l i t t l e  (1967) found t h a t  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e extent t o which exper-  i e n c e d i n t e r v i e w e r s agree w i t h each o t h e r and t h e e x t e n t t o which i n e x p e r i e n c e d  i n t e r v i e w e r s agree w i t h each o t h e r .  p o s t u l a t e d some r e a s o n s f o r t h i s o c c u r r e n c e (1)"managers ( i n t e r v i e w e r s ) need n o t share s i m i l a r experiences  as b e i n g  that  the same o r h i g h l y  which would be n e c e s s a r y  to increase  i n t e r - r a t e r agreement" and (2) t h e r e i s u s u a l l y l i t t l e feedback which would serve t o i n c r e a s e i n t e r - a n d agreement.  The o n l y r e p o r t o f where experience  outcomes i s d e s c r i b e d i n (4) below.  He  systematic  intra-rater does a f f e c t  T h i s work tended t o l i m i t  the v e r a c i t y o f c o n c l u s i o n s as t o the e f f e c t s o f i n t e r v i e w e r experience  as r e p o r t e d by Rowe (1963).  =183.  A study by C a r l s o n , Schwab and Henemarm(1970) showed  t h a t i n t e r - r a t e r agreement was h i g h e r than i n u n s t r u c t u r e d  i n structured  o r semi-structured  interviews  i n t e r v i e w s hence  showing t h a t w i t h more s t r u c t u r e the l i k e l i h o o d o f v a l i d selection i s greater.  The r e s e a r c h e r s  c o n t r o l l e d f o r three  conditions o f structure (structured, unstructured structured)  and semi-  and w i t h i n each c o n d i t i o n gave 6 male  5 job a p p l i c a n t s t o r a n k - o r d e r . i n terms o f t h e s e r a n k i n g s  interviewers  I n t e r - i n t e r v i e w e r agreement  was h i g h e s t  group and l o w e s t f o r the u n s t r u c t u r e d  f o r the group.  structured An e a r l i e r  by Schwab and Henemann (1969) a l s o supported t h e s e  4-.  conclusions.  When i n t e r v i e w e r s are b e h i n d a s t i p u l a t e d quota  (1967) found t h a t t h e y g e n e r a l l y tend t o e v a l u a t e h i g h e r than i f no quota e x i s t e d .  study  Carlson  applicants  Furthermore, he r e p o r t e d  t h a t i n t e r - r a t e r agreement was h i g h e r when r a t e r s were e i t h e r extremely ahead o f o r b e h i n d schedule,  a l t h o u g h the  i n these c o n d i t i o n s were somewhat i m p a i r e d .  One o t h e r  e s t i n g f i n d i n g which emerged here was t h a t more  interviewers.  c o n s i s t e n t i n r a t i n g s with  inter-  experienced  i n t e r v i e w e r s were l e s s s u s c e p t i b l e t o the p r e s s u r e than l e s s e x p e r i e n c e d  ratings  conditions  The former were more  and without a quota than were t h e  latter.  5.  was  C a r l s o n e t a l (1971) r e p o r t e d  a recent  study wherein i t  found t h a t when i n t e r v i e w e r s d i d not take n o t e s o r f o l l o w  an i n t e r v i e w guide the a c c u r a c y  of r e c a l l of applicant  -19-  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was l o w e r than i f they had f o l l o w e d procedures.  Furthermore, when h i s a c c u r a c y  i n t e r v i e w e r tended t o e v a l u a t e  6.  M a y f i e l d and C a r l s o n  that stereotypes,  was low t h e  the applicant quite  i n d i c a t i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a "halo  such  favourably  strategy."  postulated the hypothesis  (1966)  c o n s i s t i n g o f f e a t u r e s s p e c i f i c t o each  i n t e r v i e w e r and g e n e r a l  t o an a s s o c i a t e d group o f i n t e r v i e w e r s ,  form a major b a s i s f o r employment d e c i s i o n s .  A later  ( C a r l s o n e t _ a l , 1 9 7 1 ) supported t h i s h y p o t h e s i s  and l e n t  f u r t h e r credence t o S y d i a h a s ( 1 9 5 8 ) work, r e p o r t e d  earlier.  1  Furthermore, C a r l s o n e t a l ( 1 9 7 1 )  study  found t h a t when t h e s t e r e o -  type was i n o p e r a t i o n , i n t e r - r a t e r agreement was h i g h e r when i t was n o t .  T h i s was due t o the f i n d i n g t h a t  m a t e l y 70% o f t h e f a c t o r s c o n s i d e r e d  than  approxi-  r e l e v a n t t o making  d e c i s i o n s were common t o t h e r a t e r s i n the study, w h i l e 30% were s p e c i f i c t o each r a t e r . Rowe's ( 1 9 6 3 )  contention  r a t h e r than "bad".  T h i s gave e m p i r i c a l support t o  that stereotypes  tend  t o be "good"  However, i t must be r e c o g n i z e d  that  this  does n o t ensure h i g h e r v a l i d i t i e s based on j o b b e h a v i o u r criteria  7.  1970)  1964).  On the b a s i s o f two r e s e a r c h  studies, Carlson  (1968,  argued t h a t i n t e r v i e w e r s do n o t r a t e i n terms o f an  absolute isons.  (Mayfield,  standard  but r a t h e r with respect to r e l a t i v e  Applicants being  interviewed  compar-  by one i n t e r v i e w e r were  -20-  evaluated according to one another.  I t was  found that when  an average applicant was being considered by an interviewer who  had j u s t evaluated three or four very unfavourable  applicants, the average applicant was  rated very  favourably.  This f i n d i n g i s not consistent with other work performed by Hakel et a l (Hakel, Ohnesorge and Dunnette, 1970) who  re-  ported that while "contrast e f f e c t s " e x i s t , they account f o r very minor amounts of variance.  From these f i n d i n g s the LIAMA group began to propose ways of improving the s e l e c t i o n interview.  The two major  applied i m p l i c a t i o n s were stated as follows: " F i r s t , the s e l e c t i o n interview should be made an i n t e g r a l part of an o v e r - a l l s e l e c t i o n procedure, and to accomplish t h i s , new and a d d i t i o n a l materials are needed. The new materials should include a broad-gauge, comprehensive, structured interview guide; standardized evaluation and p r e d i c t i o n forms that a i d the interviewer i n summarizing information from a l l steps i n the s e l e c t i o n process; and an evaluation system that provides feedback to the interviewer i n language s i m i l a r to the preemployment job behaviour pred i c t i o n s he must make. The second major applied i m p l i c a t i o n i s that an intensive t r a i n i n g program f o r interviewers i s necessary i f interviewers are to i n i t i a l l y l e a r n enough i n common to increase the p r o b a b i l i t y of obtaining general v a l i d i t y from the s e l e c t i o n interview." (Carlson, et a l , 1971, p. 273) A second main stream of research i n employment i n t e r viewing was pursued by Milton Hakel and h i s associates at the U n i v e r s i t y of Ohio and the U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota.  These  i n v e s t i g a t o r s have followed a rather d i f f e r e n t course from the LIAMA team by focusing upon the t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l l y  -21-  founded n o t i o n o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n . monograph, C h e c k l i s t s f o r D e s c r i b i n g Job and  Dunnette, 1970), the M c G i l l s t u d i e s  In a  Applicants (Webster,  were i n t e r p r e t e d i n terms o f t h i s framework and Interpersonal  Perception  was  1964)  a model o f  While t h e i r  1)  d e t a i l e d h e r e , an e x p l o r a t i o n i s made o f a These  As d e s c r i b e d  e a r l i e r , Carlson  (1968, 1970)  offered  argument t h a t i n t e r v i e w e r s  i n terms o f an a b s o l u t e  standard  r e l a t i v e comparisons. evaluated  but  applicants.  when he i s p r e c e d e d by  will  unfavourable  favourable  Rowe (1967) o f f e r e d evidence which showed a l e d h e r t o conclude t h a t "whether an  i n d i v i d u a l i s a c c e p t e d o r r e j e c t e d f o r a job may more on the  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the p r e v i o u s traits",  (p.  applicants  Dunnette (1970)  e v i d e n c e to s e v e r e l y l i m i t the h e r e t o f o r e of "contrast  w e l l depend  postulated  e f f e c t s . " They concluded t h a t , i n d e e d ,  e f f e c t s are p r e s e n t . decision variance o f the  Yet  than  173).  However, H a k e l , Ohnesorge and  1.9$  rate to  For example, an average a p p l i c a n t  favourably  s i m i l a r r e s u l t and  on h i s own  do not  r a t h e r with respect  a p p l i c a n t s o r u n f a v o u r a b l y when p r e c e d e d by  and  are  follows:  evidence t o support the  be  future  research  number o f important f i n d i n g s from t h e i r r e s e a r c h . as  (Hakel  developed on which t o base  s t u d i e s o f employment i n t e r v i e w i n g . summary i s not  recent  they o n l y account f o r 1.2$  f o r a group o f 97  decision variance  employment  provided influence contrast of  the  interviewers  f o r a group of 102  male  -22-  psychology students,  amounts which, they s t a t e d , are f o r  p r a c t i c a l purposes " n e a r l y t r i v i a l . " e v a l u a t i o n o f Rowe's ( 1 9 6 7 ) account f o r o n l y are not  as p o t e n t  data  Furthermore, a r e -  shows t h a t c o n t r a s t  . 7 $ of d e c i s i o n variance.  effects  Contrast  effects  as p r e v i o u s l y b e l i e v e d .  T h i s f i n d i n g i s more c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the n o t i o n "stereotypes" M a y f i e l d and (1958)  and t h e i r i n f l u e n c e on d e c i s i o n a l outcomes. (1966)> C a r l s o n et_ a l ( 1 9 7 1 )  Carlson  and  Sydiaha  drew the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i n t e r v i e w e r s base d e c i s i o n s  i n l a r g e p a r t upon the  "stereotype"  acceptable  Furthermore, the  candidate.  o f an i d e a l o r at stereotype  o f f e a t u r e s common to a l l i n t e r v i e w e r s T h i s would suggest t h a t the absolute  standard  o f e v a l u a t i o n i s more  than r e l a t i v e , an i d e a q u i t e c o n t r a r y t o the  Recognizing  that stereotypes  explored  the extent  accurate. (N = 14),  (N = 2 0 )  and  compared how  the i n t e r e s t s o f a c c o u n t a n t s .  data from the Blank.  CPA  Dunnette  samples o f r a t e r s ;  C e r t i f i e d P u b l i c A c c o u n t a n t s who  a 5 7 - item  standard.  (1970)  to which i n t e r v i e w e r s ' s t e r e o t y p e s  They took t h r e e  students  notion  p l a y an i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n  employment d e c i s i o n s , Hakel, Hollmann and  used was  i n the main,  ( C a r l s o n et a l , 1 9 7 1 ) .  o f c o n t r a s t e f f e c t s which i m p l i e s a r e l a t i v e  and  least  consisted  p a r t l y o f f e a t u r e s s p e c i f i c t o each i n t e r v i e w e r and,  2)  of  The  forced-choice  are  interviewers  interview  well they  (N =  23),  identified  t e s t i n s t r u m e n t which t h e y test constructed  s c a l e o f the S t r o n g  Vocational  T h e i r f i n d i n g s were e s s e n t i a l l y t w o - f o l d .  using  Interest First,  -23-  among t h e s e t h r e e samples, r a t e r a c c u r a c y was different used  and i n each case was  S t e r e o t y p e s were  Second, f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f the d a t a y i e l d e d  distinct clusters.  The  first  o f CPA's w h i l e the second was and  significantly  as a b a s i s f o r d e c i s i o n s b u t , u n f o r t u n a t e l y , were s o r e l y  l a c k i n g i n accuracy. two  q u i t e low.  not  students.  The  cluster consisted largely  p o p u l a t e d by m o s t l y i n t e r v i e w e r s  authors concluded t h a t the  characteristics  o f r a t e r s r e s u l t i n an i m p r e s s i o n o f a somewhat unique type.  stereo-  CPA's have a s i m i l a r background and hence form a s i m i l a r  s t e r e o t y p e ( a l t h o u g h t h i s background i s moderated by f a c t o r s such as age).  L i k e w i s e , i n t e r v i e w e r s and  have formed s t e r e o t y p e s based  other  students  on t h e i r exposure t o the  accounting  p r o f e s s i o n ; an exposure which i s l a r g e l y s i m i l a r f o r most l a y people.  T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the t h e o r y  and r e s e a r c h u n d e r l y i n g i n t e r - p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n (Hakel Dunnette,  and  1970).  3.  In h i s r e v i e w o f r e s e a r c h on the employment i n t e r v i e w ,  Wright  (1969)  supported  emphasis on m a c r o a n a l y t i c s t u d i e s which  would show the e x i s t e n c e o f s i m i l a r i t i e s o r d i f f e r e n c e s interviews.  Hakel  and Schuh ( 1 9 7 1 )  have performed  r e c e n t p i e c e o f r e s e a r c h which s u i t s Wright's  the o n l y  suggestion.  In t h i s study, the authors i d e n t i f i e d 2 2 a t t r i b u t e s t o be i m p o r t a n t ,  judged  f r e q u e n t l y c o n s i d e r e d and f a v o u r a b l e by  d i v e r s e o c c u p a t i o n a l groups. important  across  T h e i r study i d e n t i f i e d  seven  some  s i m i l a r i t i e s among o c c u p a t i o n s i n terms o f i n t e r v i e w i n g . -  As t h e a u t h o r s suggest,  i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f these 2 2 items  i n t e r v i e w e r t r a i n i n g programs would enhance i n t e r v i e w e r  into  -24-  transferability.  Also, these items could be used as a base  f o r patterned interview guides f o r general use as recommended by Carlson et a l (1971).  4.  Considerable work has been performed i s o l a t i n g the  f a v o u r a b i l i t y of applicant information as an independent v a r i a b l e and examining i t s e f f e c t s upon d e c i s i o n a l outcomes (Bolster and Springbett, 1961; M i l l e r and Rose, 1967; Mayfield and Carlson, 1966; Carlson, 1968; Webster, 1964).  However,  u n t i l recently (Hakel, Dobmeyer and Dunnette, 1970) no work had been reported which examined the actual content area to which favourableness or unfavourableness This i s an important  had been a t t r i b u t e d .  concern since, as Hakel et a l state,  " i t i s d i f f i c u l t to believe that a l l content categories are of equal importance i n determining ratings of o v e r a l l s u i t ability".  These authors v a r i e d the extent of f a v o u r a b i l i t y  of three content dimensions, s c h o l a s t i c standing, business experience and i n t e r e s t and a c t i v i t i e s , and developed d e s c r i p t i v e combinations i n resume-form.  twelve  Two samples (CPA  interviewer, N = 22; students, N = 20) were given the task of evaluating these resumes as to o v e r a l l s u i t a b i l i t y .  The  findings demonstrated that content moderates the evaluation of job a p p l i c a n t s .  Prom among the three content dimensions  manipulated, s c h o l a s t i c standing played a major r o l e i n interviewers' d e c i s i o n s .  This f i n d i n g does not i n f e r that  s c h o l a s t i c standing i s the most important interviewee a t t r i b u t e . Rather, i t suggests that at a s p e c i f i c l e v e l , among the three dimensions Hakel et a l studied, s c h o l a s t i c standing was most  -25-  important.  More important,  at a general l e v e l , t h i s research  demonstrated that content categories have d i f f e r e n t i a l influences on d e c i s i o n a l outcomes. While they have contributed much to an understanding of what goes on during employment interviews, Hakel and h i s associates have only begun to explain some of the causative f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g d e c i s i o n a l outcomes.  Future research based  on t h e i r model and Checklists as described i n t h e i r recent monograph w i l l undoubtedly shed more l i g h t i n t h i s regard.  CONCLUSION Recent research has taken the d i r e c t i o n suggested at the s t a r t of t h i s research summary; that research on the employment interview should not be aimed at d i s c r e d i t i n g i t so much toward improving  i t s predictive capability.  P r i o r to the recent s e r i e s of i n v e s t i g a t i o n , summarized above, the interview was f e l t to have low r e l i a b i l i t y and even l e s s v a l i d i t y .  However, current findings suggest  ways to reduce these negative c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  Furthermore,  G h i s e l l i (1966) has demonstrated that a s k i l l e d interviewer can e l i c i t information quite adequately i t to p r e d i c t future performance.  and can capably use  S i m i l a r findings are  gradually being reported (Grant and Bray, 1969; P a l a c i o s , Newberry and Bootgin, 1966).  The present study has attempted  to incorporate many of these f i n d i n g s into i t s design whereever relevant, as i s described i n Chapter 3.  -26SECTION 2:  FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS  What f u r t h e r d i r e c t i o n s can r e s e a r c h o f the i n t e r v i e w take? will  employment  Undoubtedly t h e r e are many, as f u t u r e  demonstrate.  However, f i v e such p r o p o s a l s  are  research  explored  here. I-  D i f f e r e n t Samples' Webster's s t u d i e s were conducted p r i m a r i l y w i t h  S e l e c t i o n O f f i c e r s i n the Canadian Armed F o r c e s interviewers. insurance  Personnel  a c t i n g as  C a r l s o n e t a l ' s a n a l y s e s were l a r g e l y made upon  agents.  R e p l i c a t i o n of t h e i r analyses with  other  samples would o f f e r more i n f o r m a t i o n i n terms of the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of t h e i r f i n d i n g s . II.  Interpersonal Hakel and  Perception  Dunnette ( 1 9 7 0 )  proposed a model o f  inter-  p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n which c o u l d be  employed as a b a s i s f o r  a n a l y s i s o f d e c i s i o n making i n the  employment i n t e r v i e w .  These authors  s t a t e d t h a t " l e a r n i n g about another p e r s o n  be viewed as e s s e n t i a l l y a m a t t e r o f g a t h e r i n g and i n f o r m a t i o n about t h a t p e r s o n i n the c o n t e x t mation he has t y p e s he has  about h i m s e l f , o t h e r s he has formed".  Involved  complex network o f p r o c e s s e s upon p e r c e p t i o n t h e o r y but expectancy t h e o r y .  and  processing  of other  infor-  observed and  stereo-  i n t h i s framework i s a h i g h l y c o n d i t i o n s , drawing not  a l s o upon p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r y  Its u t i l i t y  can  only and  as an i n t e r p r e t i v e system o f  the dynamics o f i n t e r v i e w i n g i s c l e a r l y shown i n the Hakel Dunnette monograph The to  the  use  and  (1970).  o f such an approach adds an important  study o f the i n t e r v i e w .  Not  dimension  o n l y does i t p r o v i d e  a  -27-  theoreti.cal basis but i t also o f f e r s methodologies f o r the examination  of various constructs (e.g. perceptual  accuracy  and impression formation) which a f f e c t the d e c i s i o n making processes i n interviews.  Hakel and Dunnette  (1970)  demon-  strated i t s t h e o r e t i c a l usefulness as they i n t e r p r e t e d several of Webster's (1964-) findings i n the l i g h t of interpersonal perception theory and r e l a t e d studies i n person perception. Furthermore, the research reported i n the monograph employed methodologies used i n studies of person perception. This approach, then, o f f e r s u t i l i t y both i n a theore t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l sense.  With such a t h e o r e t i c a l frame-  work, f i n d i n g s i n interviewing research may  be t i e d together  thereby f a c i l i t a t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and i d e n t i f y i n g i n t e r relationships.  To date, such a framework was  As Lewin  stated, "there i s nothing so p r a c t i c a l as a  (194-5)  good theory".  III.  c l e a r l y missing.  Hakel and Dunnette proposed such a theory.  Evaluation of Rating Forms Much work has been done i n v e s t i g a t i n g f a c t o r s i n f l u -  encing d e c i s i o n a l outcomes.  However, very l i t t l e has been de-  voted to analyzing the actual r a t i n g form used by interviewers. Hakel et a l used only o v e r a l l s u i t a b i l i t y as the dependent v a r i a b l e i n t h e i r microanalytic studies.  Rowe  (1970)  advocated the use of a rank order technique rather than the accept-reject or t r a i t - r a t i n g approach.  She claimed that t h i s  approach would enhance i n t r a r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y .  Other researchers  (Schwab and Heneman, 1 9 6 9 ; Carlson, Schwab and Heneman, 1 9 7 0 ) also adopted t h i s approach.  Carlson  (1967)  u t i l i z e d an accept-  -28r e j e c t d e c i s i o n and  a rank o r d e r  t h a t s u b j e c t s were to e v a l u a t e s c a l e " a l t h o u g h he i n Webster, 1964) ance-rejection  o f f e r e d no  approach.  He  also  stated  a "predicted behavior r a t i n g description.  Springbett  (1954  used a s i x - p o i n t d e s c r i p t i v e - a n c h o r e d  scale.  asked i n t e r v i e w e r s  Crowell  (1961  accept-  c i t e d i n Webster,  1964)  t o e i t h e r accept o r r e j e c t a p p l i c a n t s  d i d S y d i a h a (1961) and  cited  as  Rowe (1963).  O t h e r s t u d i e s have used t r a i t - r a t i n g s c a l e s (e.g. Wagner, 1949)  as dependent v a r i a b l e s .  a b i l i t y and  B e s i d e s Wagner's summary o f  v a l i d i t y o f interview's u s i n g  these s c a l e s as dep-  endent v a r i a b l e s , Rowe (1970) addressed the problem o f rating-forms ability,  (be t h e y r a t i n g s o f t r a i t s and/or o v e r a l l s u i t -  intra-rater reliability.  Using rankings,  reported  i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y scores  17  c o e f f i c i e n t s s i g n i f i c a n t at l e a s t at the  Wagner r e p o r t e d  confidence.  achieving  be  .87  ( S c o t t , Bingham and  as  she  .812, .05  with  level.  as  .96  for  .77  for  self-  a maximum r a t i n g o f .85  Whipple, 1916).  t h i s c o e f f i c i e n t was  The  was  method f o r  a c o r r e l a t i o n between s e t s  While t h i s s u p p o r t s Rowe's c o n t e n t i o n ,  taken r a t h e r l i g h t l y due  described  f o r s o c i a b i l i t y and  For o v e r a l l a b i l i t y ,  rank-ordering.  as h i g h  r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s as h i g h  the i n t e l l i g e n c e t r a i t ,  reported  how  accept-reject d e c i s i o n s , or rank-orderings) a f f e c t  i n t e r - and  o f 20  reli-  of  i t must  to methodological inadequacies,  as  by Wagner.  I t would seem t h a t a simple a c c e p t - r e j e c t would be most s u i t a b l e .  After a l l ,  f u n c t i o n o f the i n t e r v i e w .  decision  t h i s r e f l e c t s the  primary  However, i t appears t h a t most  -29i n t e r v i e w e r s l i k e t o have some r e c o r d o f t h e b a s i s f o r a c c e p t ance o r r e j e c t i o n o f c a n d i d a t e s t r a i t s i n t h e i r r a t i n g forms. pointed  and c o n s e q u e n t l y i n c l u d e Unfortunately,  as Wagner (194-9)  out t h e r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y f o r most t r a i t  ratings  is  a t b e s t meagre.  if  any, evidence t o suggest t h a t the t r a i t s examined have any  bearing  Also, very frequently there i s l i t t l e ,  on p o t e n t i a l s u c c e s s .  T h i r d l y , as Wonderlic (194-2)  s t a t e d "few ( i n t e r v i e w e r s ) f o l l o w a w e l l d e f i n e d p a t t e r n and the i n t e r v i e w g e n e r a l l y amounts t o a d i s o r g a n i z e d r e s u l t i n g i n a s e r i e s o f impressions reactions".  based upon  There u s u a l l y i s no s y s t e m a t i c  conversation  impulsive  procedure i n t h e  i n t e r v i e w f o r f o r m i n g adequate t r a i t i m p r e s s i o n s .  Finally,  t h e r e i s no evidence t o show t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l i n f l u e n c e which trait  r a t i n g s have upon o v e r a l l  suitability.  Perhaps t h e most c o n s t r u c t i v e d i r e c t i o n f o r e x p l o r i n g i n t e r v i e w r a t i n g forms was taken by Maas (1965) u s i n g t h e p r o c e d u r e proposed by Smith and K e n d a l l  (1963).  One problem  w i t h many t r a i t r a t i n g forms i s t h a t t h e r e i s o f t e n  little  agreement among r a t e r s as t o t h e meaning o f c e r t a i n t r a i t s and be  as t o the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the t r a i t l e v e l s .  What might  "good" t o one r a t e r might be "very good" t o a n o t h e r .  What  might be r a t e d as "1" by one r a t e r might be r a t e d "3" b y another.  Maas (1965) addressed t h i s problem by c o n s t r u c t i n g  a "patterned and  Kendall's  scaled expectation (1963) t e c h n i q u e ,  interview".  Employing Smith  Maas r i g o r o u s l y i d e n t i f i e d  a s e r i e s o f t r a i t s which were deemed t o be important f o r the  -30p o s i t i o n of Orientation Counsellor.  Around these t r a i t s he  then developed written examples of on-the-job behaviours to i l l u s t r a t e three l e v e l s of each t r a i t - a high degree of the t r a i t , an average degree, and a low degree.  Instead of the  t r a d i t i o n a l r a t i n g adjectives (e.g. good, very good, s a t i s factory, etc.) f o r each t r a i t l e v e l , then, Maas employed behavioural descriptions of t r a i t l e v e l s .  Interviewers were  asked to rate each candidate on each t r a i t "by making analogies from the candidate's responses, to behaviour that might be expected of the candidate, were he actually, on the job."  (p.4-32). A t o t a l of 2,268 interviews were conducted to study i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y using two d i f f e r e n t r a t i n g scales; t r a d i t i o n a l adjective r a t i n g scales and the scaled expectation technique.  Using patterned interviews with both types of  scales, Maas found s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s with the scaled expectation technique (.65  - . 7 2 ) than with the adjective scales (.34  - .35).  This  was i n agreement with the study reported by Smith and Kendall  (1963)  employing the same technique i n a non-interviextf s e t t i n g . Maas' study was performed i n an educational s e t t i n g .  The present study examines the r a t i n g form used by the Bank of Montreal, i . e . i n an i n d u s t r i a l s e t t i n g .  The r a t i n g form  i s studied i n terms of i n t e r - and i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y as well as halo e r r o r .  -31-  IV.  Modes o f A p p l i c a n t P r e s e n t a t i o n - Video-Tape As d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r , the LIAMA group and  the M c G i l l  group g e n e r a l l y employed a paper and p e n c i l approach when presenting candidates.  The  i n t e r v i e w e e s were not p h y s i c a l l y  p r e s e n t but were d e s c r i b e d i n w r i t t e n form.  Mayfield  C a r l s o n (1966) d e s c r i b e t h i s approach as b e i n g  and  quick,  thereby  p e r m i t t i n g a wide scope o f a p p l i c a n t i n f o r m a t i o n t o be and  experimentally  convenient,  o v e r extraneous v a r i a b l e s .  i n that i t permits  control  They f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t  o b t a i n e d by t h i s method c o u l d be compared l a t e r to o b t a i n e d when i n f o r m a t i o n i s p r e s e n t e d  given,  "results  those  by o t h e r means...to  determine i f the mode o f p r e s e n t a t i o n has  any  effect",  (p.4-3).  C e r t a i n l y o t h e r modes o f i n f o r m a t i o n p r e p a r a t i o n have been u t i l i z e d .  K a s l and Mahl (1956) used tape r e c o r d i n g s  a c t u a l i n t e r v i e w s as d i d Wiens, Molde, Holman and (1966).  F i n d i n g s from the l a t t e r study  of  Matarazzo  suggest t h a t i n t e r v i e w  i n t e r a c t i o n measures can be r e l i a b l y g a t h e r e d  from t a p e  recorded  interviews. However, o n l y one 1971)  has  recent  study  attempted t o r e p l i c a t e any  (Blakeney and  o f these  MacNaughton  decision-making  s t u d i e s u s i n g a mode o f p r e s e n t a t i o n d i f f e r e n t from the paper and p e n c i l t e c h n i q u e .  These authors used tape r e c o r d i n g s  t e s t the v e r a c i t y o f B o l s t e r and t h a t t h e r e was  Springbett's  to  (1961) c o n c l u s i o n  a m o d i f i e d primacy e f f e c t o p e r a t i n g i n i n t e r v i e w s  T h i s " m o d i f i e d primacy e f f e c t " was based on B r u n e r ' s (1957) h y p o t h e s i s t h a t a " g a t i n g " phenomenon e x i s t s i n i n t e r v i e w  -32T h e i r f i n d i n g s d i d not f u i i y support and the q u e s t i o n was occurred  B o l s t e r and  Springbett's  r a i s e d as t o whether o r not the d i f f e r e n c e  as a r e s u l t o f u s i n g an a l t e r n a t e mode o f a p p l i c a n t  presentation.  Indeed, i n t e r v i e w r e s e a r c h would be  i n a t u r m o i l i f t h i s q u e s t i o n were answered  thrown  affirmatively.  C e r t a i n l y the i s s u e must be r a i s e d as t o whether o r not the e x p e r i m e n t a l  convenience o f the paper and p e n c i l  compensates f o r i t s l a c k o f r e a l i s m .  The  i n t e r v i e w has  m a i n l y i n terms o f s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , a c o n d i t i o n e l i m i n a t e d w i t h paper and p e n c i l . as tape r e c o r d i n g s o r v i d e o and MacNaughton ( 1 9 7 1 ) audio-taped  utility  completely  P o s s i b l y o t h e r means such c o u l d be  employed.  Blakeney  have demonstrated t h a t the c o n t e n t  i n t e r v i e w s can be  Grant and Bray ( 1 9 6 9 ) unstructured  tapes  technique  capably manipulated.  demonstrated t h a t audio  tapes  i n t e r v i e w s can o f f e r r e l i a b l e and v a l i d  As a b a s i s f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y ,  of  Furthermore, of  relatively  information. taped  i . e . , i n t e r v i e w e r s decrease the range o f s t i m u l i they p e r c e i v e as the i n t e r v i e w p r o g r e s s e s . B o l s t e r and S p r i n g b e t t ( 1 9 6 1 ) l o o k e d at t h i s phenomenon i n terms o f the e f f e c t s o f placement o f u n f a v o u r a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n at v a r i o u s stages throughout the interview. They argued and supported the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t i f u n f a v o u r a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n comes e a r l y i n the i n t e r v i e w a r e j e c t i o n i s more l i k e l y than i f i t comes l a t e r . Blakeney and MacNaughton h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t (a) i f n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n comes i n the f i r s t t h i r d o f the i n t e r v i e w the r a t i n g s o f a p p l i c a n t s w i l l be the l o w e s t , (b) i f n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n comes d u r i n g the second t h i r d o f the i n t e r v i e w r a t i n g s w i l l be i n t e r m e d i a t e , ( c ) i f i t comes i n the l a s t t h i r d r a t i n g s w i l l be h i g h e s t . However, they found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the r a t i n g when n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n was p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g the f i r s t t h i r d o f the i n t e r view and r a t i n g when n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n was p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g the second t h i r d .  p l a y b a c k s can serve a u s e f u l f u n c t i o n .  As C r i s s y  described, a design f o r estimating i n t r a - r a t e r  (1952)  reliability  c o u l d c o n s i s t o f making " s o u n d s c r i p t s " o f completed  interviews.  A f t e r a time p e r i o d , the i n t e r v i e w e r c o u l d r e - a p p r a i s e each i n t e r v i e w e e on the b a s i s o f t h e p l a y b a c k s .  Using  either  a u d i o - o r v i d e o - t a p e r e c o r d i n g s t h i s method i s f e a s i b l e . No  work i n these r e g a r d s has been performed  tape s p e c i f i c a l l y ,  with video-  a l t h o u g h some i n v e s t i g a t i o n s have been made.  Moore and C r a i k (1971) e x p l o r e d p e r s o n n e l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s * and  s t u d e n t s ' ( p o t e n t i a l i n t e r v i e w e e s ) a t t i t u d e s towards the  use o f v i d e o - t a p e as an a i d t o employment i n t e r v i e w i n g . most r e l e v a n t a s p e c t o f t h e i r r e s e a r c h here i s the p e r c e p t i o n s o f how  interviewee character-  These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n c l u d e appearance, manner,  voice, expression, force or drive, i n t e l l i g e n c e , social sensitivitity, ness,  s t r e s s and  the two  respondents  r e a l i s t i c a l l y p l a y b a c k o f v i d e o - t a p e intex*-  views p o r t r a y s a number o f important istics.  The  e x p e r i e n c e , knowledge o f f i e l d ,  judgment.  samples were found.  the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s checked realistic"  No  nervous-  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between  More than s i x t y - s e v e n p e r c e n t o f "somewhat r e a l i s t i c "  or "very  on a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s except f o r s o c i a l  knowledge o f f i e l d ,  s t r e s s and  p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s checked realistic"  interest,  judgment.  Over s i x t y - s e v e n  "somewhat r e a l i s t i c "  f o r a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s except  sensitivity,  judgment.  or "very F o r the  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which l e s s than s i x t y seven p e r c e n t o f the respondents "unable  i n both  samples checked  t o judge" response  was  as b e i n g r e a l i s t i c ,  an  very h i g h l y rated, i n d i c a t i n g  t h a t these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were p r o b a b l y interviews  shown.  l e s s prominent i n the  This research i s important i n that i t  demonstrated t h a t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f i n t e r v i e w e e s h e l d to be  commonly  i m p o r t a n t by r a t e r s are a d e q u a t e l y p o r t r a y e d  over  video-tape. However, a more important i s s u e e x i s t s ; namely whether o r not the r a t i n g s g i v e n by v i e w e r s o f v i d e o  taped  are i n any way  d i f f e r e n t from r a t i n g s g i v e n by  interviewers.  T h i s has  face-to-face  importance i n b o t h p r a c t i c e and  I f an o r g a n i z a t i o n chooses to use s e l e c t i o n process  interviews  video-tape  research.  i n i t s personnel  i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o have knowledge o f  d i f f e r e n c e s between f a c e - t o - f a c e and v i d e o - t a p e d  the  interviews  i n o r d e r to compensate f o r them. Furthermore, i f i n t e r v i e w i n g r e s e a r c h i s conducted u s i n g video-tape  o r f i l m s , as has been done o r proposed (Wexley,  Kovacs and  Sanders, 1 9 7 2 ;  1952),  C l i n e and R i c h a r d s ,  then i t i s necessary to recognize  video-taped  1961;  Crissy,  t h a t perhaps  the  i n t e r v i e w i s d i f f e r e n t i n some ways than the  face-to-face interview.  Yukl,  actual  McLuhan (1964-) argued t h a t the medium  o v e r which a message i s t r a n s m i t t e d forms p a r t o f the message itself.  I f t h i s i s the case, t h e n r e s e a r c h e r s  tape are not  studying  the i n t e r v i e w p e r  using  se but the  videovideotaped  interview. T h i s i s s u e i s examined h e r e . V.  Group vs I n d i v i d u a l R a t e r s Much work i n s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h h a s  been  performed e x p l o r i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between groups and i n d i v i d u a l s  -35-  in has  terms o f d e c i s i o n making.  However, v e r y l i t t l e  f o c u s e d upon t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s  making i n the  employment  Most o f the exploring  the  i n terms o f  decision-  interview.  e a r l y comparative work was  v a l i d i t y and  d e c i s i o n a l outcomes.  research  directed  at  r e l i a b i l i t y o f group v e r s u s i n d i v i d u a l  Table 1 p r o v i d e s a summary o f the  a b i l i t i e s found i n some o f t h e s e H a l l , Mouton and  reli-  studies.  Blake ( 1 9 6 3 ) provided a concise  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of research findings  comparing groups  i n d i v i d u a l s i n terms o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g outcomes.  and  They seg-  mented t h r e e h i s t o r i c a l l y a c c e p t e d t h e o r e t i c a l  positions.  The  Here, an  first  i s the n o t i o n  of i n d i v i d u a l decisions than any seen by  one  i s t a k e n as b e i n g the more  person's d e c i s i o n .  This  e x p l a i n the  T h i s l e d t o the Here, the  that  discussion  i n h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of  c a l l e d the  gration  "emergent p r o d u c t . " and,  generally, group toward The  form e l u c i d a t e d  "group a s s e t s . "  "compromise p r o d u c t " .  "bargaining" leading  able  important  p o s i t i v e e f f e c t o f i n t e r a c t i o n among  group p a r t i c i p a n t s l a r g e l y o f the  is  not  was  differences.  than an i n c o r r e c t d e c i s i o n . "  here, then, i s the  (1967)  individual  a c t i v i t y i n a group " c a r r i e d the  rather  correct  s i m p l i s t i c and  second p o s i t i o n termed the  s t a n d taken was  interpersonal a correct  group and  average  s t a t i s t i c a l pooling  o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s as b e i n g too  to p r o p e r l y  point  o f "pooled p r o d u c t s " .  The  key  The  Maier  third  notion  t o compromise i n c o n t r a s t  o f the b e s t i d e a s "  by  position  here i s  to the  "inte-  o f the p a r t i c i p a n t s as r e f l e c t e d  Table 1  The R e l i a b i l i t y o f Judgments o f I n d i v i d u a l s and o f Groups  v  Groups Type o f Judgment and Author  S i z e o f Groups Individuals  5  10 '  20  Weights: Gordon, 1 9 2 4  .41  .68  .79  .86  Weights: Stroop, 1 9 3 2  .38  .68  .85  .92  Weights: Bruce, 1 9 3 5  .50  ,67  .83  .86  .87  Numerosity o f shot: Bruce, 1 9 3 5  .82  .87  .94  .94  .84  Personality Traits Smith, 1 9 3 1  .37  .46  .49  .49  E s t h e t i c Judgments Eysenck, 1 9 3 9  A7  ,77  .86  .94  Zaoonc, 1 9 6 6 , p . 1 0 0  Group c o e f f i c i e n t s were based on s t a t i s t i c a l  pooling.  40  -37-  i n t h e "emergent p r o d u c t " p o s i t i o n . as a r e s u l t o f l a r g e l y p o l i t i c a l  What i s argued here i s t h a t  a c t i v i t i e s i n a group, a  group's d e c i s i o n w i l l he more mediocre than t h e average o f the i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n s .  The f o r c e s o p e r a t i n g  those headed by M a i e r ' s ( 1 9 6 7 )  here resemble  "group l i a b i l i t i e s "  classi-  fication. Increased  concern f o r group f u n c t i o n i n g and p r o c e s s e s  arose p r i m a r i l y as a r e s u l t o f the Human R e l a t i o n s movement and the  consequent push t o i n v o l v e s u b o r d i n a t e s  r o l e s i n t h e d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s . has  been undertaken t o e x p l o r e  group f u n c t i o n i n g . regard  As  A wealth o f research  t h e elements o f e f f e c t i v e  A summary o f r e s e a r c h  i s found i n H a l l and W i l l i a m s  Zander ( 1 9 6 8 )  t o take a c t i v e  findings i n this  (1970),  Cartwright  and  and Lorge e t a l ( 1 9 5 8 ) .  stated e a r l i e r , there  is little  work r e p o r t e d  which  i n v e s t i g a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s between groups and i n d i v i d u a l s i n terms o f employment d e c i s i o n s .  A number o f s t u d i e s have used  groups (Schwab and Heneman, 1 9 6 9 ; C a r l s o n ,  y e t o n l y one o f f e r e d r e l i a b i l i t y d a t a (Howell and V i n c e n t ,  1970),  1970)  Schwab and Heneman,  and another examined group v s i n d i v i d u a l a c c u r a c y i n  judging  p e r s o n a l i t y ( C l i n e and R i c h a r d s ,  Vincent  (1970)  reported  1961).  Howell and  r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s o f . 8 9 and  .92. f o r t h r e e member boards and . 9 1 t o . 9 4 f o r boards o f f o u r members.  In the e x p l o r a t i o n of aspects of i n t e r p e r s o n a l  perception,  C l i n e and R i c h a r d s ( 1 9 6 1 )  s t u d e n t s view s i x f i l m e d i n t e r v i e w s v i e w e r s on p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s f i r s t  had a sample o f 186  and f i r s t r a t e t h e i n t e r as i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s  and then as groups o f t h r e e .  Comparisons  were made between  and among (a) the independent i n d i v i d u a l p r e d i c t i o n s , (b) the group consensus p r e d i c t i o n s ,  ( c ) t h e a c c u r a c y o f an  group" d e r i v e d t h r o u g h a s t a t i s t i c a l  "artificial  combination o f the i n d e p -  endent p r e d i c t i o n s o f t h e s e same t h r e e p e r s o n s and (d) the a c c u r a c y o f the "best judge" from each group.  Their  findings  showed t h a t l e a s t a c c u r a t e r a t i n g s were o b t a i n e d from iduals. the  indiv-  They a l s o found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between  other three procedures.  procedural d i f f i c u l t i e s ,  A l t h o u g h , i n terms o f t i m e , and  the a r t i f i c i a l  group appeared most  satisfactory. R e c e n t l y , Hollowman and H e n d r i c k (1971) compared group consensus s c o r e s t o averaged i n d i v i d u a l a c c u r a c y when group s i z e was v a r i e d .  scores f o r d e c i s i o n  F o r groups o f s e v e r a l  s i z e s (3,6,9,12,15) group s c o r e s were more a c c u r a t e than averages o f i n d i v i d u a l  s c o r e s i n c o m p l e t i n g a complex  making t a s k r e q u i r i n g group i n t e r a c t i o n and In  discussion.  summary, t h e n , t h e s e s t u d i e s suggested t h a t  o f f e r more r e l i a b l e  decision  groups  and a c c u r a t e d e c i s i o n s than i n d i v i d u a l s .  T h i s c o n c l u s i o n however must be p n l y t e n t a t i v e l y a c c e p t e d . Campbell the "the  (1968) showed t h a t w i t h a complex  Change o f Work Problem  situation,  ( M a i e r , Solem and M a i e r , 1957),  q u a l i t y o f the group s o l u t i o n was  group's composite score and was individual  realistic  s o l u t i o n " (p.209).  i n f e r i o r t o the nominal  even i n f e r i o r t o the average Campbell  stated that  p a r t i c i p a t i o n and d i s c u s s i o n tended t o be i n h i b i t o r y  group rather  _39than b e n e f i c i a l . group and  He  f u r t h e r concluded t h a t comparisons between  i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n s h i n g e d upon the type of problem  used f o r a n a l y s i s . I n terms o f the  employment d e c i s i o n type o f problem  no  r e s e a r c h has  been r e p o r t e d which d i r e c t l y compares i n d i v i d u a l s  and  Group o r p a n e l  groups.  1948;  T a f t , 1959)  interviewing i s widely  used  (OSS,  y e t i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s compared to i n d i v i d u a l  i n t e r v i e w i n g has not been examined. This paper explores  d i f f e r e n c e s between group and i n d i v -  i d u a l d e c i s i o n s i n the i n t e r v i e w s e t t i n g .  Summary This research  summary was  intended  to h i g h l i g h t the  f i n d i n g s o f r e c e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s examining the  employment  i n t e r v i e w and t o f o c u s upon a number o f areas where f u t u r e research  c o u l d be  d i r e c t e d and where the r e s e a r c h  i n t h i s paper i s j u s t i f i e d . to analyze These  reported  S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s paper  t h r e e major q u e s t i o n s  r e l a t e d t o the  intends  interview.  are: 1.  What d i f f e r e n c e s i f any  g i v e n by v i e w e r s o f v i d e o - t a p e d interviewers i n face-to-face  e x i s t between r a t i n g s  i n t e r v i e w s and by  settings?  T h i s would  provide  information  regarding  is  to be used f o r e i t h e r employment d e c i s i o n s  intended  research 2.  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s to make when  actual  on the employment  or  interview.  What d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t between r a t i n g s o f  viewees as g i v e n by group and has  video-tape  individual raters?  No  interresearch  been r e p o r t e d which l o o k s at these d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  -40-  interview setting.  The t y p e s o f dimensions a n a l y z e d  here would  have a b e a r i n g on some o f the p s y c h o m e t r i c p r o p e r t i e s o f the Bank o f M o n t r e a l ' s r a t i n g form. 3.  What a t t i t u d e s do i n t e r v i e w e e s  have toward the use o f v i d e o - t a p e provide  i n interviewing?  T h i s would  i n f o r m a t i o n on what p e o p l e who are a c t u a l l y i n v o l v e d i n  the i n t e r v i e w p r o c e s s ation.  and r a t i n g v i e w e r s  t h i n k about t h i s mode o f i n t e r v i e w  present-  -41-  3  CHAPTER  METHODOLOGY  As  s t a t e d i n Chapter 1 , t h e main purposes o f t h e  study were t h r e e - f o l d . existence  The f i r s t aim was t o determine t h e  o f any s y s t e m a t i c  d i f f e r e n c e s between r a t i n g s  g i v e n by i n t e r v i e w e r s i n a c t u a l f a c e - t o - f a c e  interviews  and  r a t i n g s g i v e n by o b s e r v e r s  o f video-taped  The  second purpose was t o examine d i f f e r e n c e s between group  and  i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s i n terms o f mean v a r i a b l e r a t i n g s ,  overall ratings, c a l l back-reject  d e c i s i o n s , halo  i n t e r - and i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y . to e x p l o r e  r a t e r s toward the use o f v i d e o - t a p e  and o b s e r v i n g  i n interviewing.  each o f these t h r e e  D i f f e r e n c e s i n Ratings  - Interviewers  To  purposes  r e q u i r e d somewhat d i f f e r e n t methods as e x p l a i n e d I-.  e r r o r and  The t h i r d i n t e n t i o n was  the a t t i t u d e s o f interviewees  obtain the necessary data,  interviews.  below.  v s Viewers  Procedure In o r d e r t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e e x i s t e n c e  o f any system-  a t i c d i f f e r e n c e s between r a t i n g s g i v e n by i n t e r v i e w e r s i n face-to-face interviews video-taped  i n t e r v i e w s , t h i r t y - s i x i n t e r v i e w s were conducted  between s i x e x p e r i e n c e d and  and r a t i n g s g i v e n by v i e w e r s o f  i n t e r v i e w e r s from t h e Bank o f M o n t r e a l  t h i r t y - s i x f o u r t h y e a r Commerce students  from t h e  -4-2U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia.  The o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r  which these i n t e r v i e w s were h e l d were p o s i t i o n s i n the Bank's management t r a i n i n g program; a program d e s i g n e d t o l e a d t r a i n e e s t o a branch managership a f t e r a p e r i o d of three years. viewed  The  s i x i n t e r v i e w e r s from the Bank each  and r a t e d s i x d i f f e r e n t  students.  inter-  These s t u d e n t s  were a l l s e r i o u s l y i n t e r e s t e d i n the Bank and were l a r g e l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the l a b o u r market from which the Bank draws i t s management-trainees.  Each of these i n t e r v i e w s  were v i d e o - t a p e d on a o n e - h a l f i n c h v - t system u s i n g a s p l i t screen t e c h n i q u e . D u e v i d e o - t a p i n g , two  to t e c h n i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s  i n the  o f the i n t e r v i e w s were o m i t t e d from  analysis, leaving a f i n a l  the  sample s i z e of t h i r t y - f o u r .  At the end of v i d e o t a p i n g the 34- i n t e r v i e w s , s i x groups o f t h r e e p e r s o n s and s i x i n d i v i d u a l s each viewed rated approximately  six different  were arranged i n such a way  interviews.  t h a t no v i e w e r saw  v i e w e r on tape more than once, and no group and saw  the same tape t o g e t h e r more than once.  the maximum mix  The  i n d i v i d u a l viewed  viewings  the same i n t e r individual  This provided  o f responses and reduced b i a s due  p o s s i b l e redundancies.  and  to  any  A schedule of which group and which  which t a p e d i n t e r v i e w i s shown on Table  1.  With t h i s s p l i t - s c r e e n t e c h n i q u e two cameras were used, one f o r the i n t e r v i e w e r and one f o r the i n t e r v i e w e e . U s i n g a s p e c i a l e f f e c t s g e n e r a t o r , the images from b o t h cameras were p l a y e d on one s c r e e n . I n our case, the i n t e r v i e w e r o c c u p i e d the l e f t h a l f o f the s c r e e n and the i n t e r v i e w e e the right half. MacDonald (1971) r e p o r t s evidence s u p p o r t i n g the u t i l i t y o f t h i s t e c h n i q u e when v i d e o - t a p i n g i n t e r v i e w s .  -43Table 1 Schedule of Interviewing and Viewing  Interview Number  Interviewer  Group  1  1  1  2  2  3 4  3 4  5 6  5 6  1 1 1 1  7 8  1  1 2  2  2  9 •10 11  3 4  3 2 2  12  5 6  13 14  1 2  15 :.. 16  3 4  17 18  5 6  2 3 3 3 3 3 3  Individual 1 2  Interview Number  Interviewer  Group  Individual  1 2  4  4  4 4 4 4 4  5 6  3 4  19 20 21 22  3 4  5 6  *23 24  5 6  6  25 26  1 2  27 28  3 4  29 30  5 6  31 32  1 2  1 2  33 34  3 4  3 4  35 36  5 6  1 2 3 4 5 5 6  5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6  1 2 3 3 4 5 6 1 2 2 3 4  6 6  5 6  6  1  * Due to t e c h n i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s these two interviews were eliminated i  -4-4--  The groups were a l l o w e d to d i s c u s s as much as t h e y wished. To a v o i d any i n f l u e n c e which the group d i s c u s s i o n may upon the i n d i v i d u a l v i e w e r , the groups and  have  individuals  viewed t a p e s s e p a r a t e l y . The  Samples (a)  The  interviewees:  A l l o f the s t u d e n t s who  i p a t e d as i n t e r v i e w e e s were male undergraduates  partic-  in their  f o u r t h y e a r o f Commerce a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  Columbia.  4-4-.1$ (N=15) were s t u d e n t s o f f i n a n c e o r a c c o u n t i n g .  4-7.1$  (N=16) were e n r o l l e d i n I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s and a t i o n a l Behaviour.  The  r e m a i n i n g 8.8$  (N=3)  Organiz-  were i n o t h e r  miscellaneous f i e l d s (Transportation, Marketing).  Their  average  22.0,  age was  27.2  range = 21-4-9.)  The  y e a r s (median = 23.0, average  mode =  grade l e v e l a c h i e v e d by  these  s t u d e n t s was  70.0$ (median = 70.0$, mode - 70.0$, range =  60$  The  - 77$).  average  number o f i n t e r v i e w s which t h e s e  s t u d e n t s had been t o d u r i n g the y e a r p r i o r t o t h i s 5.4-  (range = 0-16).  Furthermore,  study  was  each i n t e r v i e w e e had r e -  c e i v e d f a i r l y e x t e n s i v e p r i o r exposure t o v i d e o - t a p e i n t h e i r c l a s s e s a t U.B.C.  As a consequence, any b i a s due  ness o r f e a r r e l a t e d t o t h e v i d e o - t a p i n g was b i a s , c a l l e d the " r e a c t i v i t y e f f e c t " was  to  nervous-  minimal.  d i s c u s s e d by  This Walter  and M i l e s (1971). (b)  The  interviewers:  D e t a i l s of i n t e r v i e w e r s ' char-  a c t e r i s t i c s are shown i n T a b l e 2. viewer has had  As may  be  seen, each  s i m i l a r e x p e r i e n c e and t r a i n i n g .  This  inter-  reduces  _45~  Table 2 Interviewer C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  interviewer Number  Interviewing Experience  Age  Position  Male  29  Employment Manager  Has been f o r m a l l y i n t e r v i e w i n g f o r Vfi y e a r s . Took a 2-week i n t e r v i e w i n g course i n D e t r o i t  Male  30  Assistant Employment Manager  Had been f o r m a l l y i n t e r v i e w i n g f o r 1 y e a r . Took course i n D e t r o i t  Female  24  Personnel Officer  Had been f o r m a l l y i n t e r viewing f o r 2 years. Took c o u r s e i n Toronto (1 week)  Male  34  Manpower Manager  Had been f o r m a l l y i n t e r viewing f o r 4 years. Took course i n D e t r o i t  Male  29  Assistant Manpower Manager  Had been f o r m a l l y i n t e r v i e w i n g f o r 6 months. Took course i n Vancouver (1-week)  Male  29  Accountant  Had been f o r m a l l y i n t e r viewing f o r 1 year. Took course i n Vancouver  Sex  Number of i n t e r views t h i s study  -46-  any b i a s which may e x i s t due t o v a r i a t i o n s i n i n t e r v i e w e r experiences  (Carlson, 1967a;Rowe, 1 9 6 3 ) .  i n t e r v i e w e r h a s r e c e i v e d p r i n c i p a l l y the  A l s o , s i n c e each same in-house  train-  ing  ( i . e . t h e y have a l l been exposed t o t h e Bank's d i r e c t i v e s  and  policy  stereotypes  statements d e a l i n g w i t h of ideal  thereby reducing 1963;  s h o u l d be r o u g h l y  M a y f i e l d and C a r l s o n , 1 9 6 6 ;  t o take n o t e s  as d e s c r i b e d below, were t r a i n e d t o conduct  structured interviews with  consequent s i m i l a r  T h i s permits accuracy  acteristics  equivalent  Carlson et a l ,  Furthermore, i n t e r v i e w e r s were p e r m i t t e d  guides.  their  b i a s due t o s t e r o t y p e v a r i a t i o n s (Rowe,  Sydiaha, 1 9 5 8 ;  1971).  and,  candidates  employee s e l e c t i o n )  interview  of r e c a l l of applicant  (Carlson et a l , 1 9 7 1 )  o f r a t i n g s b e i n g based on a h a l o  and reduces the strategy.  char-  likelihood  Finally,  i n t e r v i e w e r was g i v e n exposure t o t h e v i d e o - t a p e actual interviewing.  similarly  each  p r i o r t o the  T h i s was designed t o reduce t h e r e -  a c t i v i t y e f f e c t due t o t h e v i d e o - t a p i n g  (Walter  and M i l e s ,  1971).  (c)  The v i e w e r s :  A l l o f t h e v i e w e r s ( i n d i v i d u a l s and  groups) were managers w i t h the Bank o f M o n t r e a l and a l l had had  some involvement i n employment i n t e r v i e w i n g , i f not  the i n i t i a l initial  screening  i n t e r v i e w , then a t l e a s t f o r p o s t  employment i n t e r v i e w s .  The v i e w e r s ' average age,  average number o f y e a r s w i t h the Bank and average number of years  with  they have been i n t e r v i e w i n g i s as i n Table 3 .  -4-7-  Table  3  Viewer C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  Age  Group  Individual  Combined  35  4-5  38  15  25  18  6  14-  8  (years)  Number o f y e a r s  with  Bank Number o f y e a r s t h e y have i n t e r v i e w e d As w i t h  the i n t e r v i e w e r s , the v i e w e r s have had  equivalent  experience  and  b i a s e s due  to experience  in-house t r a i n i n g t h e r e b y v a r i a t i o n s and  Also, f o r a l l viewers, note-taking (d)  intra-sample  biases:  i n t o the d a t a i f t h e r e were any r a t i n g - v a r i a n c e w i t h i n any  was  reducing  stereotype v a r i a t i o n s . permitted.  A b i a s may  be  introduced  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among  of these three  sub-samples.  t e s t f o r the  existence  variance  a p p l i e d to the o v e r a l l r a t i n g s g i v e n by  was  i n t e r v i e w e r , group and successive no  To  o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s an a n a l y s i s o f  i n d i v i d u a l , i n each o f the  interviews rated.  The  t e s t s (see Table  each  six 4-) showed  s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n d i c a t i n g that ratings within  each o f the t h r e e The  roughly  sub-samples were i n t e r n a l l y  consistent.  Measure The  standard  measure employed here i s the Bank of M o n t r e a l ' s r a t i n g form f o r e v a l u a t i n g U n i v e r s i t y graduates f o r  the management t r a i n i n g program.  The  form c o n s i s t s o f twelve  -48Table  4  Analyses o f Variance  (a)  Interviewers  o f Sq.  33  .81  5  .162  6.16  28  .220  Total  5.53  33  Between  1.27  5  .254  Within  4.26  28  .152  10.62  33  Between  1.12  5  .224  Within  9.50  28  .339  Between Within  (c)  E s t . o f Var.  6.97  Total  (b)  D.f.  F  .736  Groups  1.67  Individuals Total  With d f  x  = 28 and d f  2  = 5, t h e F-value  .661 s h o u l d be  g r e a t e r than 2.56(.05), 3.75(.01) and 5.66(.001) t o i d e n t i f y a significant  Source:  difference.  B l a l o c k , H.M. York, I960.  Social Statistics.  McGraw-Hill:  New  -4-9-  trait  and p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s and  an o v e r a l l f a c t o r f o r  which the r a t e r i s asked to e v a l u a t e five-point  scale.  A l s o , a space i s g i v e n  check h i s a c c e p t - r e j e c t d e c i s i o n . E x h i b i t 1.  the i n t e r v i e w e r on  As may  he  The  a  f o r the r a t e r to  measure i s shown on  seen, each t r a i t o r p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r  i s accompanied w i t h a b r i e f d e f i n i t i o n as i s each r a t i n g term. Numerous weaknesses a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s measure were r e c o g n i z e d .  F i r s t , no  r e l i a b i l i t y or v a l i d i t y  have been accumulated to demonstrate i t s u t i l i t y . no  attempt has been made t o determine whether the  have any b e a r i n g  on p o t e n t i a l s u c c e s s .  as t o why  a number o f the  located.  However, when r e v i e w i n g  Second, factors rationale  f a c t o r s were i n c l u d e d c o u l d the l i t e r a t u r e ,  o f s t u d i e s were l o c a t e d which p r o v i d e d the i n c l u s i o n o f a number o f the should be  T h i r d , no  data  a number  e m p i r i c a l support f o r  factors.  s t r e s s e d t h a t t h i s measure was  F i r s t , though, i t selected primarily  because i t i s t y p i c a l o f the t y p e s o f r a t i n g forms so used by o r g a n i z a t i o n s  be  f o r personnel s e l e c t i o n .  commonly  Also, i t  formed the b a s i s o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r the t h i r d p a r t of study wherein an e x p l o r a t i o n o f some p s y c h o m e t r i c was  the  properties  made. As d i s c u s s e d  i n Chapter 2,  evidence s u p p o r t i n g factors.  the  U l r i c h and  i n c l u s i o n o f a number o f these  Trumbo (1965) review r e s e a r c h  t h a t s o c i a b i l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n i n the i n t e r v i e w .  a number o f s t u d i e s show  Mayfield  to work may  be  which show  a b l y measured  (1964-) s t a t e s t h a t i n t e l l i g e n c e  GRADUATE RECRUITING - CAMPUS INTERVIEW EXHIBIT Instructions overleaf  CONFIDENTIAL  DIVISION.  DATE.  NAME (Surname First).  RECRUITER. .DEGREE  UNIVERSITY  2  1  BANK OF MONTREAL  .MAJOR  DO NOT complete this section if a COMPLETED resume or information  sheet is attached  ADDRESS (Residence while attending university)  MARITAL STATUS :  .  POSTAL ZONE  CITY_  PROVINCE.  MARRIED  SINGLE | - |  to this form.  •  PHONE NUMBER  AGE _  NO. OF D E P E N D A N T S .  AVERAGE MARK — ALL C O U R S E S 1st Yr. Post Grad  2nd Yr. Post Grad.  EXCELLENT SUPERIOR AVERAGE MARGINAL UNSATISFACTORY !  •  FACULTY EVALUATION (If Available)  i  •  EXCELLENT  RECRUITER'S OVERALL EVALUATION  • AVERAGE  • SUPERIOR  •  •  •  SHOULD CANDIDATE BE CONSIDERED FURTHER?  5  WAS SALARY D I S C U S S E D ?  • YES  •  RATE $_  •  NO  ADMINISTRATION • CREDIT PERSONNEL Q O T H E R  REACTION: FAVOURABLE  IS CANDIDATE WILLING TO ACCEPT INITIAL PLACEMENT IN ANOTHER DIVISION?  •  Q  UNFAVOURABLE (Explain in Comments below)  YES Q  NO (Explain in Comments below)  •  •  • • •• • • • B.C.  Alta.  COMMENTS:  (If necessary, continue overleaf) H.O 1510-23914  UNSATISFACTORY  COMPLETE SECTION 5 ONLY IF " Y E S "  NO  LOCATION P R E F E R E N C E , IF ANY (Number first three choices)  •  •  YES  GENERAL BANKING • AREAS OF INTEREST FOR DIVISIONAL INTERVIEW : MARKETING •  •  • MARGINAL  SIGNED  Man.-Sask.  Ont.  Que.  Mtl.  Atlantic  COMMENTS (continued) I I  RATING FACTORS : ATTITUDE APPEARANCE INTEREST INTELLIGENCE LEADERSHIP MATURITY MOTIVATION PERSUASIVENESS SELF-CONFIDENCE SELF-EXPRESSION SOCIABILITY POTENTIAL  outlook in general. physical appearance, neatness, posture, dress. indications of sincere interest in Bank of Montreal. mental ability, judgment, alertness, organization of thoughts. degree of leadership experience, extracurricular positions held. social behaviour and emotional stability. initiative, drive enthusiasm, energy, desire to succeed, aggressiveness. ability to influence others. ease, self-assurance, interest in challenge. ability to express thoughts clearly, concisely, effectively. ability to work and get along with others, warmth, response. likelihood of success in management of Bank of Montreal.  RATING TERMS : EXCELLENT SUPERIOR AVERAGE  MARGINAL UNSATISFACTORY  definitely stands out, exceptional, makes immediate and lasting impression, well above average, a significant asset. normal for a person of similar age, education and experience. does not meet minimum standard. unsuitable.  GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS : — A separate form is to be completed for each applicant interviewed during and immediately following the interview. — All forms are to be returned to the Personnel Manager, at the conclusion of interviewing at each university or technical institute visited. SECTION 1: Complete : the DIVISION responsible for graduate recruiting at the institution being visited; the DATE of the interview; the NAME of the candidate being interviewed (surname first followed by one First name and initials); the name of the RECRUITER; the name of the UNIVERSITY or technical institute being visited; the DEGREE or certificate title the individual hopes to obtain; the MAJOR area of course study. SECTION 2: Complete this section only if the information is NOT shown on a resume or information sheet supplied by the student or the placement office. Such sheet is to be STAPLED to this form. When necessary complete: the ADDRESS of the student while he is attending university or the technical institute being visited; the CITY, POSTAL ZONE and PROVINCE of this address, and the PHONE NUMBER where the student resides; MARITAL STATUS; Students AGE; and NO. OF DEPENDENTS (if applicable). SECTION 3: Complete MOST RECENT ACADEMIC STANDING showing the position in the class of the applicant (upper, middle or lower third as a minimum); the total NUMBER IN THE CLASS; AVERAGE MARK IN ALL COURSES for the last set of examinations; AVERAGE MARKS for each year of university or technical institute studies completed. SECTION 4 •• Complete the EVALUATION using the rating factors and rating terms as defined above. Where possible an overall FACULTY EVALUATION (usually available from Placement Officer) should be completed and in all cases the RECRUITER'S OVERALL EVALUATION MUST be completed. IMPORTANT: A DECISION MUST BE MADE BY THE INTERVIEWER AS TO WHETHER THE CANDIDATE IS TO BE FURTHER.  CONSIDERED  SECTION 5: is only to be completed where the candidate IS to be considered further. Indicate AREAS OF INTEREST FOR DIVISIONAL INTERVIEW to facilitate the selection of individuals the candidate is to see during the divisional visit. If SALARY is DISCUSSED indicate this and note the RATE. An UNFAVOURABLE reaction MUST be explained in COMMENTS section below. Determine wiether the candidate is willing to commence employment in ANOTHER DIVISION and explain the reasons for a NO answer in COMMENTS section below. Indicate FIRST THREE CHOICES by numbering "1", "2", "3", as to Division in which to commence employment. All COMMENTS favourable or unfavourable are to be shown. Additional comments if necessary, include on the reverse side of this form. This form must be SIGNED by the recruiter.  -51-  may  be  judged s a t i s f a c t o r i l y .  Wagner ( 1 9 4 - 9 )  which r e p o r t t h a t s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e , and  o v e r a l l a b i l i t y may  interview.  be  reviews  sociability, intelligence  r e l i a b l y measured through  Furthermore, Howell and  Vincent  (1970)  of other  s o c i a b i l i t y and  f a c t o r s may  use.  i n t e r e s t as w e l l as a number  Only t h r e e  persuasiveness,  have no  an  factors, attitude, leadere m p i r i c a l support f o r t h e i r  However, s i n c e they formed p a r t of the Bank's r a t i n g  form t h e y are i n c l u d e d The  next q u e s t i o n  interviewer  here. which a r i s e s i s how  discussed  more f u l l y l a t e r on i n t h i s  Of S t a t i s t i c a l In o r d e r r a t e r s and  strategy".  This  will  Concern to compare r a t i n g s among i n t e r v i e w e r s ,  group  i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s , the Pearson Product-Moment o r i g i n a l l y used.  and  d i s c u s s , t h i s s t a t i s t i c has  Foss ( 1 9 6 2 )  However, as Brown, Lucero  s i t u a t i o n s where a f i v e ~ p o i n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n :  as the b a s i s f o r measurement.  a limitation in s c a l e i s used  They suggest t h a t the  r's  i s l o s t i f the measures are c o a r s e l y grouped o r i f  d i s t r i b u t i o n s are l i m i t e d o r skewed. o f the  how  chapter.  C o r r e l a t i o n was  value  w e l l does an  d i s c r i m i n a t e between these dimensions and  much o f h i s r a t i n g s i s based on a "halo be  self-  be i n d e p e n d e n t l y a s s e s s e d through  employment i n t e r v i e w . s h i p and  the  demon-  s t r a t e d t h a t s e l f - e x p r e s s i o n , appearance, m a t u r i t y , confidence,  studies  They recommend the  " P e r c e n t P e r f e c t Agreement" (PPA)  s t a t i s t i c as  b e t t e r way  o f examining r e l a t e d n e s s  between samples.  state that  " i t i s the measure most c o n s i s t e n t w i t h  use  a They  Technical  -52-  Recommendations ( o f the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1954)  and i s t h e o n l y measure o f r e l i a b i l i t y proposed by  Goodman and K r u s k a l  (1954)  i n t h e i r general  discussion of  measures o f c o r r e l a t i o n f o r c l a s s i f i c a t o r y v a r i a b l e s " . As a r e s u l t , the p r i n c i p a l measure o f c o r r e l a t i o n employed i n t h i s study i s t h e P e r c e n t o f f e r a comparison, t h e Pearson r w i l l  P e r f e c t Agreement. a l s o be g i v e n  each PPA i n t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the a n a l y s e s .  To  with  However, when  t a b l e s a r e developed which e x h i b i t i n t e r e o r r e l a t i o n s among f a c t o r s and sub-samples ( e . g . the Campbell-Fiske d e s i g n ) o n l y t h e Pearson r was d e r i v e d due p r i m a r i l y t o the conveni e n c e o f computer a n a l y s e s . though, the PPA was The  F o r most major computations,  formulated.  Interview The  format o f i n t e r v i e w s performed i n t h i s study  the same as t h e Bank o f M o n t r e a l s i n i t i a l 1  view.  screening  E s s e n t i a l l y , t h e format was s e m i - s t r u c t u r e d  Schwab and Heneman, 1 9 7 0 ) w i t h  was  inter-  (Carlson,  s t r u c t u r e surrounding the  o v e r a l l i n t e r v i e w p l a n and steps I I I , IV and VI (see below) w i t h i n the plan. was i n e x i s t e n c e  Beyond t h i s p l a n , n o n - d i r e c t i v e (unstructured)  probing  wherein t h e i n t e r v i e w e r s  c o u l d ask o r probe f o r any a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y pertinent f o r t h e i r The  felt  evaluations.  o v e r a l l p l a n i s as f o l l o w s , w i t h t h e suggested  breakdown o f s t e p s t o be observed i n an i n t e r v i e w and w i t h the  suggested time f o r each  step.  -53-  Step I  Review resume  1  minute  Step I I  E s t a b l i s h rapport  2 minutes  Step I I I  E v a l u a t e student - e d u c a t i o n and work e x p e r i e n c e - 3 min - personal history  - 2 min  - potential  - 5 min 10  minutes  Step IV  Provide information  7  minutes  Step V  Q u e s t i o n s and answers  5  minutes  Step VI  Inform s t u d e n t o f f u t u r e sideration  1  minute  Step V I I  Record r e s u l t s and e v a l u a t e  4-  minutes  con-  30  minutes  A more d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n o f each step i s g i v e n i n Appendix  1.  The Bank's s u g g e s t i o n was  t h a t the i n t e r v i e w  itself  ( i . e . e x c l u d i n g Step V I I - e v a l u a t i o n ) s h o u l d t a k e 26  minutes,  The average l e n g t h o f the i n t e r v i e w s i n t h i s study was minutes.  26.9  The i n t e r v i e w s conducted i n t h i s study were b a s i c -  a l l y the same i n format (as d e s c r i b e d above) a l t h o u g h t h e r e was  v a r i a t i o n i n o v e r a l l l e n g t h (range:  18-38  minutes)  i n t h e amount o f time devoted t o any p a r t i c u l a r s t e p . though,  i s t o be  and This,  expected.  Furthermore, no quota r e s t r i c t i o n s were g i v e n t o the interviewers.  They were s i m p l y asked t o s e l e c t from among  t h e i r i n t e r v i e w e e s those who c o n s i d e r a t i o n and those who  would be  would be r e j e c t e d .  any b i a s i n r a t i n g s which may quotas ( C a r l s o n ,  1967).  suitable f o r further This avoids  a r i s e due t o the presence o f  -54-  To p l a c e t h i s i n i t i a l  screening  interview i n per-  s p e c t i v e , a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Bank of M o n t r e a l ' s h i r i n g system i s g i v e n below. The  Bank's H i r i n g System As  for  stated e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter,  the  opportunities  which these i n t e r v i e w s were h e l d were p o s i t i o n s i n the  Bank's t h r e e - y e a r  t r a i n i n g program ( c a l l e d the  Special  Development Program) l e a d i n g to a branch managership. The  h i r i n g p r o c e d u r e at the S p e c i a l Development Program  l e v e l r e l i e s almost e n t i r e l y upon the i n t e r v i e w . references  and  a p p l i c a t i o n form data the  Besides  d e c i s i o n to h i r e or  r e j e c t i s made on the b a s i s o f i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r e d through interviewing. The  applicant f i r s t  (see Appendix 2)  and  completes the  a p p l i c a t i o n form  then p r o c e e d s to the i n i t i a l  screening  i n t e r v i e w , d e t a i l s about which were g i v e n e a r l i e r .  At  this  stage the i n t e r v i e w e r makes the d e c i s i o n to e i t h e r r e j e c t the c a n d i d a t e The  o r recommend him  for further consideration.  d e c i s i o n t o h i r e i s not made h e r e . If  the a p p l i c a n t i s recommended he then goes down t o  the Bank's P e r s o n n e l Regional  Department at the B r i t i s h  O f f i c e i n Vancouver f o r the  Columbia  second i n t e r v i e w .  i n t e r v i e w g e n e r a l l y l a s t s from 45 minutes to 1 hour c o n s i s t s m a i n l y o f d e s c r i b i n g the Bank and t o the i n t e r v i e w e e .  and  i t s opportunities  Here the i n t e r v i e w e r goes i n t o  a b l y more depth than i n the i n i t i a l  This  screening  consider-  interview,  t a l k i n g about performance a p p r a i s a l , working c o n d i t i o n s ,  -55-  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , o t h e r programs, t y p e s o f c o u r s e s the r e c r u i t  would have t o t a k e ,  and so on.  I f recommended f o r f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n the a p p l i c a n t comes back f o r a t h i r d i n t e r v i e w w i t h or a s t a f f o f f i c e r .  Line o f f i c e r s  accountants, loan o f f i c e r s , officers so on.  include personnel  credit  officers,  managers,  w i t h t h e format b e i n g  roughly  screening  The p r i n c i p a l  third  IV) and s t r e s s e s the a c q u i s i t i o n interviewee. introduce  Staff  about o n e - h a l f t o the  hour  initial  d i f f e r e n c e between  screening  the former deemphasizes the " p r o v i d e  etc.  systems a n a l y s t s , and  equivalent  i n t e r v i e w and the i n i t i a l  officer  i n c l u d e bank managers,  This interview usually l a s t s  interview.  either a line  this  interview i s that  information"  phase  (step  o f more d a t a r e g a r d i n g t h e  This t h i r d i n t e r v i e w i s p r i m a r i l y designed to  the a p p l i c a n t t o the a c t u a l i n t e r n a l  workings o f  the Bank. I f recommended a g a i n , the c a n d i d a t e fourth interview with was w i t h third  a line officer  a staff officer)  i n t e r v i e w was w i t h  or with  At t h i s  stage,  s i d e r e d t o be accepted given  a line officer).  This  interview ( i f the  interview  Usually i t includes a  the a p p l i c a n t i s g e n e r a l l y con=  f o r employment and i s c o n s e q u e n t l y  a more r e l a x e d r e c e p t i o n .  considered  ( i f the t h i r d  a staff officer  i s v e r y i n f o r m a l and u n s t r u c t u r e d . luncheon.  comes back f o r a  T h i s i n t e r v i e w may  as p a r t o f the i n d u c t i o n p r o c e s s  even be  r a t h e r than the  s e l e c t i o n process.  However, i n the Bank i t i s c o n s i d e r e d  p a r t o f the l a t t e r ,  since there  as  i s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e  -56-  a p p l i c a n t c o u l d be r e j e c t e d a t t h i s s t a g e . G r a p h i c a l l y , the Bank's s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s f o r r e c r u i t s to  the S p e c i a l Development Program may be d e p i c t e d as on  Exhibit  II.  2.  Groups v s I n d i v i d u a l s - P s y c h o m e t r i c P r o p e r t i e s o f the Measure T h i s s e c t i o n o f the study was p r i m a r i l y  designed  to  e x p l o r e some o f the more i m p o r t a n t p s y c h o m e t r i c  of  t h e p r i n c i p a l measure ( t h e Bank's r a t i n g form - E x h i b i t  namely i n t e r - and i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y Furthermore,  properties 1),  and h a l o e r r o r .  r a t i n g s o f i n t e r v i e w e e s were o b t a i n e d from  both  group r a t e r s and i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s t o examine the moderating e f f e c t s which t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e sources o f judgments may upon t h e s e p s y c h o m e t r i c p r o p e r t i e s .  have  While the measure has  some e m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t , a l b e i t i n d i r e c t  (as d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r ) ,  and w h i l e i t i s o f the type most commonly employed i n p e r sonnel s e l e c t i o n , the p o s s i b i l i t y s t i l l psychometrically lacking.  e x i s t s f o r i t t o be  T h i s s e c t i o n o f the study  i n t e n d e d t o p r o v i d e more d e f i n i t e and meaningful to  was  evidence as  i t s u t i l i t y and l i m i t a t i o n s . F i n a l l y , the group and i n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g s were com-  p a r e d t o a s c e r t a i n t h e presence and d i r e c t i o n o f mean r a t i n g differences. D e t a i l s o f the Samples To o b t a i n the n e c e s s a r y d a t a , 185 s t u d e n t s from t h e F a c u l t y o f Commerce and B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a t t h e  -57-  Exhibit  2  The Bank o f M o n t r e a l ' s S e l e c t i o n P r o c e s s f o r R e c r u i t s t o t h e S p e c i a l Development Program Stage:  Description  1  A p p l i c a n t Completes A p p l i c a t i o n Form  2  I n i t i a l S c r e e n i n g I n t e r v i e w (}£ hour) — - r e f e r e n c e check made a f t e r view i f recommended  5  4-  ^. r e j e c t  inter-  Second I n t e r v i e w - a t P e r s o n n e l  Office;  mainly to provide i n f o r m a t i o n 3 / 4 - 1 hour)  reject if  recommended  T h i r d Interview - at Regional O f f i c e  > reject  with l i n e o r s t a f f o f f i c e r (# hour) if  recommended  Fourth Interview - at Regional O f f i c e with l i n e or s t a f f o f f i c e r  (usually  i n c l u d e s luncheon) F i n a l Acceptance f o r Employment  ^reject  -58U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia were asked t o p r o v i d e r a t e - r e r a t e d a t a o f i n t e r v i e w e e s from t h r e e interviews.  video-taped  S i n c e the tapes l a s t an average o f r o u g h l y  27  minutes each, i t was v i r t u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e t o expect the s t u d e n t s t o view t h r e e c o n s e c u t i v e t a p e s t w i c e . the samples were broken i n t o t h r e e a p p r o x i m a t e l y samples, w i t h each sub-sample v i e w i n g tape.  Consequently, equal sub-  and r e - v i e w i n g one  Furthermore, t h e t h r e e sub-samples were a g a i n  mented i n t o group r a t e r s ( o f s i z e 3) (yielding 6  and i n d i v i d u a l  segraters  sub-samples).  By u s i n g v i d e o - t a p e d  i n t e r v i e w , the group and i n d i v -  i d u a l r a t e r s were exposed t o e x a c t l y the same t h i n g t h e r e b y e l i m i n a t i n g b i a s due t o c a n d i d a t e i n c o n s i s t e n c y , a c o n d i t i o n which Maas (1965) found c o n t r i b u t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o low inter-rater The  reliability. t h r e e tapes  s e l e c t e d c o n t a i n e d i n t e r v i e w e e s who  had been r a t e d by t h e i n t e r v i e w e r and t h e Bank o f Montreal viewers  as b e i n g low, average and h i g h i n terms o f s u i t -  a b i l i t y f o r employment.  I f each o f the r a t e r s from t h e Bank  e v a l u a t e d t h e i n t e r v i e w e e as u n s a t i s f a c t o r y o r m a r g i n a l i n t h e i r o v e r a l l r a t i n g s then he was d e s i g n a t e d as b e i n g  "low".  I f they a l l e v a l u a t e d the i n t e r v i e w e e as s u p e r i o r o r e x c e l l e n t then he was d e s i g n a t e d as b e i n g " h i g h " .  I f they a l l e v a l u a t e d  the i n t e r v i e w e e as average then he was d e s i g n a t e d  "average".  Each o f the 54 i n t e r v i e w e e s were r a t e d i n t h i s manner and from among them t h r e e were s e l e c t e d .  F o r each o f the t h r e e  s e l e c t e d the i n t e r v i e w e r was t h e same, t h e r e b y a v o i d i n g b i a s  •59-  due to interviewer-differences.  A summary d e s c r i p t i o n of  the three interviewees i s shown i n Table 5 . that there was  I t may  a discrepancy between the "low"  be noted  interviewee  and the other two i n terms of the number of interviews they had been to i n the year p r i o r to t h i s study and t h e i r of  study at u n i v e r s i t y .  field  These d i f f e r e n c e s were unavoidable  and were recognized as a l i m i t a t i o n of t h i s a n a l y s i s . Table  5  Description of Interviewees Interviewee  Age  Grade Level  %  Number of p r i o r Interviews 12  F i e l d of Study Finance  Low  23  65  Average  24  70  1  I/R - 0/B  High  22  68  3  I/R - 0/B  Three tapes were f e l t to provide a b e t t e r representation of interviewees than only one tape. one tape was used and the interviewee was  Moreover, i f only either definitely  u n s a t i s f a c t o r y or d e f i n i t e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y then not only would the dispersion of ratings i n v a r i a b l y be minimal but also the i n t r a - r a t e r agreement would be high thereby d i s t o r t i n g the true p i c t u r e of r a t i n g s given interviewees.  Using three  taped interviews reduced the p r o b a b i l i t y of t h i s d i s t o r t i o n ' s occurrence.  A table summarizing t h i s sampling  i s given below (Table 6 ) .  distribution  -60Table  6  Sampling D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r Data Interviewee  Acquisition  I n d i v i d u a l Viewers  Group Viewers  N  N  Low  36  8  Average  34  10  High  _34  9  Total  104  2?  The time l a p s e between v i e w i n g s (and a s s o c i a t e d r a t i n g s ) was  one week.  Comparisons  between group  ratings  and i n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g s were made f o r each i n t e r v i e w e e . To reduce the e f f e c t s o f memory upon r a t e - r e r a t e d e c i s i o n s two p r o c e d u r e s were f o l l o w e d . f o r the r e r a t e d e c i s i o n s was  First,  the measure  a l t e r e d i n format from the  measure f o r the r a t e d e c i s i o n s .  Second, where p o s s i b l e ,  a d d i t i o n a l v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w s were shown t o ss throughout the time l a p s e between v i e w i n g s t o confuse the importance o f the i n t e r v i e w on which t h e s e d a t a were accumulated. a d d i t i o n a l showing  This  a f f e c t e d approximately one-third of the  i n d i v i d u a l v i e w e r s and o n e - t h i r d o f the group v i e w e r s . Groups v s I n d i v i d u a l s - R a t i n g D i f f e r e n c e s As i s d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 5 ,  r i s k may  on group vs i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n a l outcomes.  L i k e w i s e , the  importance o f n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n compounded by p r o c e s s e s may ratings.  have an impact  group  account f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s between group  and  Indeed, the a c t u a l group p r o c e s s e s themselves  may  result i n differences.  T h i s a s p e c t o f group and  individual  employment decisions i s examined here.  Due to inadequate  control over the independent v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g decisions i n t h i s regard, no hypotheses were developed f o r empirical investigation. exploratory  Rather, t h i s section of the study was  i n nature with post-hoc discussion being given  to o f f e r a l t e r n a t i v e reasons f o r the f i n d i n g s . The procedure involved comparing the mean v a r i a b l e ratings, the mean o v e r a l l r a t i n g s and the c a l l - b a c k - r e j e c t decisions between groups and i n d i v i d u a l s .  The data used  here were the ratings given by the 185 students i n t h e i r i n i t i a l viewing of the three video-taped  interviews.  Intra-rater R e l i a b i l i t y I n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y i s an estimate of the stabi l i t y of ratings over time. conclusions  On the basis of t h i s estimate  may be made as to the accuracy of the measure  being employed.  The i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y estimates were  obtained by computing the PPA and Pearson's r between the rate - rerate decisions f o r both groups and i n d i v i d u a l s . Inter-rater R e l i a b i l i t y I n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y provides information  on the  extent t o which r a t e r s agree as to the amounts of any p a r t i c u l a r t r a i t or p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e which the interviewee possesses.  This, then, o f f e r s an estimate of the extent to  which a measure has i n t e r n a l  stability.  I n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y was calculated by two methods. F i r s t , the standard deviation scores f o r each v a r i a b l e evaluated by i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s on t h e i r f i r s t viewing of the  -62p interviews  were compared with the equivalent scores of  group r a t e r s .  I f the standard d e v i a t i o n i s lower f o r one  sub-sample then i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y i s higher f o r that sub-sample and v i c e versa. by Hollingworth  This approach i s the one used  (1922), C o t t e l l (1910) and Norsworthy  (1910)  i n t h e i r evaluations of i n t e r - r a t e r agreement i n estimating t r a i t s of character (see Symonds, 1931 * pages 112-113, f o r a discussion).  More r e c e n t l y , Carlson and Mayfield (1967)  and Carlson (1967, 1968) u t i l i z e d t h i s method to estimate i n t e r - i n t e r v i e w e r agreement scores.  Second, an average  i n t e r - c o r r e l a t i o n score was computed by summing over corr e l a t i o n s between r a t e r s f o r a l l rated v a r i a b l e s and d i v i d i n g by the number of c o r r e l a t i o n s observed.  This approach i s  of the type used by Carlson, Schwab and Heneman (1970). Halo E r r o r Measures of the kind used by the Bank of  Montreal  and employed i n t h i s study are notorious f o r permitting halo error to d i s t o r t t r a i t r a t i n g s .  Thorndike and Hagen (1969)  defined halo e r r o r as being "the tendency of r a t e r s t o base evaluations of a person being rated upon general favorableness toward that i n d i v i d u a l and not to d i f f e r e n t i a t e degree of possession of s p e c i f i c t r a i t s " .  While procedures were  followed to reduce the existence of halo e r r o r (see e a r l i e r  Since t h i s section deals with i n t e r - r a t e r agreement and i s not concerned with s t a b i l i t y over time only data acquired from the f i r s t viewing of the three taped interviews i s used f o r a n a l y s i s . The re-rate decisions are not included here.  -63-  discussion),  it  non-existent.  was u n r e a s o n a b l e t o expect t h a t As a r e s u l t ,  thirteen  a n a l y s i s program w i t h a varimax r o t a t i o n  Comparisons between group and i n d i v i d u a l  m a t r i c e s was made by employing a f a c t o r which t e s t s the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t spaces  present  ( i n c l u d i n g the o v e r a l l r a t i n g ) u s i n g a p r i n c i p a l  component f a c t o r procedure.  would be  the amount of h a l o e r r o r  i n the measure was determined by f a c t o r i n g the variables  it  stability  the d i f f e r e n c e  factor  check  in  factor  o c c u p i e d by the group d a t a and the i n d i v i d u a l d a t a  i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  different  from z e r o .  a t i o n s between these s e t s o f f a c t o r s using a chi-square s t a t i s t i c  Canonical  were computed and t e s t e d  and i t s p r o b a b i l i t y .  cedure was c o n t a i n e d i n t h e f a c t o r  correl-  This p r o -  a n a l y s i s program mentioned  above.  III.  Attitudes  Toward the Use o f Video-Tape i n  T h i s s e c t i o n o f the  Interviews  study was i n t e n d e d to go one step  f u r t h e r than Moore and C r a i k (1972) i n a s s e s s i n g toward v i d e o - t a p e  use i n i n t e r v i e w i n g .  upon answers t o t h r e e b a s i c  attitudes  These a u t h o r s  focused  questions:  a.  How r e a l i s t i c a l l y does p l a y b a c k o f v i d e o t a p e d i n t e r v i e w s p o r t r a y a number of i m p o r t a n t i n t e r viewee c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ?  b.  I n an o v e r a l l sense, how e f f e c t i v e taped screening interview?  c.  What i s the g e n e r a l r e a c t i o n t o the s u g g e s t i o n t h a t v i d e o t a p e d i n t e r v i e w s be used f o r i n i t i a l s c r e e n i n g o f u n i v e r s i t y graduates s e e k i n g employment?  The two samples whose a t t i t u d e s measured were a group o f s t u d e n t s  i s the  video-  Moore and C r a i k  and a group o f p r o f e s s i o n a l  -64-  r e c r u i t e r s and personnel administrators.  Both samples were  asked to view a s e r i e s of video-taped interviews and complete a questionnaire containing a t t i t u d i n a l items.  None of the  members of these samples were asked to formally assess the s u i t a b i l i t y of the candidates they viewed.  In t h i s sense,  then, they were quite removed from the interview s e t t i n g . This study attempted to overcome the sampling  con-  d i t i o n i n Moore and Craik's research by having actual i n t e r viewees and actual r a t e r s and interviewers provide t h e i r attitudes.  This important  dimension added considerable depth  to the assessment of a t t i t u d e s toward video-tape use i n interviewing.  Not only were uninvolved observers views  obtained (Moore and Craik, 1 9 7 2 ) but also were those of persons a c t u a l l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the interviewing process. Further to the questions asked by Moore and Craik, a number of other queries were r a i s e d .  These are as follows:  1.  How do viewers who are r a t i n g the interviewee's s u i t a b i l i t y f e e l as to the realism with which the video-tape portrays a number of important interviewee c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ?  2.  How do interviewees f e e l as to the extent to which t h e i r behaviours were e i t h e r b e t t e r or worse i n the video-taped interviews than what they would have been had the interviews not been video-taped?  3.  How d i s t r a c t i n g to the interviewees was the video-tape?  The samples and interviews were the same as those described e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter.  The measures used were  modifications of the questionnaire used by Moore and Craik (1972)  and are shown i n Appendix  3.  The interviewees were  asked to complete t h e i r questionnaires immediately  after  -65-  t h e i r interviews. asked t o f i l l had  The group and i n d i v i d u a l v i e w e r s were  out t h e i r forms on t h e i r own time a f t e r t h e y  viewed a l l o f t h e i r a s s i g n e d  interviews.  This  pro-  cedure f o r t h e v i e w e r s had l i m i t a t i o n s and r e s u l t e d i n a r e t u r n o f 1 7 o f the 24- p o s s i b l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  ( 7 1 $ return).  However, the number was deemed t o be s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e t o o f f e r an adequate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the sub-sample's tudes.  atti-  -66-  CHAPTER 4-  RESULTS  This chapter i s segmented i n t o three major sections, although the f i r s t two converge upon each other.  This f i r s t  part compares ratings given by interviewers i n a face-toface s e t t i n g with ratings given by observers taped interviews.  of video-  The second section presents differences  between group and i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s i n terms of mean t r a i t r a t i n g s , o v e r a l l r a t i n g s , c a l l back-reject decisions, halo error and i n t e r - and i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y . reports a t t i t u d e s of interviewees the use of video-tape I.  The t h i r d part  and observing r a t e r s toward  i n interviewing.  Interviewers vs Viewers Table 1 presents means and standard deviations of  the interviewer, group and i n d i v i d u a l ratings of the i n t e r view Ss.  Mean t r a i t ratings by interviewers following l i v e  interviews agreed c l o s e l y with the mean ratings of groups following videotape playback and discussion.  The mean group  ratings were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the mean interviewer ratings f o r i n t e l l i g e n c e and self-confidence.  Individual  viewers d i f f e r e d from the interviewers to a greater  extent.  The mean i n d i v i d u a l ratings were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the mean interviewer ratings f o r s i x t r a i t s .  Inspection of  1  TABLE Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s ,  and S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e s  v i e w e r s ' ( I ) , Groups' (G), and I n d i v i d u a l s '  Interviewers Trait  SD  Maturity-  3.20 2.94 2.85 3.12 3.12 3.20  Motivation  3.15  Persuasiveness Self-confidence  3.00 3.17  Self-expression  3.17  .69 .49 .61 .33 .54 .48 .56 .43 .52 .58  Sociability  3.17  .52  3.32  Potential  2.97 3.00  .58 .43  2.85 3.12  Appearance Interest Intelligence Leadership  Overall  a  t  test,  *p_ <.05  **£ <.01  (two-tailed)  2.87**  M  3.35 3.06 3.00 3.40 3.15 3.27  3.12 3.15  2.02*  f o r Inter-  ( I ' ) Ratings  Groups  M  Attitude  I vs. G  a  3.44 3.21  SD  .65 .42 .78 .50 .70 .62 .81 .66 .56 .59 .53 .86 .69  Individuals G vs. I'  M  3.53 1.95*  3.27  3.12 3.47 3.27 2.29*  3.62 3.27  1.93*  3.15 3.41 3.50 3.44 3.09 3.27  SD  .61 .45 .59 .51  .57 .65 .57 .66 .61 .66 .66  I' v s .  2.05* 2.85** 3.41** 2.97**  2.15*  .71  .57  2.18*  •68-  the mean i n t e r v i e w e r  r a t i n g s show them to be u n i f o r m l y  than the mean i n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g s and  lower than a l l o f  c o r r e s p o n d i n g mean group r a t i n g s except m o t i v a t i o n potential.  Furthermore, with the  lower  exception  of  the  and  self-confid-  ence, group r a t i n g s were c o n s i s t e n t l y lower than i n d i v i d u a l ratings.  T h i s d a t a i s summarized i n T a b l e  2.  2  Table  O v e r a l l Comparison Among Samples Comparison Mean  Method  1  Direction  I n t e r v i e w e r s vs Individuals I n t e r v i e w e r s vs Groups  Individuals > Interviewers** Groups > I n t e r viewers  I n d i v i d u a l s vs Group s  Individuals > Group s * *  I n t e r v i e w e r s vs Individuals I n t e r v i e w e r s vs Groups  Individuals > Interviewers** Groups > I n t e r viewers***  I n d i v i d u a l s vs Groups  Individuals > Groups  p  S.D.  **  p^.05  ***  p<.01  1.  Mann-Whitney T e s t used t o determine s i g n i f i c a n c e o f differences (Siegel, 1 9 5 6 ) .  2.  S i g n - T e s t used t o determine s i g n i f i c a n c e o f (Siegel,  1956).  T a b l e 3 summarizes the discriminant procedure.  difference  a n a l y s i s o f convergent  v a l i d i t y f o l l o w i n g the  Campbell-Fiske  Convergent v a l i d i t y , i n d i c a t e d when two  and  (1959)  o r more  independent measures t e n d to agree i n the measurement o f a given  v a r i a b l e , i s shown by the  c o r r e l a t i o n s i n columns  one,  TABLE  3  Convergent and D i s c r i m i n a n t V a l i d i t i e s o f i n t e r v i e w e r s - Groups, I n t e r v i e w e r s - I n d i v i d u a l s , and I n d i v i d u a l s - G r o u p s Heteromethod  block  Interviewersgroups V a l i d - Highest ity heterocoef. t r a i t value  Interviewersindividuals  No. o f heterotrait values higher  V a l i d - Highest heteroity coef. t r a i t value  3  1  Individualsgroups  No. o f V a l i d hetero- i t y ti?ait coef. values higher  Highest heterotrait value  a  2  3  4  5  6  7  No. o f heterotrait values higher 1  8  9  Attitude  31*  56  7  38*  56  6  28*  59  7  Appearance  46*  39  0  21  41  9  24  39  3  Interest  51*  0  39*  41  1  13  48  16  Intelligence  25  4-7 4-8  12  02  34  20  4-2  20  Leadership  60*  4-0  0  09  54  12  05 28*  Maturity-  32*  44  9  36*  57  4  11  43  Motivation  16'  53  15  26  57  11  26  48  9  Persuasiveness  32*  11  00  40  19  30*  42  3  Self-confidence  4-5*  53 4-1  32  14  34*  42  Self-expression  51*  60  1  15 24-  45  6  04  46  7 22  Sociability  4-4-*  60  7  39*  45  2  01  64  24  Potential  4-2*  4-2  0  30*  57  10  37*  64  12  Overall  10  53  21  38*  56  5  31*  43  10  Median  4-2  48  26  45  26  46  0  52  2 17  Number o f heteromethod o f f - d i a g o n a l c o e f f i c i e n t s i n c o r r e s p o n d i n g row and column h i g h e r than v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t ; maximum = 24* £  <  .05  -70-  f o u r and seven o f T a b l e 3 .  Minimal r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r con-  v e r g e n t v a l i d i t y were met f o r 1 0 o f 1 3 t r a i t s i n t h e interviewer-group  r a t i n g comparison ( o r s i g n i f i c a n t l y  d i f f e r e n t from z e r o ) . individual-group  I n the i n t e r v i e w e r - i n d i v i d u a l and  comparisons l e s s than h a l f the t r a i t s  f i e d the c r i t e r i o n f o r convergent The f i r s t  satis-  validity.  test f o r discriminant v a l i d i t y ,  requiring  t h a t t h e v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r a t r a i t measured by two d i f f e r e n t methods should tween t h a t t r a i t  be h i g h e r  and o t h e r  than the c o r r e l a t i o n s be-  t r a i t s measured by d i f f e r e n t methods,  i s met by f i v e t r a i t s i n the i n t e r v i e w e r - g r o u p  comparison.  T h i s t e s t , however, i s n o t met by any t r a i t i n the i n t e r viewer-individual or individual-group  comparisons.  The second t e s t f o r d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y not t r e a t e d i n T a b l e 3 , r e q u i r e s t h a t measures o f a g i v e n independent methods c o r r e l a t e h i g h e r the g i v e n method.  trait  t r a i t made w i t h  than c o r r e l a t i o n s between  and o t h e r t r a i t s when measured by a common  A l l heteromethod t r a i t  i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s were ex-  ceeded by a t l e a s t 5 0 $ o f the i n t e r t r a i t  correlations within  methods except f o r appearance, i n t e r e s t and l e a d e r s h i p , a l l w i t h i n the i n t e r v i e w e r - g r o u p  hetermethod b l o c k .  exceeded by 8$, 2 5 $ and 1 1 $ r e s p e c t i v e l y .  These were  Furthermore,  c o r r e l a t i o n s between t r a i t s w i t h i n the t h r e e mono-method were q u i t e h i g h  blocks  ( f o r i n t e r v i e w e r s , median r = . 4 - 0 ; f o r groups,  median r = . 5 3 ; f o r i n d i v i d u a l s , median r = . 4 5 ) . the  inter-  second t e s t f o r d i s c r i m i n a n t  Clearly,  v a l i d i t y was n o t met.  An examination o f the p a t t e r n s  of t r a i t  inter-correl-  a t i o n s w i t h i n and between r a t i n g methods f o r s i m i l a r i t y  -71constitutes the t h i r d t e s t f o r discriminant v a l i d i t y .  No  p a t t e r n s i m i l a r i t y c o u l d be i d e n t i f i e d . The e x t e n t  o f agreement among t h e t h r e e  terms o f t h e d e c i s i o n t o r e j e c t t h e c a n d i d a t e  samples i n  o r c a l l him  back f o r a second i n t e r v i e w i s r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e Table  4.  4  Group, I n d i v i d u a l and I n t e r v i e w e r I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s " ' C a l l Back - R e j e c t  Decision  Interviewer Individual  .02  Group  .38  1  Kendall's  Individual  .76**  Q ( B l a l o c k , I960)  ** p^.01 These f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e low agreement between i n d i v i d u a l v i e w e r s and i n t e r v i e w e r s group v i e w e r s and i n t e r v i e w e r s .  and moderate agreement between A h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n , however,  e x i s t s between t h e two samples o f v i e w e r s . tape may have had a b e a r i n g  on t h i s  P o s s i b l y video-  outcome.  In summary, then, t h e above r e s u l t s p o i n t out f o u r major f i n d i n g s : (1)  d e c i s i o n s made by groups o f managers a f t e r ex-  posure t o v i d e o - t a p e differed l i t t l e having  p l a y b a c k s o f candidates',  compared t o the d e c i s i o n s o f i n t e r v i e w e r s  the t y p i c a l l e v e l o f t r a i n i n g and (2)  interviews  experience;  convergent and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y  g e n e r a l l y r e v e a l e d low convergent v a l i d i t y  analysis  coefficients,  -72-  high i n t e r t r a i t  c o r r e l a t i o n s and inadequate f u l f i l l m e n t o f  the d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y c r i t e r i a f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w e r and t h e i n d i v i d u a l - g r o u p i n t h e main, t h e i n t e r v i e w e r - g r o u p  comparisons.  However,  a s s o c i a t i o n approached  f u l f i l l m e n t o f a l l key c r i t e r i a except the second and t h i r d tests f o r discriminant (3)  i n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g s tended t o be u n i f o r m l y and  s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher, and  validity;  statistically,  than b o t h group r a t i n g s  interviewer ratings; (4)  g r o u p - i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n terms o f t h e  c a l l back-reject from zero II.  d e c i s i o n were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  (r = . 7 6 , p . 0 1 ) .  Group v s I n d i v i d u a l Viewers F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h was p r e p a r e d with  i n t e r v i e w e r samples ( i . e . s t u d e n t s , 3)  different  non-professional  as e x p l a i n e d  i n chapter  t o f u r t h e r t e s t f i n d i n g s ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) above, as w e l l as  to explore  t h e i n t e r - and i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y and e x i s t -  ence o f h a l o  error.  interviewees  studied.  Data i s r e p o r t e d f o r each o f the t h r e e  Mean T r a i t R a t i n g Table  Differences  5 r e p o r t s t h e mean t r a i t  r a t i n g s g i v e n by group  r a t e r s and i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s on the b a s i s o f the t o t a l i n d i v i d u a l N and t h e t o t a l group N ( i . e . _ss were c o l l a p s e d along  interviewers).  -73-  Table Mean T r a i t s R a t i n g  5  - T o t a l Groups and  Individuals  Individuals N =  Groups  104  N =  27  Attitude  3.22  Appearance  3.51  3.07 3.44  Interest  2.89  2.22  Intelligence  3.25  3.33*  Leadership  2.63  2.44  Maturity-  3.17  2.96  Motivation  3.01  2.70  Persuasiveness  2.60  2.41  Self-Confidence  2.86  2.81  Self-Expression  3.27  Sociability-  3.37  3.33* 3.44*  Potential  3.03  2.70  •These are r a t i n g s where group means were h i g h e r than i n d i v i d u a l means. A Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Sign-Ranks t e s t ( S i e g e l , 1956)  was  used t o t e s t the  s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the  differences  between group and  individual ratings.  (3)  r e s u l t t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s tended t o  above was  the  h i g h e r than groups (p i n the and  .02).  Only t h r e e  Consistent  with f i n d i n g  t r a i t s had  rate ratings  inconsistent direction; intelligence, self-expression  sociability. However, when the  interviewee  d a t a i s segmented i n terms o f  a rather d i f f e r e n t pattern  emerges.  Table 6  reports  t h e mean t r a i t  rating differences  between group  r a t e r s and i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s f o r each o f the t h r e e i n t e r viewees. Table  6  Mean T r a i t R a t i n g s - Groups v s Interviewee  Low  Individuals  Average  High I  G  N= 10  N =34  N= 9  3.38  3. 10  3 .50  3. 33  3. 00  3.41  3 .74  4.00*  2. 58  1.88  2.91  3. 30 2.00  3 .20  2.78  I n t e l l i g e n c e 2.94  2.7 5  3.35  3. 60*  3 .47  3. 56*  Leadership  2.02  1.63  2.73  2. 5 0  3 .18  Maturity  2.81  2. 50  3.26  Motivation .  2. 53  2.2 5  3.12  3. 10 2.60  3 .47 3 .41  3. 11 3. 22  Persuasiveness  2.2 5  1.75  2.50  2.30  3 .05  3. 11*  Self-Confidence  2.11  1.75  3.09  3. 00  3 .41  3. 56*  3. 00*  3.12  3. 30*  3 .73  Sociability  2.97 3. 11  3.26  2.36  3. 10 2.40  3 .74  Potential  3. 13 2.2 5  3. 67 4. 11*  3 .68  3. 44  I  G  I  Traits  N= 36  N =8  N=34  Attitude  2.81  2.75  Appearance  3. 39  Interest  G  3. 22  Self-Expression  3.08  •These a r e r a t i n g s where group means were h i g h e r than i n d i v i d u a l means. A g a i n , a Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Sign-Ranks t e s t ( S i e g e l , 1956) was used t o t e s t the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the differences  between group and i n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g s  of the three interviewees.  f o r each  The low i n t e r v i e w e e was  consis-  t e n t l y r a t e d h i g h e r by i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s than by group  _75-  raters  ( p ^ . O l ) except  f o r self-expression.  The average i n t e r -  viewee was a g a i n r a t e d h i g h e r hy i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s than by group r a t e r s  (p<".05),  expression.  The h i g h ^ i n t e r v i e w e e was r a t e d h i g h e r by i n d i v -  except  f o r i n t e l l i g e n c e and s e l f -  i d u a l r a t e r s than by group r a t e r s on o n l y 7 o f t h e 12 t r a i t s . The  difference  here was found t o be  Overall  non-significant.  Rating  When t h e o v e r a l l r a t i n g i s s e p a r a t e l y c o n s i d e r e d a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n i s found  as above.  Table 7 shows t h e o v e r a l l  r a t i n g s g i v e n each i n t e r v i e w e e b y b o t h group and i n d i v i d u a l raters. Table  7  O v e r a l l R a t i n g - Group and I n d i v i d u a l s Group  N  Individuals  N  Signif,  p<.05  Interviewee Low  2.00  8  2.4-7  36  Average  3.00  10  3.00  34-  High  3.33  9  3.4-7  34-  Total  2.97  27  2.81  104-  The  difference  i n t h e mean o v e r a l l r a t i n g s g i v e n b y  groups and i n d i v i d u a l s f o r t h e low i n t e r v i e w e e was s t a t istically  s i g n i f i c a n t , w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s r a t i n g more f a v o u r -  a b l y than groups. no  F o r t h e average and h i g h  significant difference  i n d i v i d u a l mean o v e r a l l  interviewees  was found between t h e group and  ratings.  -76-  C a l l Back-Reject  Decisions  A comparison between group and terms o f the  c a l l back-reject  cant d i f f e r e n c e s ; discussed  decision revealed  a r e s u l t consistent  earlier.  no  with f i n d i n g  C a l l Back-Reject D e c i s i o n  Percent C a l l Back  - Groups vs  Individuals  Individuals  Signif.  N  Percent C a l l Back  8  19.4  36  —  N  Low  12.5  Average  50  10  62  34  High  78  9  97  34  Total  48  59  104  27  A l t h o u g h no  chose t o c a l l back Halo To principal  significant differences  consistent  larger proportion  may  with e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s , a uniformly raters  interviewees.  t e s t f o r halo error a f a c t o r analysis using  a  component f a c t o r a n a l y s i s program w i t h a varimax  rotated and  emerged, i t  Error  ( i n c l u d i n g the  9  -  o f i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s than group  r o t a t i o n p r o c e d u r e was  The  (4)  8  Groups  be n o t e d t h a t ,  signifi-  T a b l e 8 summarized t h i s d a t a . Table  Interviewee  individual raters i n  performed on  overall rating)  a l l thirteen  variables  f o r b o t h groups and  individuals.  f a c t o r m a t r i x f o r i n d i v i d u a l s i s shown i n T a b l e  f o r groups i s shown i n T a b l e  10.  -77-  Table  9  Rotated Factor Matrix  -  Individuals h  Factor  Variable  Attitude  1  2  * .71  .17  -.02  Appearance Intelligence  .03  Leadership  * .74  .29  Interest  Maturity Motivation  *  Persuasiveness  *  Self-Confidence  *  Self-Expression  *  Sociability Potential  *  Overall  *  •loadings Two  above  .29  .79 .60 .67 .73 .55 .37 .65 .71  -.09  .36 .32 .29  .34 * .67 * .43 * .50  .40  f a c t o r s emerged from t h i s a n a l y s i s w i t h i n d i v i d u a l ' r a t e r s ,  w i t h the  first  ance and  sociability  f a c t o r containing  although s o c i a b i l i t y loaded  total  amount o f v a r i a n c e  55.7$  (Factor 1  a l l v a r i a b l e s except appear-  (the c r i t e r i o n  .40),  was  .54 .67 .37 .37 .63 .63 .49 .56 .63 .42 .59 .61 .74  .82  *  * .54 * .61  2  =  noted, appearance was  f o r factor loadings  quite highly ( . 3 7 ) .  accounted f o r by the two  47.52$;  Factor 2 = 8 . 1 5 $ ) .  the most o u t s t a n d i n g  was The  factors As may  be  v a r i a b l e i n terms  o f i t s i n c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h the l o a d i n g p a t t e r n  s e t by  other  variables. For groups a somewhat s i m i l a r r e s u l t a r i s e s , as i n Table  10.  T a b l e 10 R o t a t e d F a c t o r M a t r i x - Groups Factor  Variable  h  1  2  .20 .03  Attitude Appearance Interest  *.61  Leadership  *.69 *.88 *.4-5 *.76 *.75 *.42  MaturityMotivation Persuasiveness Self-Confidence Self-Expression  .62  *_  .83 .69  -  .43 .68 .54 .42 .62 .78 .50  .23  - .39 urn  Potential  *.57 *.43 •  Overall  *.79  Sociability-  *_  *_  .25  Intelligence  *_ —  .08 .55 .38 .33 .49 .28 .70 .36  .72  .70 .42 .40 .67 .76  A g a i n , 2 f a c t o r s emerged from t h i s a n a l y s i s , the  first  and  interest.  by the  factor containing  a l l but a t t i t u d e ,  other  be seen t h a t  f o r by the was  w i t h the  loading  variable  pattern  set  communality columns o f T a b l e s 9 and 10 i t the  variables  two f a c t o r s .  from .37 -  groups.  1 = 48.1$; F a c t o r 2 =  variables. From the  may  appearance  A g a i n , appearance was the most o u t s t a n d i n g  i n terms o f i t s i n c o n s i s t e n c y by  with  The t o t a l amount o f v a r i a n c e accounted f o r  two f a c t o r s was 58.5$ ( F a c t o r  10.4$).  2  .74  were n o t too w e l l  accounted  The range o f communality e s t i m a t e s  f o r i n d i v i d u a l s and from .42 -  .78  for  -79-  While the f a c t o r l o a d i n g s f o r both the group and i n d i v i d u a l d a t a a r e n o t immediately i n t e r p r e t a b l e , does seem t o emerge. on  Factor  one  trend  1 has moderate t o h i g h l o a d i n g s  a l l v a r i a b l e s w i t h the n o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n o f appearance,  i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the r a t e r s were n o t d i s c r i m i n a t i n g the  remaining v a r i a b l e s .  Factor  amongst  2 f o r b o t h samples has  extremely h i g h l o a d i n g s on appearance, as w e l l as on s o c i a b i l i t y , p o t e n t i a l and o v e r a l l ( f o r i n d i v i d u a l s ) and a t t i t u d e , interest, motivation, self-expression groups).  and p o t e n t i a l ( f o r  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t  appearance i s t h e  only d i r e c t l y observable v a r i a b l e included form.  i n the r a t i n g  The r e m a i n i n g v a r i a b l e s must a l l be i n f e r r e d from t h e  exchange o f communications i n the i n t e r v i e w s .  However,  recognizing  t h e low amount o f v a r i a n c e accounted f o r by the  two f a c t o r s  (55.7$ f o r i n d i v i d u a l s ; 58.5$ f o r g r o u p s ) , t h i s  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s h o u l d n o t be taken as The p o s s i b l e  existence  conclusive.  o f h a l o e r r o r was  further  e x p l o r e d by c o r r e l a t i n g each o f the v a r i a b l e s w i t h the f i n a l c a l l back-reject  decision.  Table 11 shows t h a t f o r groups  each v a r i a b l e w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n s o f a t t i t u d e ,  leadership,  p o t e n t i a l and o v e r a l l c o r r e l a t e d m i n i m a l l y o r moderately (p .05) w i t h t h i s d e c i s i o n . <:  P o t e n t i a l and o v e r a l l had the  most o u t s t a n d i n g c o r r e l a t i o n s .  F o r i n d i v i d u a l s , however, each  v a r i a b l e had a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.01) c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the  c a l l back-reject  decision.  A g a i n , though, p o t e n t i a l and  o v e r a l l h e l d , by f a r , the h i g h e s t  relationship.  -80-  Table  11  C o r r e l a t i o n s Between V a r i a b l e s and C a l l B a c k - R e j e c t D e c i s i o n - G r o u p s and I n d i v i d u a l s Groups  Individu;  N=27  N=104  Attitude  .50**  Appearance  .35  .41**  Interest  i2S  .36**  Intelligence  .41*  .40**  Leadership  .32  .59**  Maturity-  .37*  Motivation  .38*  .53**  Persuasiveness  .54**  .55**  Self-Confidence  .36  .57**  Self-Expression  .41*  Sociability-  .40*  .37**  Potential  .68**  .68**  Overall  .62**  .69**  *  p<.05  **  p<.01  It  should  be n o t e d t h a t " p o t e n t i a l " and  "overall"  r e l a t e t o the whole p e r s o n r a t h e r than t o any p a r t i c u l a r aspect  o f him.  I t i s p o s s i b l e then t h a t the c a l l  back-reject  d e c i s i o n s were based on g e n e r a l  impressions or t o t a l r e -  a c t i o n s without d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g  specific traits.  While the  -81-  d a t a i s not it  clear-cut  enough t o make d e f i n i t i v e  appears t h a t h a l o e r r o r c o u l d have been c o n t r i b u t i n g  the  ratings  e s p e c i a l l y those g i v e n by  Canonical correlations groups and ences.  For  f a c t o r 1 the  .00.  For  dividuals .00.  .99  f a c t o r 2 the was  cantly  the  of"  significant differand  c o r r e l a t i o n between groups and  .74- w i t h the  group d a t a and  f a c t o r sets  c h i p r o b a b i l i t y b e i n g l e s s than in-  chi p r o b a b i l i t y being l e s s  T h i s evidence i n d i c a t e d  the  between the  c o r r e l a t i o n between groups  w i t h the  to  groups.  i n d i v i d u a l s demonstrated no  i n d i v i d u a l s was  by  conclusions,  that  the  f a c t o r spaces o c c u p i e d  i n d i v i d u a l d a t a were not  d i f f e r e n t from each o t h e r .  than  T a b l e 12  signifi-  summarizes t h i s  information.  Table Canonical Correlations  12  Between the  Two  Sets of F a c t o r S c o r e s  Factor 1 Canonical r Chi  Factor 2  .999  Square  .738  980.03  d.f.  4-  P  0.0  101.26 1 0.0  Intra-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y T a b l e 13 Perfect  r e p o r t s the  Pearson's r and  Agreement s t a t i s t i c between the  f o r each v a r i a b l e For  f o r b o t h groups and  7 o f the  13  variables  the  the  Percent  rate-rerate  decisions  individuals. individual r i s greater  -82-  than the group r .  F o r 9 o f the 13 v a r i a b l e s t h e i n d i v i d u a l  PPA i s g r e a t e r than the group PPA.  However, u s i n g a  Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks T e s t significant  ( S i e g e l , 1956) no  d i f f e r e n c e s were found between groups and  individuals for either statistic• • Table 1 3 Intra-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y  - Groups and I n d i v i d u a l s Groups  Individuals  (N=27)  (N=104) 1  PPA  Attitude  .30  50  .30**  49  Appearance  .45*  68  .63**  72  Interest  .34  50  .62**  61  Intelligence  .13  50  Leadership  .82**  82  .69**  66  Maturity  .21  54  .59**  72  Motivation  .59**  46  .48**  55  Persuasiveness  .68**  64  .64**  71  Self-Confidence  .65**  68  .67**  62  Self-Expression  .58**  68  .56**  55  Sociability  .51**  43  .50**  55  Potential  .69**  60  .73**  66  Overall  .54**  68  Median  .54""  60  Percent *  p<.05  **p<.01  P e r f e c t Agreement  1  r  PPA'  r  64  71  .59  64  -83-  More d e t a i l e d  estimates of i n t r a - r a t e r  are p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e s 14 and 1 5 . the Pearson's  Table 14  reliability-  summarizes  r s t a t i s t i c s d e r i v e d from b o t h group and i n -  d i v i d u a l d a t a f o r each o f the t h r e e i n t e r v i e w e e s . summarizes the P e r c e n t P e r f e c t same d a t a .  A t t e n t i o n may  Agreement s t a t i s t i c s f o r the  be g i v e n t o the comparison between  the u n d e r l i n e d e s t i m a t e s on T a b l e 14 and the u n d e r l i n e d e s t i m a t e s on T a b l e 1 5 . l i g h t the d i f f e r e n c e s PPA  method o f c a l c u l a t i n g i n t r a - r a t e r  (Siegel, 1 9 5 6 )  corresponding  These comparisons h i g h -  between t h e Pearson  U s i n g a Wilcoxon  r method and  the  reliability.  Matched-Pairs  Signed-Ranks T e s t  to t e s t the s i g n i f i c a n c e  between group and i n d i v i d u a l Pearson's  o f the  differences  r ' s f o r each o f the  t h r e e i n t e r v i e w e e s ( T a b l e 14), a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e found t o e x i s t f o r the H i g h - i n t e r v i e w e e r a t i n g s  a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher l e v e l of i n t r a - r a t e r  was  (p<.01).  Por the High i n t e r v i e w e e , i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s tended  than  t o have  reliability  groups. A s i m i l a r t e s t o f the PPA  significant differences  data (Table 1 5 )  between groups and  yielded  ratings  g i v e n by b o t h groups and i n d i v i d u a l s  (see T a b l e 16)  that  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more  the r e t e s t r a t i n g s  tended t o be  c r i t i c a l than the i n i t i a l r a t i n g s .  U s i n g a Wilcoxon  Signed-Ranks T e s t the s i g n i f i c a n c e  between t e s t and r e t e s t r a t i n g s b o t h groups and  individuals.  was  no  individuals.  A comparison o f the t e s t - r e t e s t mean v a r i a b l e  Pairs  15  Table  o f the  indicated  Matched-  difference  found t o be p < . 0 1  for  -84-  Table 14 I n t r a - R a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y - Groups and I n d i v i d u a l s Pearson's r  Low Interviewee  G^oup  Individual N=34  High  N=8  Individual N=36  N=10  Attitude  .76  .27  .15  .15  Appearance  .00  .80  .51  .69  .40  .28  Interest  .71  .65  .00  .49  .35  .65  -.33  .50  .17  .30  .00  .29  Leadership  .49  .45  .90  .58  -.15  .52  Maturity-  .64  .23  .53  .40  -.58  .78  Motivation  .71  .38  .30  .23  .24  .59  Persuasiveness  .87  .75  .50  .24  .58  .24  Self-Confidence  .58  .52  .48  .45  -.06  .43  Self-Expression  .53  .68  .46  .22  .79  .45  Sociability  .32  .66  .11  .15  .07  .46  Potential  .75  .66  .34  .64  .62  .43  Overall  .73  .62  .00  .11  .00  .41  Median  .64  .62  .34  .30  .24  .43  Intelligence  Group  Average  Group N=9 -.16  Individual N=34 .25  -85-  Table  15  Intra-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y - Groups and Individuals Percent Perfect  Agreement  Low  Interviewee  Groups N=8  High  Average Individuals N-36  Groups N=10  Individuals N-34  Groups N=9  Individuals N-34  Attitude  75.0  55.6  30.0  47.3  44.4  44.1  Appearance  75.0  83.3  70.0  82.3  55.5  50.0  Interest  62.5  75.0  40.0  58.8  44.4  50.0  Intelligence  50.0  75.0  50.0  58.8  44.4  55.9  Leadership  75.0  66.7  90.0  55.8  77.7  73.5  Maturity  62.5  64.7  60.0  70.6  33.3  79.4  Motivation  62.5  50.0  40.0  44.1  44.4  70.6  Persuasiveness  75.0  75.0  60.0  61.7  66.6  73.5  Self-Confidence  75.0  72.2  50.0  47.3  77.7  61.8  Self-Expression  62.5  61.1  60.0  47.3  88.8  55.9  Sociability  37.5  66.7  40.0  41.2  55.5  55.9  Potential  62.5  66.7  60.0  64.7  66.6  64.7  Overall  62.5  69.4  70.0  70.6  66.6  70.6  Median  62.5  66.7  60.0  58.5  55.5  61.8  -86-  Table  16  Mean V a r i a b l e R a t i n g s :  T e s t and R e t e s t  Groups and I n d i v i d u a l s Groups  Individuals  Test  Retest  Test  Retest  Attitude  3.07  3.00  3.22  3.17  Appearance  3.44  3.40  3.51  3.44  Interest  2.22  2.15  2.89  2.82  Intelligence  3.33  2.89  3.25  3.13  Leadership  2.44  2.48  2.63  2.63  Maturity-  2.96  2.89  3.17  3.05  Motivation  2.70  2.37  3.01  2.89  Persuasiveness  2.41  2.15  2.60  2.63  Self-Confidence  2.81  2.70  2.86  2.80  Self-Expression  3.33  3.04  3.27  3.07  Sociability  3.44  3.15  3.37  3.23  Potential  2.70  2.52  3.03  2.98  Overall  2.81  2.66  2.97  2.92  A test of i n t r a - r a t e r  1  r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e u l t i m a t e  d e c i s i o n t o r e j e c t o r c a l l back the intervieitfee y i e l d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g data  (Table 1 7 ) .  Groups appeared t o be more r e l i a b l e than for  the low and average i n t e r v i e w e e .  viewee, the o p p o s i t e o c c u r r e d . high r e l i a b i l i t i e s  individuals  For the high  inter-  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h e  i n t h e Low Interviewee-Group c e l l  High I n t e r v i e w e e - I n d i v i d u a l c e l l .  The remaining  and t h e  estimates  -87-  were at best mediocre.  Again, though, the trend towards  being more c r i t i c a l i n the r e t e s t s i t u a t i o n than i n the i n i t i a l t e s t s i t u a t i o n occurs.  B i v a r i a t e matrixes f o r the  t o t a l group decisions (Table 18) and f o r the t o t a l  individual  decisions (Table 1 9 ) demonstrate t h i s trend. Table 1 7 C a l l Back-Reject Decision - Groups and Individuals Intra-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y * Group  N  Individual  N  1.00  8  .64  36  Average  .50  10  .25  34  High  .23  9  .95  Interviewee Low  Total *phi  .58  27  1  34  .65  104  c o e f f i c i e n t (Siegel, 1956)  t h i s estimate i s somewhat inaccurate due to the mechanics of computing the p h i c o e f f i c i e n t . The procedure requires occupancy of a l l four c e l l s i n a 2 x 2 matrix. This data f o r t h i s estimate had two vacant c e l l s l i m i t i n g f i n a l computation. The c e l l structure was as follows: Time 2 (Retest) C a l l Back Time 1 (Test) '  C a l l Back „ . . Reject  Reject  33  0  33  1  0  1  34  0  34  -88-  As may be seen on T a b l e 18, 18.5$ o f t h e groups s h i f t e d t h e i r d e c i s i o n s from " c a l l back", a t Time 1, t o " r e j e c t " a t Time 2, w h i l e o n l y 3 . 7 $ changed i n t h e o p p o s i t e direction.  A l s o , as on T a b l e 19, 12.5$ o f the i n d i v i d u a l s  s h i f t e d t h e i r d e c i s i o n s from " c a l l back" a t Time 1 t o " r e j e c t " a t Time 2, w h i l e o n l y 3.8$ changed i n t h e o p p o s i t e direction. Table  18  C a l l Back-Reject D e c i s i o n s - Group Decision Shift Time 2 ( r e t e s t ) C a l l Back  Time 1 (Test)  Reject  C a l l Back  8 (29.6$)  Reject  1 (3.7$)  13  Total  9  18  (33.3$)  Table  5  (18.5$) (48.2$) (66.7$)  Total 13  (48.2$)  14 (51.8$) 27  (100$)  19  C a l l Back-Reject D e c i s i o n s - I n d i v i d u a l s Decision Shifts Time 2 ( r e t e s t ) C a l l Back C a l l Back Time 1 (Test)  Reject Total  I n summary then,  Reject  Total  48 (46.2$)  1 3 (12.5$)  61 (58.6$)  4 (3.8$)  39 (37.5$)  43 (41.4$)  5 2 (50.0$)  52 (50.0$)  104 (100.0$)  except  the i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y  f o r a few i s o l a t e d  i s not high.  exceptions,  A t r e n d , however,  -89-  i n the  d i r e c t i o n o f b e i n g more c r i t i c a l i n Time 2 r a t i n g s  compared w i t h Time 1 r a t i n g s  appears t o c o n s i s t e n t l y  as  occur.  Inter-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y The  f i r s t method o f comparing i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y  between groups and between the groups and these  i n d i v i d u a l s was  standard deviations individuals.  t o examine  differences  o f each v a r i a b l e  Table 20  summarizes the  f o r both data f o r  statistics. As may  persion  be  seen, i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s had  of r a t i n g s f o r f o u r v a r i a b l e s ,  m o t i v a t i o n and  self-expression.  the  of s c o r e s f o r groups was  dispersion  a wider d i s -  attitude,  F o r the  leadership,  remaining  variables,  h i g h e r than f o r  individuals, i n d i c a t i n g higher i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y individual  for  raters. Table  20  I n t e r - R a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y - Group vs I n d i v i d u a l s Standard D e v i a t i o n Scores  Attitude  Groups (N=2'7) .62  Individuals (N=104) .72  Appearance  .70  Interest  .80  .57 .68  Intelligence  .68  .57  Leadership  .75  .81  Maturity  .71  .67  Motivation  .78  .83  Persuasiveness  .93  .66  Self-Confidence  .92  .92  Self-Expression  .68  .78  Sociability  .80  .78  Potential  .87  .84  Overall  .79  .67  _9oU s i n g a Wilcoxon M a t c h e d - P a i r s Signed-Rank (Siegel,  1 9 5 6 ) t o e x p l o r e the  significance  of the  between group and i n d i v i d u a l s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n no s i g n i f i c a n t  difference  (Table Table  interviewees  21  Standard D e v i a t i o n  Individuals  Scores High  Average  Low  Trait  scores,  21).  I n t e r - R a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y - Groups vs  Interviewee  difference  was f o u n d .  A more d e t a i l e d examination o f the t h r e e yielded similar results  Test  Groups  Indivs.  Group s  Indivs.  Groups  (N=8)  (N=36)  (N-10)  (N=34)  (N=9)  Indivs  (N=34)  Attitude  .71  .58  .57  .74  .50  .66  Appearance  .53  . 6 0  .48  .56  .71  .51  Interest  . 6 4  .69  .94  .62  .44  .59  Intelligence  . 4 6  .41  . 7 0  .60  .53  .56  Leadership  .52  .65  .53  .79  .33  .52  Maturity-  .76  .62  .57  .51  .67  .71  Motivation  .70  .97  .70  . 6 4  .67  .56  Persuasiveness  .70  .73  .95  .51  .60  .42  Self-Confidence  .46  .67  .67  .83  .53  .70  Self-Expression  .76  .77  .67  .69  . 5 0  .67  Sociability-  .83  .71  .57  .62  . 6 0  .71  Potential  .89  .72  .70  .71  .53  .47  Overall  .76  .61  .47  .49  .50  .51  U s i n g the Wilcoxon M a t c h e d - P a i r s Signed-Ranks (Siegel,  1956),  group r a t e r s interviewees.  no s i g n i f i c a n t  differences  and i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s  Test  were found between  f o r each o f the  three  -91-  From a r e l a t i v e s t a n d p o i n t , then, no may  be  drawn as t o t h e comparative i n t e r - r a t e r  between groups and The i t y was  conclusions reliability  individuals.  second method o f e s t i m a t i n g i n t e r - r a t e r  computing average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s c o r e s by  reliabilsumming  over c o r r e l a t i o n s between r a t e r s f o r a l l r a t e d v a r i a b l e s and d i v i d i n g by the number o f c o r r e l a t i o n s observed. method p r o v i d e d more a b s o l u t e i n f o r m a t i o n on the reliability for  o f the samples.  each o f the t h r e e  T a b l e 22  This  inter-rater  summarizes the  data  interviewees. Table  22  I n t e r - R a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y - Groups vs I n d i v i d u a l s Inter-Correlations Groups  Individuals  Interviewee Low  .4-7  .33  Average  .39  .19  High  .29  .21  Inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y , low,  although  than  individuals.  u s i n g t h i s method, i s q u i t e  groups p r o v i d e u n i f o r m l y h i g h e r  estimates  In summary, then, the above r e s u l t s p o i n t out s i x major f i n d i n g s : (1)  I n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g s tended t o be u n i f o r m l y  s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher, s t a t i s t i c a l l y ,  and  than group r a t i n g s .  This a p p l i e s t o a l l v a r i a b l e s being r a t e d i n c l u d i n g the  -92-  "overall" variable.  However, when t h e d a t a was segmented  i n terms o f i n t e r v i e w e e , a p a t t e r n  emerged which i n d i c a t e d  t h a t t h e more u n f a v o u r a b l e t h e i n t e r v i e w e e , t h e h i g h e r were the  i n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g s v s t h e group r a t i n g s . (2)  There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e  c a l l back-reject groups r a t e r s .  decisions  o f i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s and o f  A uniformly h i g h e r percentage o f the i n d i v -  i d u a l r a t e r s , however, d e c i d e d t o c a l l back each o f t h e t h r e e interviewees. (3)  The group and i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s d i d n o t appear  to d i s c r i m i n a t e appearance.  among t h e r a t e d v a r i a b l e s , except perhaps f o r  Possible  existence  of halo error i s  exemplified  by t h e h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s o f " p o t e n t i a l " and " o v e r a l l " w i t h the  d e c i s i o n t o c a l l back o r r e j e c t .  " P o t e n t i a l " and " o v e r a l l "  r e l a t e t o t h e t o t a l p e r s o n r a t h e r than any s p e c i f i c t r a i t . (4)  Intra-rater r e l i a b i l i t y  was n o t found t o be h i g h .  Furthermore, except f o r the h i g h i n t e r v i e w e e Pearson p r o d u c t moment c o r r e l a t i o n s , t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between groups and i n d i v i d u a l s . (5) found t h a t  When e x p l o r i n g r e t e s t (Time 2)  c r i t i c a l than t h e i n i t i a l  intra-rater reliability,  i t was  r a t i n g s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more test ratings  (Time 1 ) .  This  f i n d i n g emerged f o r b o t h groups and i n d i v i d u a l s f o r t h e r a t e d v a r i a b l e s as w e l l (6) low  as f o r t h e c a l l b a c k - r e j e c t  Inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y  f o r both groups and i n d i v i d u a l s .  inter-rater reliability  decision.  was found t o be q u i t e When t h e r e l a t i v e  between group r a t e r s and i n d i v i d u a l  -93-  raters  was  examined by comparing s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s c o r e s ,  no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were l o c a t e d . rater-intercorrelations, than i n d i v i d u a l s  III.  When comparing  groups were u n i f o r m l y more r e l i a b l e  ( a l t h o u g h the c o e f f i c i e n t s were l o w ) .  A t t i t u d e s Toward Video-Tape i n I n t e r v i e w i n g Interviewees The  q u e s t i o n n a i r e asked the i n t e r v i e w e e s t o  the e x t e n t t o which t h e y found themselves  distracted  v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f the v i d e o - t a p i n g p r o c e d u r e . summarizes the responses The p r e s e n c e  distraction.  o f the v i d e o - t a p e equipment proved  The  d i s t r a c t i n g to  This d i s t r a c t i o n lasted  than h a l f o f the i n t e r v i e w .  for less  The main source of d i s t r a c t i o n  the knowledge o f b e i n g v i d e o - t a p e d .  proved  Table 23  o f the cameraman and the n o i s e o f the  24-$ o f the i n t e r v i e w e e s .  was  by  given.  v i d e o - t a p e equipment p r o v i d e d minimal presence  indicate  A g a i n , however, t h i s  d i s t r a c t i n g f o r l e s s than h a l f o f the i n t e r v i e w . 29$ o f t h e i n t e r v i e w e e s f e l t s  t h a t the  video-taped  i n t e r v i e w would be b e t t e r than the f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r v i e w . 65$  f e l t t h a t i t would be the same.  Only 6$ i n d i c a t e d  that  the f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r v i e w would be more e f f e c t i v e . The certain  respondents  were asked how  a s p e c t s o f t h e i r b e h a v i o u r were i n t h e  i n t e r v i e w as compared w i t h how  they f e l t  had the i n t e r v i e w n o t been v i d e o - t a p e d . the  much b e t t e r o r worse  responses.  video-taped  t h e y would have been T a b l e 24  summarizes  -94Table 2 3 E x t e n t and Cause o f I n t e r v i e w e e Very D i s tracted (distracted throughout the whole interview)  Quite D i s tracted (distracted f o r at least half o f the interview)  Distraction Somewhat Distracted (distracted f o r less than h a l f o f the interview  Not Distracted at a l l  24  76  a. presence of the videotape e q u i p ment b. presence o f t the camera-man  97  c. the knowledge that you were being videotaped  56  44  d. t h e n o i s e of the videotape e q u i p ment  94  More than 80$ o f t h e i n t e r v i e w e e s f e l t t h e i r  behaviour  was about the same o r b e t t e r i n t h e v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w for  a l l a s p e c t s b u t nervousness and v e r b a l e x p r e s s i o n .  20$  f e l t they were more nervous and 3 2 $ were l e s s a b l e t o exp r e s s themselves v e r b a l l y i n t h e v i d e o - t a p e d 76$  interview.  (N=26) o f the i n t e r v i e w e e s s t a t e d t h a t they would  be w i l l i n g t o undergo a v i d e o - t a p e d  i n t e r v i e w which, a t t h e i r  r e q u e s t , c o u l d be sent t o companies i n which t h e y were i n terested.  12$ (N=4)  s a i d t h a t they would n o t be w i l l i n g t o  -95-  T a b l e 24 Extent o f D i f f e r e n c e i n Interviewee's Behaviour In a Video-Taped I n t e r v i e w Compared w i t h a F a c e - t o - F a c e I n t e r v i e w (N=34) much better  %  slightly better  about the same  %  slightly worse  %  %  9  68  20  Honesty  6  85  9  Judgment  9  88  3  23  62  15  A b i l i t y t o express myself v e r b a l l y  12  56  32  Manner  29  56  15  6  85  6  32  59  9  44  53  23  74  3  6  85  9  18  76  6  Nervousness  Voice  3  intonation  Appearance Force o r d r i v e Interest Social  3  sensitivity  Intelligence Overall  behaviour  undergo such a v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w . (N=4)  much  The r e m a i n i n g 1 2 $  were u n d e c i d e d . I n t e r v i e w e e s were asked t o i n d i c a t e on a s e v e n - p o i n t  s c a l e t h e i r degree  o f enthusiasm  use o f v i d e o - t a p e d i n i t i a l of u n i v e r s i t y graduates  toward  the p o s s i b l e  general  s c r e e n i n g f o r company s e l c t i o n  f o r employment.  As summarized i n T a b l e 2^-, t h e response  percentages  -96-  tended  toward the e n t h u s i a s t i c s i d e o f the  Table  scale.  25  Enthusiasm f o r Video-Taped I n i t i a l S c r e e n i n g I n t e r v i e w s i n S e l e c t i o n o f U n i v e r s i t y Graduates f o r Employment (N=34)  % Very  Enthusiastic  Not E n t h u s i a s t i c at a l l  7 6  29  5  21  4  12  3  3  2  6  1  3  26  Total  100$  The mean response T h i s may  was  be compared w i t h 3.6  tape o b s e r v e r s and 4.3  5.4  on the s e v e n - p o i n t  scale.  f o r a s t u d e n t group of v i d e o -  f o r an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e group o f  ob-  s e r v e r s (Moore and C r a i k , 1972). The  respondents  were then asked how  t h e y f e l t most  g r a d u a t i n g s t u d e n t s would r e a c t t o the s u g g e s t i o n , by  a  company, t h a t the s t u d e n t undergo a v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w t o be  conducted  by a U n i v e r s i t y Placement Centre r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  and forwarded T a b l e 2g,  t o the company f o r examination.  As shown i n  s l i g h t l y more i n t e r v i e w e e s f e l t t h a t s t u d e n t s  would be f a v o u r a b l e t o such a s u g g e s t i o n than From a l i s t  unfavourable.  of p o s s i b l e o b j e c t i o n a b l e f a c t o r s  con-  c e r n i n g the use o f v i d e o - t a p e s c r e e n i n g i n t e r v i e w s , the respondents  were asked t o rank the t h r e e most s e r i o u s  objections.  T a b l e 2 7 summarizes t h e s e r a n k i n g s Table  26  How Would Most G r a d u a t i n g Students React i f Asked by a Company t o Undergo a Video-Taped I n t e r v i e w Conducted by the Placement O f f i c e Very Unfavourable  %  Somewhat Unfavourable  9  Somewhat Favourable  3 5  Very Favourable  Don't Know  2 1  6  2 9  Table 2 ? Student ( I n t e r v i e w e e ) Rankings o f the Three Most S e r i o u s R e s e r v a t i o n s o r O b j e c t i o n s r e Video-Taped Screening Interviews Objection #  Rank  Possible Objection  1  - Many i m p o r t a n t p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s cannot be conveyed  2  - T h i s i s j u s t one more step toward t h e d e - p e r s o n a l i z a t i o n o f the employment r e l a t i o n s h i p  3  2  - Ho assurance t h a t v - t i n t e r v i e w w i l l be kept c o n f i d e n t i a l  4  - The v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w i s unethical  5  - Most companies do not have the expensive v i d e o - p l a y b a c k equipment  6  3  - Once an i n t e r v i e w i s made t h e r e i s no way o f changing i t  7  1  - The s t u d e n t may an " a e t o r "  be f o r c e d t o become  8  - I n f r o n t o f a camera, most p e o p l e do not a c t n a t u r a l  9  - The  t e c h n i q u e w i l l be too  expensive  The f i r s t o b j e c t i o n r e l a t e d t o a concern t h a t a person's r e a l  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s cannot be conveyed due t o a  f o r c e d r o l e t h e i n t e r v i e w e e must adopt.  The second and  t h i r d o b j e c t i o n s r e l a t e p r i n c i p a l l y t o moral and e t h i c a l matters. Viewers The v i e w e r s (both groups and i n d i v i d u a l s ) were asked whether v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w s were more o r l e s s than f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r v i e w s .  effective  47$ o f these respondents  f e l t v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w s t o be more e f f e c t i v e .  The r e -  maining 3 5 $ f e l t t h a t b o t h were about t h e same. The v i e w e r s were then asked t o i n d i c a t e on a f o u r p o i n t d e s c r i p t i v e s c a l e how r e a l i s t i c a l l y v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w conveyed interviewee c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  they f e l t the  t h e a c t u a l amounts o f s e v e r a l The responses are shown i n  T a b l e 28.  More t h a n 67$ o f the sample checked  realistic"  o r "very r e a l i s t i c "  appearance, For  knowledge o f f i e l d ,  appearance  "somewhat  on a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  except  nervousness, and s t r e s s .  and knowledge o f f i e l d t h e "unable t o judge"  c a t e g o r y was q u i t e h i g h (24$ i n b o t h ) .  Nervousness  and  s t r e s s , on the o t h e r hand, both had a h i g h p e r c e n t a g e o f responses i n the "somewhat u n r e a l i s t i c " c a t e g o r y . The v i e w e r s were then asked t o i n d i c a t e on a sevenp o i n t s c a l e t h e i r degree o f enthusiasm toward t h e p o s s i b l e g e n e r a l use o f v i d e o t a p e d i n i t i a l s c r e e n i n g i n t e r v i e w s f o r company s e l e c t i o n o f u n i v e r s i t y g r a d u a t e s f o r employment.  -99-  Table 2 9 shows t h a t these respondents tend t o be o n l y somewhat more e n t h u s i a s t i c t h a n u n e n t h u s i a s t i c .  This i s i n  marked c o n t r a s t t o t h e i n t e r v i e w e e group (see T a b l e 24) where s i g n i f i c a n t l y more enthusiasm was e x h i b i t e d . Table  28  Degree o f Realism i n P o r t r a y i n g Interviewee C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - Viewers (N=17) Degree o f Realism Characteristic  V e r y Unrealistic  Somewhat Unrealistic  Somewhat Realistic  Very Realistic  Unable to Judge  %  %  %  %  12  59  6  Manner  6  59  23  12  Voice  6  23  53  18  12  53  23  12  6  35  6  Potential  12  53  53 18  Interests  12  59  29  Attitude  18  47  35  Sociability  18  29  47  6  6  18  71  6  12  35  29  6  29  59  35 12  29 41  35 41  6  18  29  18  Maturity  35 6  59  23  12  Judgment  12  53  18  18  6  53  35  6  12  53  12  23  % Appearance  Force o r D r i v e Intelligence  Self-Expression Knowledge o f Field Self-Confidence Nervousness Motivation Stress  Persuasiveness Leadership  6  23  18  23  -100-  29  Table  Enthusiasm Toward the P o s s i b l e General Use o f Video-Taped I n i t i a l S c r e e n i n g I n t e r v i e w s f o r S e l e c t i o n o f U n i v e r s i t y Graduates - Viewers Very Enthusiastic  7  6  % response  6  12  5 23  23  I n a d d i t i o n , the viewers any  3  2  1  12  12  12  Not enthusiastic at a l l  were asked t o e l a b o r a t e  s t r o n g p e r s o n a l o b j e c t i o n s w i t h r e g a r d t o the use  video-tape  i n screening interviews.  responses r e v e a l e d three primary  The  open ended w r i t t e n  the v i e w e r i s u n a b l e t o ask  2.  the i n t e r v i e w i s n o t video-tape  3.  i t can be  questions  " l i v e " or personal  of video-  s c r e e n i n g i n t e r v i e w are w i d e l y  one hand, the i n t e r v i e w e e s e x h i b i t an enthusiasm  state that, with video-tape, t h e i r behaviour  and,  divergent. and  most o f the v a r i o u s a s p e c t s  were r e a l i s t i c a l l y p o r t r a y e d .  hand, the v i e w e r s  using  expensive.  I n summary, the a t t i t u d e s toward the use  On  of  objections.  1.  tape f o r the i n i t i a l  on  On the  of  other  ( i . e . Bank employees) d i s p l a y a h e s i t a n c y  on the average, o n l y a moderate enthusiasm.  -101-  CHAPTER  5  DISCUSSION  As i n e a r l i e r chapters, t h i s chapter i s segmented into the three major areas; interviewers vs viewers, groups vs i n d i v i d u a l s , and attitudes toward the use of video-tape i n interviewing. I.  Interviewers  vs Viewers  The r e s u l t s relevant to t h i s section showed four p r i n c i p l e f i n d i n g s , two of which are explored i n the next section.  The two other f i n d i n g s , discussed here, are as  follows: (1)  Group decisions made a f t e r exposure to video-tape  playbacks of candidates'  interviews d i f f e r e d l i t t l e  compared  to the decisions of interviewers i n face-to-face s e t t i n g s . (2) video-tape  I n d i v i d u a l decisions made a f t e r exposure to playbacks of candidates'  interviews were uniformly  and s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher, s t a t i s t i c a l l y ,  than decisions of  interviewers i n face-to-face s e t t i n g s . Each of these two findings i s discussed  separately.  Groups vs Interviewers I t has been argued by many researchers  (Webster, 1964;  Wright, 1969; U l r i c h and Trumbo, 1965; Mayfield, 1964), that  -102-  b i a s i n g f a c t o r s such as p r e c o n c e i v e d s t e r e o t y p e s , d e c i s i o n s , the and  strong i n f l u e n c e of negative  early  information,  c o n t r a s t e f f e c t s p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n the  ment i n t e r v i e w . on the  exist, their effects  employment d e c i s i o n remain u n c l e a r  vestigated. 1970;  While these b i a s e s  Two  recent  Carlson, 1 9 7 0 )  studies  (Hakel,  and  l a r g e l y unin-  Ohnesorge and  Rowe ( 1 9 6 7 )  advanced the  d e c i s i o n s are made i n the c o n t e x t Hakel et a l ( 1 9 7 0 ) ,  e f f e c t on the  Carlson  (1970)  job a p p l i c a n t had  employment d e c i s i o n .  brought under q u e s t i o n  a  significant  These two  a negligstudies  the importance o f a b i a s i n g f a c t o r ,  e f f e c t s , which had  major i n f l u e n c e on the  e a r l i e r been f e l t to p r o v i d e  employments d e c i s i o n .  In l i k e  r a t i n g s suggests t h a t some o t h e r  e f f e c t s exert only t r i v i a l Considerable  been performed e x p l o r i n g  comparative c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f groups and Hendrick, 1 9 7 1 ;  Lorge, Fox,  Davitz  little  biasing  i n f l u e n c e on the i n t e r v i e w  work has  a  fashion,  f i n d i n g t h a t group-viewers' r a t i n g s d i f f e r  from i n t e r v i e w e r s '  and  previous  i n d i c a t e d that while  e v a l u a t i o n o f t e s t r e s u l t s , t h e r e was  i b l e e f f e c t on the  perhaps the  judgments..  resume r a t i n g s accounted f o r v e r y minor amounts o f  q u a l i t y o f the p r e v i o u s  contrast  of previous  employment  o f employment resumes f o l l o w i n g  t o t a l decision variance. the  finding that  contrast  however, found t h a t such c o n t r a s t e f f e c t s  on r a t e r ' s e v a l u a t i o n s h i g h o r low  Dunnette,  have moved i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i v e  d i r e c t i o n by t h e i r e x a m i n a t i o n o f the i n f l u e n c e o f effects.  employ-  decision. the  i n d i v i d u a l s (aolloman  and Brenner,  1958;  -103Maier, 1967).  One p r i n c i p l e f i n d i n g r e l a t e s to the e r r o r -  correcting propensity of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n i n group d e c i s i o n making.  Erroneous assumptions and decision errors are more  l i k e l y to he recognized individual.  and corrected i n a group than by an  Prom t h i s might be i n f e r r e d that early decisions  (Springbett, 1958) and inaccurate stereotypes  (Hakel, Hollman  and Dunnette, 1970) are l e s s l i k e l y to occur with groups than with i n d i v i d u a l s . I f t h i s i s the case, then there i s a p o s s i b i l i t y that these two biases may a f f e c t the interview decision given by an i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r i n a r e l a t i v e l y minor way.  Since group-viewer ratings were found to d i f f e r  little  from i n d i v i d u a l - i n t e r v i e w e r r a t i n g s perhaps the biases that are minimally present  i n groups may i n fact be minimally  present with i n d i v i d u a l interviewers. Individuals vs Interviewers The f i n d i n g that i n d i v i d u a l viewers' decisions were uniformly and s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher, s t a t i s t i c a l l y , than the interviewers' decisions may suggest the possible existence of a "halo strategy" on the part of the i n d i v i d u a l viewers. Rowe (1963) reported that more experienced  interviewers were  found to be more s e l e c t i v e and thereby more c r i t i c a l than l e s s experienced  interviewers.  Indeed, i n contrast with the  interviewers, the viewers i n the present interviewer t r a i n i n g .  study had no formal  Also, they were f a r t h e r removed from  the interview s e t t i n g than the interviewers, who personally screened candidates  every day.  As a r e s u l t , these viewers  may  be considered  interviewers.  as being  " l e s s experienced" than the  The outcome of such a condition may  well have  been that the i n d i v i d u a l viewers were l e s s s e l e c t i v e and, as a consequence, rated more l e n i e n t l y than the  interviewers.  Furthermore, i n l i n e with discussion i n the previous the e r r o r - c o r r e c t i n g propensity  section,  of group a c t i v i t i e s may  have  served to mitigate t h i s halo strategy^ thereby r e s u l t i n g i n the absence of any s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences between group viewers and  interviewers.  C e r t a i n l y evidence e x i s t s i n the l i t e r a t u r e to support such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .  I t s s p e c i f i c v e r a c i t y , however,  could well serve as the basis f o r some future  research.  There i s , of course, the p o s s i b i l i t y of the s i x i n d i v i d u a l viewers having the tendency to rate high generosity e r r o r (Thorndike and Hagen, 1969)  (the  or the error of  leniency (Kerlinger, 1964-)) with the i n d i v i d u a l interviewers not holding such a tendency.  The  analyses  of variance  re-  ported i n Table 4 of Chapter 3 show that the F - p r o b a b i l i t i e s are very small demonstrating no s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  differences and high i n t e r n a l consistency among r a t e r s i n each sub-group.  However, the p r o b a b i l i t y of such a gener-  o s i t y error or e r r o r of leniency being committed by a l l members i n one  sub-group ( i n d i v i d u a l viewers) and no members  of the other sub-group (interviewers) i s indeed quite small (p = .014). One  remaining question r e l a t e s to whether or not  video-tape i t s e l f provides  a "media e f f e c t " r e s u l t i n g i n  -105-  significant  d i f f e r e n c e s between i n t e r v i e w e r  viewer r a t i n g s .  The c l o s e  v i e w e r and group r a t i n g s  agreement between t h e i n t e r -  (two v e r y  suggests that  any such  non-existent,  i n d i c a t i n g minimal  between t h e i n t e r v i e w  H«  of and  units)  difference interview.  Viewers  of findings  areas.  First  back d e c i s i o n s .  i n t h i s s e c t i o n i s seg-  of a l l i s a  g r o u p v s i n d i v i d u a l mean t r a i t reject-call  rating  effective  and t h e v i d e o - t a p e d  discussion  mented i n t o t h r e e  diverse  " m e d i a e f f e c t " i s v e r y weak o r  Group v s I n d i v i d u a l The  r a t i n g s and  ratings, Second,  comparison overall  ratings  a discussion of  g r o u p s v s i n d i v i d u a l s i n t e r m s o f i n t e r - and i n t r a - r a t e r reliability is  taken  and h a l o  In  samples  individuals'  in  ratings,  back d e c i s i o n s ,  statistically  trait  a look  - Ratings  terms o f t r a i t  reject-call  f o r both  Third,  a t t h e r a t i n g form u s e d b y t h e Bank o f M o n t r e a l .  Groups vs I n d i v i d u a l s  be  error i s presented.  ratings  individual ratings  significantly studied.  trait  ratings  o v e r a l l r a t i n g s and tended to  h i g h e r than groups  F o r the managerial  ratings  sample t h e  were h i g h e r t h a n t h e g r o u p s '  a t t h e .05 l e v e l .  The d i f f e r e n c e ,  terms o f r e j e c t - c a l l back d e c i s i o n s  was s m a l l  however, ( r = .76).  -106-  For the student sample, the i n d i v i d u a l s ' t r a i t r a t i n g s were higher than the groups' t r a i t ratings at the level.  .02  The i n d i v i d u a l s ' o v e r a l l r a t i n g f o r the low i n t e r -  viewee was higher than the groups' o v e r a l l r a t i n g f o r the low interviewee at the .05 l e v e l , while f o r the average and high interviewees and f o r the aggregate  of a l l three  interviewees no s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found (Table 7, Chapter 4).  Also, no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were  found between groups and i n d i v i d u a l s i n terms of the r e j e c t - c a l l back d e c i s i o n , although f o r each interviewee and f o r the aggregate  of interviewees a uniformly l a r g e r  proportion of i n d i v i d u a l raters than groups r a t e r s chose to c a l l back interviewees. The general f i n d i n g that i n d i v i d u a l s are more lenient i n t h e i r r a t i n g s than groups may have s i g n i f i c a n t importance to the personnel s e l e c t i o n process.  Many organiz-  ations- employ panels of interviewers to screen candidates  likely  because panels are seen as being more r e l i a b l e and v a l i d than individuals.  There i s evidence to suggest that t h i s i s the  case (Zajonc, 1966).  However, as stated i n Chapter 2, p r a c t i c -  a l l y a l l of the group vs i n d i v i d u a l research from which t h i s r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y data was the interview s e t t i n g .  derived was  conducted  outside  Within the s e t t i n g , perhaps some other,  as yet unexplored processes, unique to personnel  selection,  -107-  operate  t o r e s u l t i n r a t i n g outcomes o f the o r d e r found  here.  That i n d i v i d u a l s are more l e n i e n t than groups appears to  be f a i r l y  separate  certain,  samples.  s i n c e the f i n d i n g emerged w i t h  The  next i s s u e o f concern,  t h i s outcome came about. (a)  One  aspect  Two  explanations  then,  two is  why  are advanced below.  o f i n t e r v i e w i n g which c o n s i s t e n t l y appears  i n the l i t e r a t u r e i s t h a t i n t e r v i e w e r s are more i n f l u e n c e d by u n f a v o u r a b l e didate  than by f a v o u r a b l e  ( C r i s s y and  B o l s t e r and  Regan, 1951;  S p r i n g b e t t , 1961;  M i l l e r and Rowe, 1967; (1964) d e s c r i b e d "an i n t e r v i e w e r who  i n f o r m a t i o n about a c a n -  S p r i n g b e t t , 1958; M a y f i e l d and  Rowe, I960;  Carlson,  1966;  Blakeney and McNaughton, 1971).  Webster  a t t i t u d e o f c a u t i o n on the p a r t o f  develops a high s e n s i t i v i t y to  information with respect  the  negative  ... t o i t s d e t e c t i o n " (p. 90).  i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w e r , then, upon i d e n t i f y i n g n e g a t i v e  The  focuses h i s a t t e n t i o n quite h e a v i l y  information.  In groups,  this  a t t e n t i o n i s f u r t h e r a m p l i f i e d w i t h a consequent concomitant i n c r e a s e i n the amounts o f n e g a t i v e  information  perceived.  Given t h i s b r o a d e r base o f n e g a t i v e  i n f o r m a t i o n on which t o  make a h i r i n g d e c i s i o n , the groups become more c r i t i c a l  and,  hence, g i v e l o w e r r a t i n g s . T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n i s f u r t h e r r e i n f o r c e d by the t h a t , when the d a t a was  segmented i n terms o f i n t e r v i e w e e ,  p a t t e r n emerged which i n d i c a t e d t h a t the more the i n t e r v i e w e e , and  critical  unfavourable  the b r o a d e r the gap between the  group r a t i n g s .  finding  individual  Groups became d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more  o f the u n f a v o u r a b l e  interviewee  than d i d the i n -  a  -108-  dividuals.  Group members were r e a d i l y able to c o l l e c t i v e l y  perceive t h i s increase i n the negative a t t r i b u t e s of the candidate.  On the other hand, the i n d i v i d u a l s , being con-  strained by having the perceptual c a p a c i t i e s of only one person, were much l e s s influenced by t h i s increase. (b)  A second i n t e r p r e t a t i o n l i n k s t h i s aspect of unfavour-  able information to the dynamics i n process within groups. The l i k e l i h o o d i s quite strong that an emphasis upon unfavourable information may  serve as a norm of behaviour w i t h i n a  personnel decision-making  group.  Pressure l i k e l y e x i s t s i n  such a group to conform to t h i s norm f o r f e a r of r e p r i s a l or f o r f e a r of being perceived as having u n p r o f e s s i o n a l l y low standards.  The interviewer whose standards  l i k e l y the one who one who  are too low i s  meets with these r e p r i s a l s since he i s the  has the highest p r o b a b i l i t y of permitting entry of  unfavourable  personnel i n t o the organization.  As Webster  (1964) states, "the interviewer i s c r i t i c i z e d because of m i s f i t s h i r e d ; p r a i s e f o r h i r i n g good employees r a r e l y occurs" (p. 90).  Pressures to conform, based upon p r o f e s s i o n a l expec-  t a t i o n s , then, are quite strong. At another l e v e l , the group s e t t i n g evokes a personal need f o r s o c i a l acceptance i n each group member (Walter, 1972). Here, the concern s h i f t s away from g i v i n g primary emphasis upon the h i r i n g d e c i s i o n and towards s a t i s f y i n g s o c i a l needs. To minimize the personal r i s k attached to s o c i a l r e j e c t i o n and to s a t i s f y needs f o r s o c i a l  acceptance, members are moved  to conform to perceived group norms.  I f the perceived group  -109-  norm i s t o have h i g h e v a l u a t i v e s t a n d a r d s then t h e b e h a v i o u r a l outcome i s t o be more c r i t i c a l  i n one's r a t i n g s .  The group  f u r t h e r s e r v e s t o p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e t h e conforming beh a v i o u r s o f members b y o f f e r i n g s o c i a l support when t h e s e behaviours are e x h i b i t e d . The p r o c e s s o p e r a t i n g here i s much l i k e t h e one desc r i b e d by Brown ( 1 9 6 5 ) as he i n t e r p r e t s S t o n e r ' s of  the " r i s k y s h i f t "  (1961)  finding-  i n terms o f v a l u e t h e o r y .  " S t o n e r ' s s u b j e c t s were graduate s t u d e n t s i n t h e S c h o o l o f I n d u s t r i a l Management a t M.I.T. and when members o f t h e s c h o o l f i r s t h e a r d about t h e outcome of S t o n e r ' s experiment t h e y argued t h a t i t c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d by t h e f a c t t h a t the f i e l d o f i n d u s t r i a l management s e t s a p o s i t i v e v a l u e on t h e a b i l i t y t o take r i s k s . I t i s p a r t o f the r o l e o f an i n d u s t r i a l management s t u d e n t t o f a v o r r i s k y d e c i s i o n s , t h e y h e l d . The a s s e r t i o n may be t r u e b u t i t w i l l n o t o f i t s e l f account f o r S t o n e r ' s r e s u l t . The s u b j e c t i s e q u a l l y a s t u d e n t o f i n d u s t r i a l management when he answers t h e q u e s t i o n s i n d i v i d u a l l y and when he agrees t o a group d e c i s i o n f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n . The e f f e c t i s an i n c r e a s e i n r i s k i n e s s o f t h e same s u b j e c t s . One must argue, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e v a l u e o f the r o l e i s more s a l i e n t , more f i r m l y engaged, when t h e management s t u d e n t i s t a l k i n g w i t h p e e r s . That seems r e a s o n a b l e enough. The s t u d e n t alone would be l e s s concerned t o m a n i f e s t i d e a l r o l e b e h a v i o u r than would t h e s t u d e n t i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s . I n t h e group each one has an audience t o p l a y t o and t h a t audience v a l u e s r i s k i ness." (p. 6 9 8 ) In riskiness.  Brown's ( 1 9 6 5 ) d i s c u s s i o n , t h e audience  values  I n t h i s study, t h e audience v a l u e s h a v i n g h i g h  e v a l u a t i v e s t a n d a r d s o r b e i n g c r i t i c a l b y f o c u s i n g upon unfavourable information.  The e f f e c t i s an i n c r e a s e i n t h e  amount; o f a t t e n t i o n g i v e n t o t h i s u n f a v o u r a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n . B e s i d e s t h e two a s p e c t s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e c t a t i o n s and s o c i a l need s a t i s f a c t i o n e x e r t i n g p r e s s u r e t o conform,  ^110-  uniformity within  t h e groups i n t h i s study a l s o  s i m i l a r i t i e s o f members  stems from  ( t h e y are a l l Bank managers) and  s i m i l a r i t i e s o f environments i n which t h e y f u n c t i o n ; further  two  f a c t o r s which W a l t e r (1972) i d e n t i f i e s as b e i n g i n -  s t r u m e n t a l i n f a c i l i t a t i n g group  uniformity.  With t h i s e x p l a n a t o r y h y p o t h e s i s , t h e n , n o t o n l y i s the  group p e r c e i v i n g  dividual  more n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a n an i n -  (as with the f i r s t  e x p l a n a t i o n ) but a l s o each i n -  d i v i d u a l member i n t h e group i s p e r c e i v i n g  more n e g a t i v e i n -  f o r m a t i o n t h a n he would as an i n d i v i d u a l .  The amount o f  n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n p e r c e i v e d as a r e s u l t o f group i s n o t s i m p l y concomitant ( a f u n c t i o n i n t h e group) but r a t h e r  interaction  o f t h e number o f members  gestalt.  Risky-Shift One i n t e r e s t i n g i m p l i c a t i o n idual raters  o f the f i n d i n g that  indiv-  a r e more l e n i e n t t h a n group r a t e r s i s i t s r e -  l a t i o n s h i p t o what would be p r e d i c t e d  by t h e " r i s k y - s h i f t "  model. The  U . r i s k y - s h i f t " i n phenomenon r e f e r s t o t h e s i t u a t i o n  wherein p a r t i c i p a n t s  i n a group assume a more r i s k y  stance  compared w i t h t h e i r i n i t i a l i n d i v i d u a l p o s i t i o n on a p a r t i c u l a r decision  matter.  r i s k y than  B a s i c a l l y , groups a r e seen as b e i n g more  individuals.  T h i s d i s c o v e r y was f i r s t in  an u n p u b l i s h e d master's t h e s i s  r e p o r t e d by S t o n e r i n 1961 and l a t e r s u b s t a n t i a t e d by  W a l l a c h , Kogan, Bern and o t h e r s ( W a l l a c h , Kogan and Bern, 1962; Marquis, 1962; W a l l a c h , Kogan and Bern, 1964; Bern, W a l l a c h and  Wlll-  Kogan, 1965; W a l l a c h and Kogan, 1965; Kogan and W a l l a c h , 1967). T h i s n o t i o n o f the  " r i s k y ' s h i f t " c o u l d have  i c a n t e f f e c t s on employment i n t e r v i e w i n g . used, one  I f groups are  might expect t h e i r d e c i s i o n s t o be more r i s k y .  Depending upon the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f r i s k , i n t h i s t h i s c o u l d prove The  key  q u e s t i o n , then,  i s how does r i s k r e l a t e t o  More s p e c i f i c a l l y , what i s the  r i s k y - a l t e r n a t i v e i n employment d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g ?  error.  setting,  costly.  the employment i n t e r v i e w .  question  signif-  s h o u l d be l o o k e d  Perhaps t h i s  a t i n terms o f Type I v e r s u s Type I I  Type I e r r o r i s r e f l e c t e d by the h i r i n g o f an u n s u i t a b l e  candidate candidate.  w h i l e Type I I e r r o r i s the f a i l u r e t o h i r e a s u i t a b l e What must f i r s t be determined i s which o f these  e r r o r s i n v o l v e s more r i s k .  Springbett's  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the import h i r i n g decision provides Webster (1964)  of negative  (see Webster, 1964) i n f o r m a t i o n on the  some i d e a s i n t h i s r e g a r d .  As  states:  " S p r i n g b e t t ... impressed by the apparent p r e dominance g i v e n to n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n , s u g g e s t s an a t t i t u d e o r s e t on the p a r t o f the i n t e r v i e w e r i s c r e a t e d by the system o f awards and punishments t h a t marks the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the employment and the p r o d u c t i o n depa r t m e n t s . He p o i n t s out t h a t two f a c t s are c l e a r s : punishment i s more c e r t a i n t h a n reward and o n l y one type o f e r r o r i s p u n i s h e d . As t o the f i r s t , the i n t e r v i e w e r i s c r i t i c i z e d because o f m i s f i t s h i r e d ; p r a i s e f o r h i r i n g good employees r a r e l y o c c u r s . This situation produced an a t t i t u d e o f c a u t i o n on the p a r t o f the i n t e r v i e w e r who d e v e l o p s a h i g h s e n s i t i v i t y t o n e g a t i v e evidence w i t h r e s p e c t b o t h t o i t s det e c t i o n and t o the weight a t t a c h e d t o i t . " (p. 9 0 ) T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n suggests Type I e r r o r as b e i n g the more r i s k y a l t e r n a t i v e .  -112-  Furthermore, i t would seem t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n s  would  d e s i r e t o minimize c o s t s o f t r a i n i n g and s e l e c t i o n , o r a t l e a s t o f f s e t t h e s e c o s t s by e n s u r i n g  that trained  w i l l remain w i t h the o r g a n i z a t i o n i n a p r o d u c t i v e  personnel capacity.  At t h e same t i m e , t h e " c o s t s " a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a low i n t e r v i e w e r performance r a t i n g o r a l o w e r i n g  o f esteem on t h e  p a r t o f t h e interviewer;'s s u p e r i o r o r p e e r s towards him as the outcome of," committing a Type I e r r o r may be h i g h e r any p e r s o n a l Besides,  c o s t s s u f f e r e d as a r e s u l t o f Type I I e r r o r .  t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f o t h e r s i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n knowing  t h a t the i n t e r v i e w e r r e l e a s e d a s u i t a b l e c a n d i d a t e slim.  than  Even i f o t h e r s  i s quite  d i d f i n d o u t , t h e i n t e r v i e w e r i s always  a b l e t o r a t i o n a l i z e h i s a c t i o n s by d e c l a r i n g t h a t t h e  candidate  performed v e r y p o o r l y i n t h e i n t e r v i e w . These i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s would suggest t h a t more r i s k i s associated with error.  committing a Type I e r r o r than w i t h  That i s , t h e r i s k y stance  a Type I I  i s t a k e n by b e i n g more  l e n i e n t i n e v a l u a t i v e r a t i n g s and t h e r e b y i n c r e a s i n g t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of permitting entry to a l a r g e r proportion of unsuitable  candidates.  The " r i s k y s h i f t " model, then, would  p r e d i c t t h a t groups would be more l e n i e n t i n t h e i r r a t i n g s than i n d i v i d u a l s ; a p r e d i c t i o n c o m p l e t e l y the f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d  inconsistent  with  here.  I f , however, t h e r i s k y a l t e r n a t i v e i s taken as b e i n g the Type I I e r r o r t h e n t h e f i n d i n g s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e model's p r e d i c t i o n .  One c o u l d argue t h a t t h e c o s t s o f a Type  I I e r r o r a r e always o r u s u a l l y unknown, henee^., t h e r e i s  -113-  always a g r e a t e r Type I I r i s k o p e r a t i n g The  i n selection d e c i s i o n s .  framework w i t h i n which r i s k i s d e f i n e d h e r e , however, i s  from an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o i n t o f view. r i s k was view.  approached from p e r s o n a l  I n the p r i o r d i s c u s s i o n ,  and  interpersonal points  of  Quite p o s s i b l y Type I I e r r o r i s the more r i s k y a l t e r n -  a t i v e t o the o v e r a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n .  F o r the i n d i v i d u a l ,  though^ Type I e r r o r d e f i n i t e l y appears more hazardous. d i s c u s s i o n b r i n g s under q u e s t i o n s h i f t " as a p r e d i c t i v e model.  This  the u t i l i t y o f the " r i s k y -  S h o u l d r i s k o n l y be  defined  i n terms o f d e c i s i o n a l outcomes, as Wallach, Kogan, Bern and others  have done, o r s h o u l d  i t be  approached i n terms o f o u t -  comes o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s and The  intragroup  f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d here suggest the  spurious  as a p r e d i c t o r and  processes.  " r i s k y - s h i f t " to  l a r g e l y dependent on the  be  inter-  p r e t a t i o n g i v e n t o the r i s k - a l t e r n a t i v e s . Groups vs I n d i v i d u a l s - R e l i a b i l i t y and (a)  Intra-rater Generally,  Halo  reliability the i n t r a - r a t e r ( t e s t - r e t e s t ) r e l i a b i l i t i e s  found i n t h i s s t u d y were o n l y meagr© t o moderate. trait for  c o r r e l a t i o n s were found to be  i n d i v i d u a l s (see T a b l e 13,  e f f i c i e n t s were not  The  median  .54- f o r groups and  Chapter 4-).  While t h e s e  as h i g h as i s c u s t o m a r i l y  were b o t h s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from zero  .59  required,  (p<.01).  f o r groups; 64$  for individuals).  The  v a r i a b l e alone showed s i m i l a r r e s u l t s as measured by  they  The  P e r c e n t P e r f e c t Agreement s t a t i s t i c s were o n l y s l i g h t l y (median: 60$  co-  better  "overall" the  Pearson p r o d u c t moment c o r r e l a t i o n r  = .59  for individuals).  ( r = .54- f o r groups;  When measured by the PPA,  the c o e f f i c i e n t s became more r e s p e c t a b l e (68$ 71$  for individuals).  however,  f o r groups;  These, however, were s t i l l  not  as  h i g h as t h e y s h o u l d be. These f i n d i n g s  cast  suspicion  on the t r a i t s  t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n a l c l a r i t y , t h e i r degree commonality, and t h e i r r e a l i s m  of overlap or  and r e l e v a n c e t o the  Noteworthy i s the f i n d i n g  that  Zajonc  as may  (1966) r e p o r t s d a t a which  the advantages o f groups o v e r i n d i v i d u a l s liability.  Here, however, l i t t l e  raters.  the groups were n o t  s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the i n d i v i d u a l s , been p r e d u c t e d .  themselves;  have  suggests  i n terms o f r e -  difference  was  found t o e x i s t .  The i n c i d e n c e o f meagre t o moderate i n t r a - r a t e r r e liabilities  may  be e x p l a i n e d when v i e w i n g the  between t e s t and r e t e s t r a t i n g s .  F o r both groups and i n -  dividuals,  ratings  the r e t e s t  s e t t i n g than i n the t e s t s e t t i n g .  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c r i t i c a l  ations f o r findings the impact  influenced  I n the t e s t  i n t h e i r ratings  the candidate.  (p^.Ol) i n  As w i t h e x p l a n -  r e p o r t e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s study,  o f u n f a v o u r a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n may  on t h i s outcome.  decision-shift  perhaps  have had a b e a r i n g  s e t t i n g , v i e w e r s were l a r g e l y  by the u n f a v o u r a b l e a s p e c t s  I n the r e t e s t  about  s e t t i n g , t h e same p r o c e s s  o p e r a t e s , o n l y t h i s time the o r i g i n a l p e r c e p t i o n s o f n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n (from t h e t e s t s e t t i n g ) and a l s o  coupled with a d d i t i o n a l  are f u r t h e r  reinforced  negative evidence.  T h i s whole  p r o c e s s s e r v e s t o a c c e n t u a t e the w e i g h t i n g g i v e n t o the  u n f a v o u r a b l e a s p e c t s o f the c r i t i c a l retest It  c a n d i d a t e , and  ratings.  i s possible  t h a t the  one-week time span may  been i n a d e q u a t e i n terms o f l e s s e n i n g on r e t e s t r a t i n g s . may  the  the  viewers  w e l l have remembered the n e g a t i v e a s p e c t s o f the  expect the  a contributing:"  intra-rater reliability  appears t h a t  influence,  candidate.  one  would  - c o r r e l a t i o n s t o be  some o t h e r i n f l u e n c e  higher.  operated to r e s u l t i n  the more c r i t i c a l r e t e s t r a t i n g s and liabilities.  have  impact o f memory  A f t e r such a time l a p s e ,  However, i f memory was  It  r e s u l t s i n more  the  consequent l o w e r r e -  Indeed, f u r t h e r work i n t h i s r e g a r d i s  justified  t o examine t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n ' s v e r a c i t y , (b)  Inter-rater  reliability  As w i t h the i n t r a - r a t e r ^ r e l i a b i l i t i e s , agreement was  q u i t e low  as shown on T a b l e 22,  inter-rater  Chapter  4,  a l t h o u g h here groups' c o e f f i c i e n t s were u n i f o r m l y h i g h e r than those o f i n d i v i d u a l s . (standard deviations) ically  When comparing the f o r both  dispersion  samples, though, no  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were  scores statist-  loaated.  These f i n d i n g s a g a i n i n d i c a t e a l a c k o f d e f i n i t i o n a l clarity  among the t r a i t s .  type i n c o n s i s t e n c y  Furthermore, t h e y suggest a  i n t h a t the  r a t e r s may  images o f what i s expected o f an a p p l i c a n t position.  This divergent  s t u d e n t sample but in  image was  not  have h e l d  Chapter 4- are  i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e method suggested by  divergent  f o r t h i s type  o n l y h e l d by  a l s o by the m a n a g e r i a l sample.  Column 4- on T a b l e 3,  stereo-  The  i n d i c a t i o n s of C r i s s y (1952).  of  the data reliability In  the  -116-  f o r e g o i n g d a t a , the i n d i v i d u a l v i e w e r s ment (median r = .26) I t i s important  w i t h the  (c)  agree-  individual interviewers.  t o r e c a l l t h a t both o f these managerial  samples have s i m i l a r e x p e r i e n c e the n a t u r e  showed minimal  and  sub-  are e q u a l l y aware o f  o f the job f o r which the i n t e r v i e w s were h e l d .  halo e r r o r The  i n c i d e n c e o f h a l o e r r o r was  suggested  c u r r e n t l y h i g h l o a d i n g s o f most t r a i t s and t h e v a r i a b l e on one  by the  con-  "overall"  g e n e r a l f a c t o r , and by the h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s  between the g l o b a l v a r i a b l e s o f " p o t e n t i a l " and  "overall"  and  the c a l l b a c k - r e j e c t d e c i s i o n . I n the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s ,  t h e o n l y t r a i t which con-  s i s t e n t l y gave v e r y h i g h l o a d i n g s on a second f a c t o r f o r both group and i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s was  appearance.  As d i s c u s s e d i n  Chapter 4, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t appearance i s the only d i r e c t l y observable Ratings  f o r the r e m a i n i n g  t r a i t on which :;.ratings must be 7  t r a i t s must a l l be  inferred  the exchange o f communications i n the i n t e r v i e w .  that separate  as Maas ( 1 9 6 5 )  from  I t i s quite  p o s s i b l e , then, t h a t i f each o f the t r a i t s were t i e d d i r e c t l y observable behaviours,  given.  to  recommends,  f a c t o r s f o r each t r a i t ' m a y emerge, much l i k e  t h a t r e p o r t e d by Howell and V i n c e n t  (1970).  Furthermore, c o n t r a r y t o what might be p r e d i c t e d , no  d i f f e r e n c e s were found  t o e x i s t between the f a c t o r space  o c c u p i e d by group and i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s .  With the e r r o r -  c o r r e c t i n g p r o p e n s i t y o f groups (Holloman and Hendrick,  1971)»  -117-  one  might expect groups t o d i s c r i m i n a t e among the  more so than the i n d i v i d u a l s .  traits  The v e r y h i g h c a n o n i c a l  r e l a t i o n s between group and i n d i v i d u a l : f a c t o r spaces Table 12, not  cor-  (see  Chapter 4-) i n d i c a t e t h a t t s u c h an e x p e c t a t i o n  was  met.  R e s t r u c t u r i n g the Bank's I n t e r v i e w The  foregoing findings  Procedure  regarding r e l i a b i l i t y  and  halo e r r o r i n d i c a t e that p o s s i b l y a r e s t r u c t u r i n g of  the  Bank o f M o n t r e a l ' s i n t e r v i e w p r o c e d u r e i s i n o r d e r .  This  r e - o r g a n i z a t i o n c o u l d f o c u s upon t h r e e a s p e c t s personnel itself, (a)  s e l e c t i o n process;  and  interviewer  the r a t i n g  the r a t i n g form, the  form:  made u s i n g s c a l e d examples o f than u s i n g a t r a d i t i o n a l  p r o c e d u r e where r a t i n g s are on-the-job behaviour rather  a d j e c t i v e r a t i n g s c a l e (as was  used  As d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 2, Maas' f i n d i n g s showed q u i t e  markedly the improvement i n r e l i a b i l i t y approach i n s t e a d o f the l a t t e r . i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h i s technique 1.  interview  training,  Maas (1965) proposed a  here).  o f the Bank's  "the t r a i t s t o be  The was  by u s i n g t h e  procedure he  former  followed  as below:  e v a l u a t e d were e s t a b l i s h e d by  committee o f i n t e r v i e w e r s who  were f a m i l i a r  a  with  the job to be performed." The by f i r s t  managers w i t h the Bank may  pursue t h i s  activity  o f a l l d i v o r c i n g themselves from the c u r r e n t  form and t u r n i n g t o the j o b i t s e l f .  rating  A guiding question  they  -118could to  successfully  One of  follow i s :  additional  what c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  complete the  should  duties assigned  question i s , of course,  n e c e s s i t y , i m p l i e s the  a trainee hold to h i s p o s i t i o n ?  - why?  e x i s t e n c e o f an  This  adequate  procedure, job  description. 2.  "examples o f on-the-job  behaviour  illustrate  of each t r a i t  of  the  three l e v e l s  trait,  an  average  degree  were w r i t t e n t o  ...  - a high  and  a  degree  low  degree..." Here, the  a p p r o a c h t o be  q u e s t i o n , what w i l l three l e v e l s felt  t o be  related If  to  an  one high  t r a i n e e be  of each t r a i t ?  a critical  trait,  an  each l e v e l  would  be:  of h i s subordinates the degree  degree  doing to demonstrate  example o f b e h a v i o u r s  was  which  .'..arises b e t w e e n h i m s e l f trainee  these  and  will:  ( b ) i d e n t i f y t h e p r o b l e m a n d w a i t f o r an " a p p r o p r i a t e " time f o r i t s r e s o l u t i o n ;  degree  a c t u a l l y used  the  ( a ) i d e n t i f y and c o n f r o n t t h e p r o b l e m immediately with the i n t e n t i o n of achieving a resolution mutually s a t i s f a c t o r y t o h i m s e l f and h i s subordinate;  (c) ignore the problem a l l together or have the s u b o r d i n a t e r e l e a s e d o r t r a n s f e r r e d w i t h no e x p l a n a t i o n .  This i s a fabricated one  i s to address  For instance, i f leadership  interpersonal conflict  average low  the  taken  by  item  t h e Bank.  and  i s not  intended  I t does however a l t e r  to  be  trait  -119-  d e f i n i t i o n s away from b e i n g n e b u l o u s l y i n t e r p r e t e d being t i e d to s p e c i f i c behaviours. t h r e e o r f o u r such items c o u l d be 3.  "independent  Perhaps f o r each  trait,  employed.  judges, n o t knowing which examples  were w r i t t e n f o r which t r a i t s and l e v e l s , t h e examples back i n t o t r a i t s and 4.  toward  reallocated  levels".  " o n l y examples w i t h complete agreement as t o  trait  and l e v e l were r e t a i n e d " . 5.  "these examples were arranged on a c o n t i n u o u s  vertical  g r a p h i c r a t i n g s c a l e , ... p u t t i n g each example a t i t s proper scaled l e v e l One  f u r t h e r procedure,  by Maas ( 1 9 6 5 )  i s to construct  f o r the  trait".  not s p e c i f i c a l l y  identified  q u e s t i o n s around each i t e m .  The method recommended by Kahn  and C a n n e l l ( 1 9 5 7 )  Chapters 7 and 8 would p r o v i d e  a  in their  useful guideline.  Again,  t h e s e q u e s t i o n s s h o u l d be agreed upon as b e i n g r e l e v a n t and u s e f u l by a l l i n t e r v i e w e r s concerned.  The outcome o f the  above o v e r a l l p r a c t i c e would be a s t a n d a r d i z e d i n t e r v i e w guide of  t h e type recommended by C a r l s o n e t a l ( 1 9 7 1 ) .  guide i s developed, checks  r e l i a b i l i t y and,  i f possible,  Once the validity  s h o u l d be made, s i m i l a r t o t h o s e t r e s e a r c h e d i n t h i s  study. (b)  the i n t e r v i e w : The key a s p e c t o f a r e d e s i g n e d i n t e r v i e w i s s t a n d a r d -  The d e f i n i t i o n o f l e a d e r s h i p as shown on t h e c u r r e n t form used by the Bank i s : "degree o f l e a d e r s h i p e x p e r i e n c e , e x t r a curricular positions held".  -120-  ization.  The  i n t e r v i e w e r s should  the same c o r e q u e s t i o n s  a l l be  and t h e r e b y  responses from i n t e r v i e w e e s .  asking  essentially  r e c e i v i n g comparable  Furthermore, as Maas (1965)  recommends, each i n t e r v i e w e r s h o u l d r a t e each c a n d i d a t e each t r a i t by making a n a l o g i e s from the c a n d i d a t e s to  the s t a n d a r d i z e d  questions,  expected o f the c a n d i d a t e ,  responses  t o b e h a v i o u r t h a t might  were he  on  be  a c t u a l l y on the j o b .  This  p r o c e d u r e , c o u p l e d w i t h the i n t e n s i v e ^ a n d r i g o r o u s p r e l i m i n a r y a c t i v i t i e s described e a r l i e r should the r e l i a b i l i t y and as the c o n f i d e n c e  serve t o i n c r e a s e  c o m p a r a b i l i t y ? o f the i n t e r v i e w s as w e l l  which the i n t e r v i e w e r s p l a c e i n t h e i r  rating  decisions. (c)  interviewer  training:  C a r l s o n e t a l (1971) s t r e s s the importance o f an i n t e n s i v e t r a i n i n g program f o r i n t e r v i e w e r s .  They emphasize  t h a t such a program i s c r i t i c a l " i f i n t e r v i e w e r s are  to  i n i t i a l l y l e a r n enough i n common t o i n c r e a s e the  probability  o f o b t a i n i n g g e n e r a l v a l i d i t y from the s e l e c t i o n  interview".  One  program which would be u s e f u l was  addendum to t h i s study. to  While no  attempted as  e m p i r i c a l data was  obtained  demonstrate i t s u t i l i t y , the program appeared t o be  ficial  a c c o r d i n g to the r e p o r t s obtained'from  involved.  The  p r o c e d u r e was  the  an  bene-  interviewers  as:follows:  In o r d e r t o c o n s t r u c t a q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e l a t i n g t o interviewers* interviewing a b i l i t i e s , by Robert F. Mager (1962, 1968)  was  the  the approach recommended  utilized.  Discussions  w i t h the Employment and Employee R e l a t i o n s Manager, the  Personnel  Manager and a number o f i n t e r v i e w e r s , a l l from t h e  Bank, r e s u l t e d i n i d e n t i f y i n g n e c e s s a r y performing  an employment i n t e r v i e w .  steps i n v o l v e d i n  I n i t i a l l y , t h e j o b was  broken down i n t o i t s v a r i o u s component s t e p s .  These were  found t o c o n s i s t o f : 1.  Create  an atmosphere o f r a p p o r t ;  2.  Demonstrate an i n t e r e s t  3.  Gather i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o t h e i n t e r v i e w e e ' s s u i t a b i l i t y f o r the job;  4.  Ask i n t e r v i e w e e t o d e s c r i b e h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f the j o b ;  5.  Correct interviewee's misconceptions  6.  Give a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e j o b ; h o u r s , pay, m o b i l i t y , e t c . ;  7.  G e n e r a l l y improve o r a t l e a s t m a i n t a i n t h e i n t e r v i e w e e s image o f t h e Bank o r whatever o r g a n i z a t i o n i s concerned.  i n the interviewee;  ( i f any);  1  Around these  s t e p s , a q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( s e e Appendix 4)  was c o n s t r u c t e d which aimed a t i d e n t i f y i n g t h e e x t e n t t o which i n t e r v i e w e r s s a t i s f i e d these r e q u i s i t e t a s k  components.  At t h e end o f each i n t e r v i e w , t h e i n t e r v i e w e r r a t e d h i m s e l f on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e and t h e i n t e r v i e w e e the i n t e r v i e w e r .  T h i s was f e l t t o be an important  evaluated aspect o f  the program s i n c e , v e r y r a r e l y , do i n t e r v i e w e r s f i n d o u t how w e l l they communicated o r g e n e r a l l y "came a c r o s s " t o t h e i n t e r v i e w e e ; t h e p e r s o n about whom t h e i n t e r v i e w e r must make an e v a l u a t i o n , and t h e p e r s o n f o r whom t h e i n t e r v i e w e r must at l e a s t l e a v e a f a v o u r a b l e  impression.  Furthermore, a t t h e end o f each showing o f t h e v i d e o -  .  taped  -122-  i n t e r v i e w s , the v i e w e r s (both groups and i n d i v i d u a l s )  e v a l u a t e d the i n t e r v i e w e r on the  questionnaire.  Responses to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n d i c a t e d areas i n t e r v i e w e r s t r e n g t h and weakness and,  more  of  important,  i d e n t i f i e d i n t e r v i e w e r t r a i n i n g needs;. F o r each i n t e r v i e w e r , a summary.-was made o f h i s r a t i n g s of interviewees  and  t h e i r comparison w i t h the  interviewees*  s e l f - r a t i n g s and w i t h groups' and i n d i v i d u a l s ' r a t i n g s o f interviewees.  The  form used here was  (see E x h i b i t 1, Chapter 3 ) .  the Bank's r a t i n g form  A l s o summarized were the  inter-  viewees', the groups; and the i n d i v i d u a l s ' e v a l u a t i o n s the i n t e r v i e w e r , as w e l l as the i n t e r v i e w e r ' s A l l t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was numeric and  presented  a t i o n was  to each i n t e r v i e w e r i n a  At the  i n t e r v i e w s to h i g h l i g h t those  and weakness d e s c r i b e d i n the Summary S h e e t . taped He was  i n t e r v i e w s the i n t e r v i e w e r served encouraged t o make n o t e s and  (see  same time as t h i s  g i v e n back t o the i n t e r v i e w e r he was  h i s video-taped  inform-  shown some o f areas  of  With the  as h i s own  strength video-  example.  ask q u e s t i o n s .  He  a l s o i n v i t e d t o stop o r r e p l a y the tape at any t i m e . w i t h the v i e w i n g  of  self-ratings.  d e s c r i p t i v e form, c a l l e d a Summary Sheet  Appendix 5 f o r an example).  the  was Concurrent  s e s s i o n , the Employment and Employee R e l a t i o n s  Manager o f the Bank, o t h e r i n t e r v i e w e r s and t h i s a u t h o r o f f e r e d suggestions  f o r the i n t e r v i e w e r t o c o n s i d e r f o r self-improvement.  T h i s d e s c r i b e s the e x t e n t a c t u a l l y administered  i n the Bank.  o f the t r a i n i n g program One  final  critical  stage,  -123-  and one f o r which inadequate f o r i t s implementation,  time and r e s o u r c e s were a v a i l a b l e  would be t o v i d e o - t a p e more i n t e r -  views w i t h the same i n t e r v i e w e r s u s i n g t h e same t o determine  procedure  whether o r n o t t h e r e was an improvement i n  interviewing a b i l i t y .  Responses g i v e n t o the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  by i n t e r v i e w e e s and v i e w e r s would p r o v i d e adequate measures o f any changes. One important  f e a t u r e o f t h i s program was t h a t a  h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d and i n t e n s i v e feedback  component was c o u p l e d  with the video-tape playbacks o f i n t e r v i e w s . the s u g g e s t i o n g i v e n by Weber ( 1 9 6 9 ) (1972).  T h i s meets w i t h  and Walter and M i l e s  In a study o f group d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  Weber ( 1 9 6 9 )  dis-  covered t h a t groups p r o v i d e d w i t h d e f i n i t e i n s t r u c t i o n s and d i r e c t i o n t o guide t h e i r v i e w i n g  "experienced g r e a t e r i n -  c r e a s e s i n p e r s o n a l agreement w i t h group d e c i s i o n s , s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h p e r s o n a l performance, p e r c e i v e d adequacy o f group d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e d u r e s  and p e r s o n a l  understanding  o f group d e c i s i o n s than groups which l a c k e d i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r v i e w i n g " o r groups which r e c e i v e d no feedback and M i l e s ( 1 9 7 2 )  at a l l .  Walter  found t h a t t h e amount o f p e r s o n a l change  e x p e r i e n c e d by p a r t i c i p a n t s was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e degree o f feedback evidence  s t r u c t u r e imposed d u r i n g p l a y b a c k s .  i n d i c a t e s t h a t a t r a i n e r cannot  trainee's insight to perceive s u f f i c i e n t video-tape viewings it  This  r e l y s o l e l y on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n from  t o develop p e r s o n a l improvement.  Rather,  suggests t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s s h o u l d be f u r n i s h e d w i t h a  "viewer's  guide" f o r playback  sessions to o f f e r  direction  -124--  r e g a r d i n g what i m p o r t a n t p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o u r s t o observe what each b e h a v i o u r means.  Such a guide was  employed h e r e .  As s t a t e d e a r l i e r , no e m p i r i c a l evidence was to for of  and  gathered  support o r r e f u t e the u t i l i t y o f t h i s t r a i n i n g program interviewers.  I t d i d , however, meet w i t h the a p p r o v a l  a l l i n v o l v e d , and, by way  o f s e l f - r e p o r t i n g , the  inter-  v i e w e r s d i d i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e y l e a r n e d a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount about t h e i r b e h a v i o u r i n the i n t e r v i e w s e t t i n g .  Ill  A t t i t u d e s Toward Video-Tape In  of  the study r e p o r t e d by Moore and C r a i k ( 1 9 7 2 ) ,  the student group and 5 3 $ o f the a d m i n i s t r a t o r group  66$  felt  t h a t most g r a d u a t i n g s t u d e n t s would r e a c t u n f a v o u r a b l y t o the s u g g e s t i o n t h a t t h e y take p a r t i n a v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s study, however, showed t h a t 7 6 $ o f the i n t e r v i e w e e s (who to  were a l l g r a d u a t i n g s t u d e n t s ) would ?be  undergo such a v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w .  76$ of  Furthermore,  the i n t e r v i e w e e s e x h i b i t e d marked enthusiasm  f o r the use  video-taped i n i t i a l screening interviews i n s e l e c t i n g  willing  of  university  graduates. The f e a r s e x p r e s s e d by Moore and C r a i k ' s ( 1 9 7 2 ) samples t h a t many o f a p e r s o n ' s  "real"  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or  q u a l i t i e s cannot be t r a n s m i t t e d e f f e c t i v e l y v i a v i d e o - t a p e may  w e l l be a l l a y e d by the d a t a found h e r e .  The i n t e r v i e w e e s  from t h i s study s t a t e d t h a t , except f o r nervousness  and v e r b a l  s e l f - e x p r e s s i o n , t h e i r b e h a v i o u r s were q u i t e p a r a l l e l t o what  -125-  they would have been without the v i d e o - t a p e , and t h a t i n no way  were t h e y as t h r e a t e n e d by the medium as might have been  expected.  The most important o b j e c t i o n e x p r e s s e d by the  i n t e r v i e w e e s was an " a c t o r " .  t h a t the student may  T h i s , however, i s a common o b j e c t i o n h e l d t o -  wards n o n - v i d e o - t a p e d important  be f o r c e d t o become  face-to-face interviews.  The more  a s p e c t o f t h e i r o b j e c t i o n s i s t h a t t h e y d i d not  f e e l t h a t many i m p o r t a n t p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s cannot conveyed  be  o v e r v i d e o - t a p e and t h a t i n f r o n t o f a camera, most  people do n o t a c t n a t u r a l l y .  T h i s i s i n marked c o n t r a s t t o  the o b j e c t i o n s h e l d by Moore and C r a i k * s samples,  and,  indeed,  l e n d s support t o the p o s s i b l e u t i l i t y o f v i d e o - t a p e i n i n t e r views. samples,  Furthermore, t h e r e was  a g a i n i n o p p o s i t i o n to Moore and C r a i k ' s  a d e f i n i t e c o n c e r n shown by the i n t e r v i e w e e s  f o r e t h i c a l and c o n t r o l i s s u e s .  The  second and t h i r d o b j e c t i o n s  g i v e n by t h i s sample r e l a t e d t o the c o n f i d e n t i a l n a t u r e o f the v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w ( o b j e c t i o n 3) and i t s permanence (objection 6). The d i s t r a c t i v e e f f e c t o f the v i d e o - t a p e equipment and n o i s e and the presence o f the o p e r a t o r r e p o r t e d by the i n t e r v i e w e e s as b e i n g m i n i m a l l y p r e s e n t throughout The most s i g n i f i c a n t cause o f d i s t r a c t i o n was  the i n t e r v i e w .  the knowledge  t h a t t h e y were b e i n g v i d e o - t a p e d and t h i s , t o o , s e r v e d t o d i s t r a c t f o r o n l y a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e - f o u r t h o f the i n t e r v i e w s . The  d i s t r a c t i o n problem  can i n most i n s t a n c e s be overcome by  o f f e r i n g some n o n - t h r e a t e n i n g exposure taping takes p l a c e .  before actual video-  S p e c i f i c t e c h n i q u e s which may  be  employed  -126-  to minimize  t h i s problem's p r o b a b i l i t y o f occurence  threefold.  F i r s t of a l l ,  are  the p a r t i c i p a n t s c o u l d have a l l  the v i d e o - t a p e equipment f u l l y e x p l a i n e d t o them.  This gives  them a n o n - t h r e a t e n i n g i n t r o d u c t i o n to the equipment  and  s h o u l d f a c i l i t a t e t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s t o work w i t h i t .  Second,  a few n o n - i n t e r v i e w r e l a t e d s i t u a t i o n s c o u l d be t a p e d  and  p l a y e d back.  Johnston  (1967) mentioned the t e c h n i q u e o f  a l l o w i n g t r a i n e e s t o do a n y t h i n g t h e y want t o do i n f r o n t o f the camera, from making f a c e t o r e c i t i n g Shakespeare.  When  t h e y see themselves  by  t h e y u s u a l l y are i n i t i a l l y  s e e i n g what t h e y are r e a l l y l i k e . l e a r n t o a c c e p t themselves  shocked  Very q u i c k l y most p e o p l e  and behave n a t u r a l l y .  Third,  the  i n t e r v i e w e e s c o u l d be g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y t o do some v i d e o t a p i n g themselves.  L e t them become the o p e r a t o r s .  Again,  t h i s s h o u l d make them f e e l more r e l a x e d and l e s s t h r e a t e n e d i n the presence The  o f the camera. f o r e g o i n g evidence  suggests t h a t v i d e o - t a p e  w e l l be a c c e p t e d as p a r t o f the i n t e r v i e w i n g p r o c e s s . viewees e x h i b i t e d l i t t l e  may Inter-  d e f e n s i v e b e h a v i o u r r e g a r d i n g i t s use  and f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e y were m i n i m a l l y d i s t r a c t e d  and  t h a t t h e i r b e h a v i o u r s were not too d i f f e r e n t from what t h e y would have been i n the absence o f v i d e o - t a p e .  The major a r e a  o f concern r e l a t e d t o e t h i c a l m a t t e r s which c o u l d e a s i l y  be  accomodated by a f o r m a l c o n t r a c t u a l arrangement between the i n t e r v i e w e e and the i n t e r v i e w i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n r e g a r d i n g p r i v a c y and r e s t r i c t e d use o f the v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w . The v i e w e r s , on the o t h e r hand, showed c o n s i d e r a b l y  l e s s enthusiasm toward v i d e o - t a p e the i n t e r v i e w e e  to be  r e a l i s t i c a l l y conveyed o v e r the  be  Besides  quite occupied  video-tape,  e x p l a i n e d by l o o k i n g a t t h e i r major a c o n c e r n f o r c o s t , the v i e w e r s seemed w i t h the f a c t t h a t t h e y were removed  from the i n t e r v i e w s e t t i n g and probes.  the  showed a l a c k o f acceptance f o r the medium.  Perhaps t h i s may objections.  While, i n g e n e r a l ,  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were d e s c r i b e d by  v i e w e r s as b e i n g they s t i l l  use  c o u l d not ask q u e s t i o n s  or  T h i s l a t t e r concern by the v i e w e r s e x e m p l i f i e s  the  statement by Webster (1964) t h a t i n t e r v i e w e r s l o o k f o r d i f ferent things. e s p e c i a l l y the  T h i s may  serve t o e x p l a i n why  the  viewers,  i n d i v i d u a l s , d i f f e r e d from t h e i n t e r v i e w e r s i n  t h e i r judgments.  Certainly, d i f f e r i n g perceptions  source o f i n t e r - i n t e r v i e w e r disagreement and  rating error.  Perhaps t h i s problem c o u l d be r e c t i f i e d by adoption  o f a more s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w c o n t a i n i n g  which a l l i n t e r v i e w i n g p e r s o n n e l and which a l l such p e r s o n n e l r o l e of interviewer.  The  is a  have seemed t o be  the questions important  would ask i f t h e y were i n the  p r o c e d u r e f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g such  i n t e r v i e w s t r u c t u r e would be the  same as was  earlier  described.  O v e r a l l , these f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t video-tape serve the  can  a purpose i n employment i n t e r v i e w i n g , p r i n c i p a l l y i n  supplementary r o l e as d i s c u s s e d by Moore and  Furthermore, i f adequate measures are t a k e n , the i s s u e s o f concern s t a t e d by b o t h i n t e r v i e w e e s be  an  readily alleviated.  Craik  (1972).  primary  and v i e w e r s  can  -128-  CHAPTER  6  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS; RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY  The  major f i n d i n g s emerging i n t h i s study may be  summarized as f o l l o w s : (1)  Decisions  made by groups o f managers a f t e r ex-  posure t o v i d e o - t a p e p l a y b a c k s o f c a n d i d a t e s ' differed l i t t l e (2)  compared t o t h e d e c i s i o n s  of interviewers.  I n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g s tended t o be u n i f o r m l y and  s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher, s t a t i s t i c a l l y , (3)  interviews  In general,  than i n t e r v i e w e r  ratings.  i n d i v i d u a l v i e w e r r a t i n g s tended t o  be u n i f o r m l y and, i n most c a s e s , s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r , statistically,  t h a n group r a t i n g s .  This  f i n d i n g emerged f o r  b o t h the m a n a g e r i a l sample and t h e student (4-) low  sample.  I n t r a - and i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y tended t o be  t o moderate.  Furthermore t h e r e was l i t t l e  between group and i n d i v i d u a l r e l i a b i l i t i e s  difference  except f o r t h e  rater intercorrelations (inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y )  where  groups were u n i f o r m l y more r e l i a b l e than i n d i v i d u a l s the  (although  c o e f f i c i e n t s were l o w ) . (5)  The group and i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s d i d n o t appear t o  discriminate  among t h e r a t e d v a r i a b l e s , except perhaps f o r  appearance.  Possible  by  existence  o f h a l o e r r o r was  exemplified  the h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s o f " p o t e n t i a l " and " o v e r a l l " with  -129-  the d e c i s i o n t o c a l l "back o r r e j e c t .  "Potential"  " o v e r a l l " r e l a t e t o the whole p e r s o n r a t h e r than specific  and any-  trait. (6)  When e x p l o r i n g i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y ,  found t h a t r e t e s t critical  i t was  (Time 2) r a t i n g s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more  (p-^.01) than the i n i t i a l  test ratings  (Time 1 ) .  T h i s f i n d i n g emerged f o r both groups and i n d i v i d u a l s f o r the r a t e d v a r i a b l e s as w e l l as f o r the c a l l b a c k - r e j e c t decision. (7) use  The  i n t e r v i e w e e s e x h i b i t e d an enthusiasm  of v i d e o - t a p e .  Furthermore,  f o r the  they s t a t e d t h a t s e v e r a l  elements o f the v i d e o - t a p e o f f e r e d minimal  distraction  and  t h a t , w i t h v i d e o - t a p e , most o f the v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f t h e i r b e h a v i o u r were r e a l i s t i c a l l y  portrayed.  the viewers  d i s p l a y e d a h e s i t a n c y and,  a moderate  enthusiasm.  On the o t h e r hand, on the average,  only  These f i n d i n g s and the d i s c u s s i o n s u r r o u n d i n g them i n d i c a t e a number of areas where f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h would be in  order.  Three such a r e a s , seen by t h i s a u t h o r as b e i n g o f  p a r t i c u l a r importance (1)  One  are as f o l l o w s .  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the f i n d i n g t h a t groups  were more c r i t i c a l than i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e i r r a t i n g s c a n d i d a t e s was  of  t h a t the dynamics o f group i n t e r a c t i o n l e d  members t o conform t o a group norm t h a t emphasizes h i g h evaluative standards.  F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h c o u l d address  the  i s s u e o f whether o r not such a norm e x i s t s i n a p e r s o n n e l decision-making  group and,  i f so, what type and amount of  -130-  influence does i t have on the r a t i n g d e c i s i o n . (2)  Further to the second recommendation above,  perhaps the " r i s k y s h i f t " could be examined from the point of view of personal r i s k s based on the attempted s a t i s f a c t i o n of group member's s o c i a l needs through conformity  to group  norms, rather than from the more t r a d i t i o n a l point of view of d e c i s i o n a l outcomes.  When i n t e r p r e t i n g r i s k i n terms of  d e c i s i o n a l outcomes, t h i s study found the " r i s k y s h i f t " to be an inadequate p r e d i c t o r of group vs i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . When treated i n terms of personal r i s k s , however, the " r i s k y s h i f t " became a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e explanation. (3)  Rating viewers of the video-taped  interviews  expressed as an objection the f a c t that they were not a d i r e c t part of the interviewing process and, could not ask questions  as a r e s u l t ,  or probes to interviewees.  more, the f a c t that they wished to ask questions  Further-  other than  or i n addition to those asked by the interviewer suggests that they were focusing upon d i f f e r e n t candidate a t t r i b u t e s . This condition may explain the low l e v e l s of agreement between i n d i v i d u a l viewers and interviewers. r e s t r u c t u r i n g of the interview process,  Would the  as described i n  Chapter 5, have l e d to high l e v e l s of i n t e r - r a t e r agreement? Considerable  evidence e x i s t s to show that higher  r a t e r agreement i s found with more structured  inter-  interviews  (Carlson, Schwab and Heneman, 1970; Schwab and Heneman, 1969). Would t h i s be the case i f the video-taping procedure, as u t i l i z e d i n t h i s study, were employed?  Also, would the  viewer's a t t i t u d e s toward video-tape become more  favourable?  -131-  Furthermore, the r e l i a b i l i t y data found i n t h i s study suggest that the Bank of Montreal's interviewing procedure s u f f e r s from numerous sources of error, notably the d i f f e r e n t perceptual f o c i i of the r a t e r s and the ambiguity and lack of d e f i n i t i o n a l c l a r i t y surrounding the r a t i n g f a c t o r s .  As i s  c o n s i s t e n t l y shown i n the l i t e r a t u r e (Anderson, 1 9 5 4 ; Maas, 1965;  Carlson, Schwab and Heneman,  1970),  restructuring this  interviewing procedure along the l i n e s described i n Chapter 5 would i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d r e s u l t i n more respectable r e l i a b i l i t i e s and more confidence i n interviewers' r a t i n g s . These are only three areas where t h i s study i n d i c a t e s that f u r t h e r research may be c a r r i e d out.  The discussion i n  Chapters 2 and 5 provide suggestions f o r research i n other directions.  Only with such research can meaningful answers  be found and can the "state of the a r t " of interviewing be improved.  Bibliography  American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . T e c h n i c a l Recommenda t i o n s f o r P s y c h o l o g i c a l T e s t s and D i a g n o s t i c Techniques. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n Supplement. March, 1954, 5 1 , Number 2, P a r t 2. ( c i t e d i n Brown, Lucero and Poss, 1962). Anderson, C. W. The R e l a t i o n Between Speaking Times and D e c i s i o n i n the Employment I n t e r v i e w . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , I960, 44, 4, 267-268": Bern, D. J . , W a l l a c h , M. A., and Kogan, N. Group D e c i s i o n Making Under R i s k o f A v e r s i v e Consequences. Journal o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1965, 1, 455-460. Blakeney, R. N., and MacNaughton, J . P. E f f e c t s o f Temporal Placement o f U n f a v o r a b l e I n f o r m a t i o n on D e c i s i o n Making During the S e l e c t i o n I n t e r v i e w . Journal of A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 5 5 , 138-142. B l a l o c k , H. M. i960.  Soeial S t a t i s t i c s .  McGraw-Hill:  New  York,  B o l s t e r , B. I . , and S p r i n g b e t t , B. M. The R e a c t i o n o f I n t e r v i e w e r s t o F a v o r a b l e and U n f a v o r a b l e I n f o r m a t i o n . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1961, 45, 2, 9 7 - 1 0 3 . Brown, B. W., L u c e r o , R. J . , and Poss, A. B. A Situation Where t h e Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t Leads t o E r r o n e o u s Assessment o f R e l i a b i l i t y . Journal of C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , X V I I I , 1962, 9 5 - 9 7 ^ Brown, Roger.  S o c i a l Psychology.  New  York:  Free Press,  1965.  B r u c e , R. S. Group Judgments i n t h e F i e l d s o f L i f t e d Weights and V i s u a l D i s c r i m i n a t i o n . J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1935, 1, 1 1 7 - 1 2 1 . ( c i t e d i n Z a j o n c , 1966). B r u n e r , J . S. 1957,  64,  On P e r c e p t u a l R e a d i n e s s .  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review,  123-152.  B u s i n e s s Week, J u l y 10, 1 9 7 1 , p.  36.  Campbell, John P. I n d i v i d u a l Versus Group Problem i n an I n d u s t r i a l Sample. Journal of Applied 1968, 5 2 , 4, 2 0 5 - 2 1 0 .  Solving Psychology,  Campbell, D a v i d T., and F i s k e , Donald W. Convergent and D i s c r i m i n a n t V a l i d a t i o n by the M u l t i t r a i t Multimethod M a t r i x . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1 9 5 9 , 56, 8 1 - 1 0 5 .  -133-  C a r l s o n , Robert E f f e c t of Situation Personnel  E. S e l e c t i o n Interview Interviewer Experience, And A p p l i c a n t Sample on Psychology, 2 0 , 1 9 6 7 a ,  Decisions: The R e l a t i v e Quota Interviewer Decisions. 259-280.  C a r l s o n , Robert E. S e l e c t i o n Interview Decisions: The R e l a t i v e I n f l u e n c e ^ o f Appearance and F a c t u a l W r i t t e n I n f o r m a t i o n on an I n t e r v i e w e r ' s F i n a l R a t i n g . Journal o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 6 7 b , 5 1 , 6 , 461-468. C a r l s o n , Robert E . Employment D e c i s i o n s : E f f e c t o f Mode o f A p p l i c a n t P r e s e n t a t i o n on Some Outcome Measures. P e r s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y , 1968, 2 1 , 193-207. C a r l s o n , Robert E. E f f e c t of Interview Information i n A l t e r i n g V a l i d Impressions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 9 7 1 , 55, 1, 66-72": C a r l s o n , R. E. and M a y f i e l d , E. C. Employment A p p l i c a t i o n D a t a . 1 9 6 7 , 2 0 , 441-460.  E v a l u a t i n g I n t e r v i e w and Personnel Psychology,  C a r l s o n , Robert E., Schwab, Donald P., and Heneman, SH, Herbert, G. Agreement Among S t y l e s o f S e l e c t i o n I n t e r viewing. Journal of I n d u s t r i a l Psychology, 1 9 7 0 , 5 , 1 , 8-17.  C a r l s o n , R. E., Thayer, P. W., M a y f i e l d , E . C , and P e t e r s o n , D. A. Improvements i n the S e l e c t i o n I n t e r v i e w . Personnel Journal, A p r i l , 1 9 7 1 , 2 6 8 - 2 7 5 . C a r t w r i g h t , D., and Zander, A. Group Dynamics, Research Theory. New York: Harper-Row, 1968. C a t t e l l , J . McK. American Men o f S c i e n c e Appendix ( c i t e d i n Symonds, 1 9 3 1 ) .  ( 2 n d Ed.,  and  1910),  C l i n e , V i c t o r B., and R i c h a r d s , James M., A Comparison o f f I n d i v i d u a l s V e r s u s Groups i n J u d g i n g P e r s o n a l i t y . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 9 6 1 , 45, 3, 150-155. C r i s s y , W. J . E . Methods and  The Employment I n t e r v i e w - Research Areas, Results. Personnel Psychology, 1 9 5 2 , 5 ,  C r i s s y , W. J . , and Regan, J . Halo i n the Employment I n t e r v i e w . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 9 5 1 , 3 5 , 338-341. C r o w e l l , A. R. D e c i s i o n Sequences i n P e r c e p t i o n . Unpublished Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , McGill University, 1 9 6 1 , (cited i n Webster,  1964).  Eysenck, H. J . The V a l i d i t y o f Judgments as a F u n c t i o n o f the Number o f Judges. J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Psychology, 1 9 3 9 , 25, 6 5 0 - 6 5 4 ( c i t e d i n Zajonc, 1966).  -134-  G h i s e l l i , Edwin E . The V a l i d i t y o f a P e r s o n n e l I n t e r v i e w . P e r s o n n e l Psychology, 1 9 6 6 , 1 9 , 389-394. Goodman, Leo A., and K r u s k a l , W i l l i a m H. Measures o f Association for Cross-Classifications. Journal of the American S t a t i s t i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1 9 5 4 , 4 9 , 732-764. C c i t e d i n Brown, Lucero and Poss, 1962). Gordon, K. H. Group Judgments I n t h e P i e l d o f L i f t e d Weights. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1 9 2 4 , 3 , 398-400 (.cited i n Zajonc, 1966). Grant, D. L., and Bray, D. W. C o n t r i b u t i o n s o f the I n t e r v i e w t o Assessment o f Management P o t e n t i a l . J o u r n a l of.' Applied Psychology, 1 9 6 9 , 5 3 , 2 4 - 3 4 . Hakel, M i l t o n D., and Dunnette, M a r v i n D. C h e c k l i s t s Por D e s c r i b i n g Job A p p l i c a n t s . I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n Center, U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota, 1 9 7 0 . Hakel, M. D., Dobmeyer, T. W., and Dunnette, M. D. Relative Importance o f Three Content Dimensions i n O v e r a l l S u i t a b i l i t y R a t i n g s o f Job A p p l i c a n t s ' Resumes. J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d Psychology, 1 9 7 0 , 5 4 , 1 , 6 5 - 7 1 . H a k e l , M. D., Ohnesorge, J . P., and Dunnette, M. D. Interv i e w e r E v a l u a t i o n s o f Job A p p l i c a n t s ' Resumes As a F u n c t i o n o f the Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f the Immediately Preceding Applicants. Journal of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1970,  54,  1,  27—30.  H a k e l , M i l t o n D., Hollmann, Thomas D., and Dunnette, Marvin D. Accuracy of I n t e r v i e w e r s , C e r t i f i e d P u b l i c Accountants, and S t u d e n t s i n I d e n t i f y i n g the I n t e r e s t s o f A c c o u n t a n t s . Journal of A p p l i e d Psychology, 5 4 , 2 , 1 9 7 0 , 115-119. H a k e l , M. D., and Schuh, A. J . Job A p p l i c a n t A t t r i b u t e s Judged Important A c r o s s Seven D i v e r s e O c c u p a t i o n s . P e r s o n n e l Psychology, 1 9 7 1 , 24, 4 5 - 5 2 . H a l l , E . J . , Mouton, J . S., and B l a k e , R. R. Group Problem S o l v i n g E f f e c t i v e n e s s Under C o n d i t i o n s o f P o o l i n g and Interaction. J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Psychology, 1 9 6 3 , 5 9 , 147-157.  ~~"  H a l l , J . , and W i l l i a m s , M. S. Group Dynamics T r a i n i n g and Improved D e c i s i o n Making. J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d B e h a v i o u r a l Science*, 1 9 7 0 ,  6,  1,  39-68":  l93l).  H o l l i n g w o r t h , H. L . J u d g i n g Human C h a r a c t e r . New York, 1 9 2 2 . C c i t e d i n Symonds,  Appleton:  Holloman, C. R., and H e n d r i c k , H. W. Problem S o l v i n g i n D i f f e r ent S i z e d Groups. P e r s o n n e l Psychology, 1 9 7 1 , 24, 489-500.  -135-  Howell, M. A., and V i n c e n t , J . W. F a c t o r A n a l y s i s of I n t e r view Data. J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology, 1 9 7 0 , 54, 4, 313, Johnston, W i l l i a m R. C l o s e d C i r c u i t TV i n S a l e s T r a i n i n g . T r a i n i n g and Development J o u r n a l . A p r i l , 1967, 21, 4, 18-25.  Kahn, R. L., and C o n n e l l , C. F. New York: Wiley, 1957.  The Dynamics o f I n t e r v i e w i n g .  K a s l , S. V., and Mahl, G. F. A Simple D e v i c e f o r O b t a i n i n g C e r t a i n V e r b a l A c t i v i t y Measures D u r i n g I n t e r v i e w s . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1956, 5 3 , 288-390. Kennedy, Joanna B. Use o f A u d i o - V i s u a l Techniques i n T r a i n i n g The Hard-Core. T r a i n i n g and Development J o u r n a l ,  February, 1970, 20-32.  K e r l i n g e r , F r e d N. Foundation of B e h a v i o r a l Research. York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1964.  New  Kogan, N., and W a l l a c h , M. A. R i s k y - S h i f t Phenomenon i n S m a l l D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g Groups: A T e s t o f the I n f o r m a t i o n Exchange H y p o t h e s i s . J o u r n a l of Experimental S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1967, 3 , 73~=cW. Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C., and F i l l e n b a u m , S., E v a l u a t i o n a l R e a c t i o n s t o Spoken Languages, J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , I960, 60, 4 4 - 5 H Lewin, K u r t , 1945  ( g i v e n i n a speech by E.E. L a w l e r , I I I , 1972).  L o r g e , I . , Fox, D., D a v i t z , J . , and Brenner, M. A Survey o f S t u d i e s C o n t r a s t i n g the Q u a l i t y o f Group Performance and I n d i v i d u a l Performance, 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 5 7 . Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1958, 5 5 , 6, 3 3 7 - 3 7 2 . MacDonald, J . B r i a n . The Use o f Video Tape i n the P e r s o n n e l Interview. Unpublished manuscript. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 7 1 . McLuhan, M a r s h a l l . H i l l , 1964.  U n d e r s t a n d i n g Media.  Toronto:  McGraw-  Maas, James B. Patterned Scaled Expectation Interview: R e l i a b i l i t y S t u d i e s On a New Technique. Journal of A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1965, 49, 6, 431-433. Mager, Robert F. Preparing Instructional Objectives. Calif.: Fearon, 1962.  Belmont,  -136-  Mager, Robert F. D e v e l o p i n g A t t i t u d e Toward L e a r n i n g . Belmont, C a l i f . : I'earon, 1968. M a i e r , N. R. F. A s s e t s and L i a b i l i t i e s i n Group Problem Solving: The Need f o r an I n t e g r a t i v e F u n c t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1967, 74, 4, 2 3 9 - 2 4 9 . Maier, N. R. F., Solem, A. R., and Maier, A. S u p e r v i s o r y and E x e c u t i v e Development. New York: Wiley, 1 9 5 7 . Marquis, D. G. I n d i v i d u a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y and Group D e c i s i o n s I n v o l v i n g R i s k . I n d u s t r i a l Management Review, 1962, 3,  8-23.  M a y f i e l d , Eugene C. The S e l e c t i o n I n t e r v i e w - A R e - e v a l u a t i o n of P u b l i s h e d Research. P e r s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y , 1964, 17, 239-260. M a y f i e l d , Eugene C , and C a r l s o n , Robert E . S e l e c t i o n I n t e r view D e c i s i o n s : F i r s t R e s u l t s From a Long-Term R e s e a r c h Project. P e r s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 19, 4 1 - 5 3 . M i l l e r , James W., and Rowe, P a t r i c i a M. I n f l u e n c e o f F a v o r a b l e and U n f a v o r a b l e I n f o r m a t i o n Upon Assessment D e c i s i o n s . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1967, 5 1 , 5 , 432-435. Moore, L . F., and C r a i k , J . C. Video Tape and t h e S c r e e n i n g Interview. P e r s o n n e l J o u r n a l , 1972, 51, 3 , 1 7 3 - 1 7 8 . Norsworthy, N., The V a l i d i t y o f Judgments o f C h a r a c t e r . E s s a y s i n Honor o f W i l l i a m Jones, 1910 ( c i t e d i n Symonds, 1931).  Office of Strategic Services. R i n e h a r t , 1948.  Assessment o f Men.  New  York:  O t i s , J . E . , Campbell, J . H., and P r i e n , E . P. Assessment o f H i g h e r - L e v e l P e r s o n n e l : V I I . The Nature o f Assessment. P e r s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y , 1962, 1 5 , 44-1-446. P a l a c i o s , M. H., Newberry, L . A., and B o d t z i n , R. R. P r e d i c t i v e V a l i d i t y o f the Interview. Journal of Applied P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 50, 1 , 6 7 - 7 2 . :  Rimland, B. A Follow-up A n a l y s i s o f t h e New Composite System f o r S e l e c t i n g NROTC R e g u l a r S t u d e n t s . USN Bureau o f N a v a l P e r s o n n e l T e c h n i c a l B u l l e t i n , I960, No. 60-8 (.cited i n U i r i c h and Trumbo, 1965). Rowe, P a t r i c i a M. I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s I n Assessment Decisions. Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n , M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , I960 ( c i t e d i n Webster, 1964).  -137Rowe, P a t r i c i a M. I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s i n S e l e c t i o n Decisions. J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1963?  304-307.  4-7,  Rowe, P a t r i c i a M. Order E f f e c t s I n Assessment D e c i s i o n s . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , ;967, 51, 2 , 170-173. Rowe, P. M. D i f f e r e n c e s i n S e l e c t i o n D e c i s i o n s Among P e r s o n n e l Interviewers. Canadian P e r s o n n e l and I n d u s t r i a l Relations Journal, 19-23.  1970,  Rundquist, E . A. Development o f an I n t e r v i e w f o r S e l e c t i o n Purposes. I n G. A. K e l l y ( E d . ) , New Methods i n A p p l i e d Psychology. C o l l e g e Park: U n i v e r s i t y o f Maryland, 194-7, 85-95 ( c i t e d i n U l r i c h and Trumbo, 1965). Schwab, Donald P. and Heneman I I I , H e r b e r t , G. R e l a t i o n s h i p Between I n t e r v i e w S t r u c t u r e and I n t e r v i e w e r R e l i a b i l i t y I n an Employment S i t u a t i o n . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d Psyc h o l o g y , 1969, 53, 3, 2 1 4 - 2 1 7 . S c o t t , W. D., Bingham, W. V., and Whipple, G. M. S c i e n t i f i c S e l e c t i o n o f Salesmen. Salesmanship, 1916, 4, 106-108 ( c i t e d i n Wagner, 1949). S i e g e l , S i d n e y . Non-Parametric S t a t i s t i c s . H i l l , 1956. "  New York:  McGraw-  Smith, M. Group Judgments I n t h e P i e l d o f P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s , J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 3 1 , 14, 562-565 C c i t e d i n Z a j o n c , 1966J. Smith, P a t r i c i a C., and K e n d a l l , L . M. R e t r a n s l a t i o n o f Expectations: An Approach t o t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n o f Unambiguous Anchors f o r R a t i n g S c a l e s . Journal o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1963, 47, 2 , 149-155T S p r i e g e l , W. R., and James, V. A. Trends i n Recruitment and S e l e c t i o n P r a c t i c e s . P e r s o n n e l , 1958, 35, 3, 42-48. S p r i n g b e t t , B. M. S e r i e s E f f e c t s i n t h e Employment I n t e r v i e w . Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n , M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , 1954 ( c i t e d i n Webster, 1964). S p r i n g b e t t , B. M. F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g t h e F i n a l D e c i s i o n i n t h e Employment I n t e r v i e w . Canadian J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1958, 12, 1 3 - 2 2 . S t o n e r , J . A. F . A Comparison o f I n d i v i d u a l and Group Decisions Involving Risk. U n p u b l i s h e d Master's T h e s i s , M.I.T. S c h o o l o f I n d u s t r i a l Management, 1961 ( c i t e d i n  Brown, 1965).  -138-  S t r o h , Thomas F. The Uses o f Video Tape i n T r a i n i n g and Development. New York: American Management A s s o c i a t i o n ,  11.  S t r o o p , J . B. I s the Judgment o f the Group B e t t e r than t h a t o f the Average Member o f the Group? Journal of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 3 2 , 1 5 , 550-560. Sydiaha, D a n i e l . The R e l a t i o n Between A c t u a r i a l and Desc r i p t i v e Methods i n P e r s o n n e l A p p r a i s a l . Unpublished D o e t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y 1958 ( c i t e d i n Webster, 1964). Sydiaha, D a n i e l . Bales' I n t e r a c t i o n Process A n a l y s i s of Personnel S e l e c t i o n Interviews. Journal of A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1961, 45, 6, 393-401. Symonds, P. M.- D i a g n o s i n g P e r s o n a l i t y and Conduct. App1et on-Century, 1931.  New  T a f t , R. M u l t i p l e Methods o f P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment. o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1 9 5 9 , 56, 3 3 3 - 3 5 2 .  York:  Psych-  T h o r n d i k e , R. L . and Hagen, E . Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n P s y c h o l o g y and E d u c a t i o n ? Wiley: New York, 1969 (3rd E d i t i o n ) . U l r i c h , Lynn and Trumbo, Don. The S e l e c t i o n I n t e r v i e w S i n c e 1949. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1965, 63, 2, 100-116. Wagner, R. F. The Employment I n t e r v i e w : A C r i t i c a l P e r s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y , 1949, 2, 1 7 - 4 6 .  Summary.  W a l l a c h , M. A., Kogan, N. The R o l e s o f I n f o r m a t i o n , D i s c u s s i o n and Consensus i n Group R i s k T a k i n g . Journal of E x p e r i mental S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1965, 1, 1-19. W a l l a c h , M. A., Kogan, N., and Bern, D. J . Group I n f l u e n c e on I n d i v i d u a l R i s k T a k i n g , J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1962, 65, 2, 7 5 - 8 6 . W a l l a c h , M. A., Kogan, N., and Bern, D. J . D i f f u s i o n o f s p o n s i b i l i t y and L e v e l o f R i s k T a k i n g i n Groups. J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y ,  263-274.  1964,  Re68,  3,  Walter, Gordon A. Augmentation o f Task Group Performance Through Video Tape Feedback and S o c i a l L e a r n i n g . Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n , Berkeley, C a l i f . , 1971.  W a l t e r , G. and M i l e s , R. The Impact o f Task Group P a r t i c i p a t i o n a l P l u s Video Tape Feedback on S e l f Acceptance S c o r e s , 1972 ( s u b m i t t e d f o r p u b l i c a t i o n ) .  -139-  Weber, R. J . The E f f e c t s o f V i d e o t a p e Feedback on I n t e r a c t i o n B e h a v i o r and Role P e r c e p t i o n s i n Small D e c i s i o n Making Groups. U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , B e r k e l e y , C a l i f . , 1969. Webster, E . C. D e c i s i o n Making I n the Employment I n t e r v i e w . I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Centre, M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , Montreal, 1964. Wexley, K. N., l u k l , G. A., Kovacs, S. Z., and Sanders, R. E . Importance o f C o n t r a s t E f f e c t s i n Employment I n t e r v i e w s . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 2 , 56, 1, 45^48. Wiens, N., Molde, D. A., Holman, D. C., and Matarazzo, J . D. Can I n t e r v i e w I n t e r a c t i o n Measures be Taken from Tape Recordings? J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 63, 249-260. W o n d e r l i c , E . P. Improving I n t e r v i e w Technique. 1942, 18, 232-238 ( c i t e d i n Wagner, 194-9).  Personnel,  Woodworth, D. G., B a r r o n , P., and MacKinnon, D. W. An A n a l y s i s o f L i f e H i s t o r y I n t e r v i e w e r s ' R a t i n g s f o r 100 A i r F o r c e Captains. USAF P e r s o n n e l a n d T r a i n i n g Research C e n t e r T e c h n i c a l Note, Wo. 57-129 ( c i t e d i n U l r i c h and Trumbo,  1965).  1957,  Wright, Orman R. Summary o f Research on the S e l e c t i o n I n t e r view S i n c e 1964. P e r s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, 22, 391-413. Zajonc, R. B. S o c i a l Psychology: An E x p e r i m e n t a l Wadsworthl Belmont, C a l . , 1966.  Approach  APPENDIX A THE CAMPUS INTERVIEW  -14-1APPENDIX A The  Campus I n t e r v i e w  Bank o f M o n t r e a l  T h i s i s p r i m a r i l y a s c r e e n i n g i n t e r v i e w i n which you must d e c i d e i f t h e student s h o u l d be i n v i t e d t o t h e d i v i s i o n a l o f f i c e f o r a second  "look".  o  A l l o w s u f f i c i e n t time t o review your day's schedule o f i n t e r v i e w s b e f o r e the f i r s t i n t e r v i e w starts.  o  Keep on s c h e d u l e . I f you don't s t u d e n t s may e i t h e r s k i p the i n t e r v i e w o r miss c l a s s e s . The  f o l l o w i n g i s a suggested breakdown o f s t e p s t o be  o b s e r v e d a i n an i n t e r v i e w w i t h times suggested  f o r each s t e p :  Step I  Review resume  1 min.  Step I I  E s t a b l i s h rapport  2 min.  Step I I I E v a l u a t e student o E d u c a t i o n and work e x p e r i e n c e o Personal h i s t o r y o Potential  3 min. 2 min. 5 min.  10 min.  Step IV  Provide information  7 min.  Step V  Questions  5 min.  Step VI  Inform  student o f f u t u r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n  1 min.  Step V I I  Record  r e s u l t s and a c t i o n  4- min.  and answers  30 min. Each o f t h e s e s t e p s a r e e x p l a i n e d i n d e t a i l below: (I)  Review Resume  In almost a l l c a s e s you w i l l be p r o v i d e d w i t h a resume on each s t u d e n t . Study t h i s b e f o r e you meet him. I t w i l l u s u a l l y o u t l i n e v i t a l i n f o r m a t i o n on the student a l o n g w i t h some i n f o r m a t i o n on h i s background, e d u c a t i o n and work experi e n c e . Use i t t o a s s i s t you i n p l a n n i n g your i n t e r v i e w and a l to a v o i d a s k i n g f o r i n f o r m a t i o n he has a l r e a d y s u p p l i e d .  -142(II)  E s t a b l i s h Rapport  There are many methods used t o g a i n the c o n f i d e n c e and acceptance o f a s t u d e n t , each v a r y i n g a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p e r s o n a l i t y o f the i n t e r v i e w e r and the s t u d e n t . The student may be nervous o r t e n s e . Put him a t ease -  (Ill)  (a)  R i s e from your c h a i r , g i v e him a f r i e n d l y g r e e t i n g , a f i r m handshake and i n t r o d u c e y o u r s e l f by your f i r s t and l a s t name.  (b)  Use some, not too much, s m a l l t a l k .  (c)  O f f e r him a c i g a r e t t e o r p e r m i t him t o smoke i f he so d e s i r e s and g e n e r a l l y p r o v i d e an i n f o r m a l b u t b u s i n e s s l i k e atmosphere conducive to e f f e c t i v e communication.  (d)  S w i t c h t o the meat o f t h e i n t e r v i e w q u i e t l y by i n t r o d u c i n g a broad s e r i e s o f q u e s t i o n s on a t o p i c you t h i n k t h e c a n d i d a t e w i l l t a l k f r e e l y about.  (e)  L e t the student do most o f the t a l k i n g . I n so d o i n g he w i l l r e v e a l h i s p e r s o n a l i t y and t h e f e a t u r e s he c o n s i d e r s important about h i m s e l f and h i s f u t u r e .  (f)  Your j o b i s t o l i s t e n c r i t i c a l l y and w i t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g , i n t e r s p e r s i n g b r i e f comments o n l y t o guide t h e i n t e r v i e w i n t o t h e areas t h a t w i l l h e l p you t o make a p r o p e r a p p r a i s a l of t h e a p p l i c a n t as a p e r s o n .  E v a l u a t e Student  ( s e e a l s o S e c t i o n 6)  T h i s i s the prime purpose o f the i n t e r v i e w - t o o b t a i n an a c c u r a t e e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e student w h i l e he i s t r y i n g t o f a v o u r a b l y impress you. (a)  E d u c a t i o n and Work E x p e r i e n c e  The student s h o u l d be encouraged t o d i s c u s s h i s e d u c a t i o n a l background and work e x p e r i e n c e . In a d d i t i o n t o p r o v i d i n g an i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e s t u d e n t ' s p r e v i o u s t r a i n i n g t h i s p r o v i d e s him w i t h s u b j e c t s he knows w e l l and can d i s c u s s easily. Statements r a t h e r than q u e s t i o n s w i l l u s u a l l y produce more i n f o r m a t i o n . I f t h e s t u d e n t i s p e r m i t t e d t o d i s c u s s h i s background and e x p e r i e n c e s , a g r e a t e r i n s i g h t i n t o h i s p e r s o n a l i t y w i l l be o b t a i n e d . This period of the interview w i l l provide the i n t e r v i e w e r w i t h t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o e v a l u a t e the student * s s t a t e -  merits, note any i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s and shortcomings, h i s manner, and c o n s i d e r h i s e x p e r i e n c e . (b)  observe  Personal H i s t o r y  The i n t e r v i e w e r s h o u l d , i f p o s s i b l e , c o n s i d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e s t u d e n t ' s home background from t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f e a r l y advantages o r d i s a d v a n t a g e s e f f e c t i n g h i s development d u r i n g t h e f o r m a t i v e y e a r s . Only i f good r a p p o r t has been e s t a b l i s h e d , s h o u l d q u e s t i o n s be asked p e r t a i n i n g to t h e s t u d e n t ' s home environment. H i s answers may u n c o v e r b a s i c reasons f o r p u r s u i n g a h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , h i s m o t i v a t i o n , a t t i t u d e towards h i m s e l f , and h i s a m b i t i o n s . I f the informa t i o n i s n o t p r o v i d e d r e a d i l y by t h e student o r r a p p o r t i s not extremely w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d , i t would be b e s t f o r t h e r e c r u i t e r ( p a r t i c u l a r l y i f he i s i n e x p e r i e n c e d ) n o t t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s s u b j e c t i n depth. Instead, questions should c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e s t u d e n t ' s e d u c a t i o n a l background and work experience. The e x t e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t ' s e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s p o r t s s h o u l d be e x p l o r e d , as s h o u l d any h o b b i e s he e n j o y s . T h i s may p r o v i d e i n d i c a t i o n o f l e a d e r s h i p a b i l i t y and s o c i a b i l i t y . While t h e student d i s c u s s e s h i s p e r s o n a l h i s t o r y you may be a b l e t o a s s e s s i f h i s g o a l s a r e compatable w i t h h i s qualifications. (c)  Potential  The s t u d e n t s h o u l d be q u e s t i o n e d as t o h i s c a r e e r o b j e c t i v e s and how he f e e l s t h e s e can be f u l f i l l e d i n t h e Bank. I t s h o u l d be determined i f he i s c a s u a l l y i n t e r e s t e d i n b a n k i n g o r i f he has been c o n s i d e r i n g i t as a c a r e e r f o r some time. G e n e r a l l y , t h i s may be determined by e x p l o r i n g h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f banking. Enthusiasm i s a l s o an i n d i c a t o r o f p o t e n t i a l , as those w i t h a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e a r e l e s s l i k e l y t o be d i s c o u r a g e d by t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered through demanding j o b assignments and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . (IV)  Provide  Information  I n t h i s p a r t o f t h e i n t e r v i e w you s h o u l d t u r n from e v a l u a t i n g t h e student t o d e s c r i b i n g t h e Bank and i t s opportunities. Here you w i l l do most o f t h e t a l k i n g . The student s h o u l d be i n f o r m e d o f t h e Bank o f M o n t r e a l , o u r development programme and t h e s a l a r i e s and b e n e f i t s , o f f e r e d by t h e Bank. Be honest and do n o t o v e r s e l l . (a)  The Bank o f M o n t r e a l  I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e " q u i c k f a c t s " and o r g a n i z a t i o n c h a r t s i n c l u d e d i n t h e R e c r u i t e r ' s Guide, you s h o u l d s t r e s s  -144our new management p h i l o s o p h y , i . e . t o be "the most s u c c e s s f u l bank i n Canada - which t o us means the most p r o f i t a b l e . " Students s h o u l d be informed o f our promotion from w i t h i n p o l i c y , and t h e f a c t t h a t we are p r e p a r e d t o g i v e heavy r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o those w i t h demonstrated a b i l i t y . (b)  The  Development Programme  As a r e c r u i t e r you must be t h o r o u g h l y f a m i l i a r w i t h the S p e c i a l Development Programme f o r g r a d u a t e s . The nature and e x t e n t o f assignments and o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s programme should be c o v e r e d as o u t l i n e d i n S e c t i o n 9 o f the R e c r u i t e r ' s Guide. F o l l o w i n g t h i s , t h e i n i t i a l employment l o c a t i o n s h o u l d be d i s c u s s e d . I f he i s n o t w i l l i n g t o r e l o c a t e , r e a s o n s s h o u l d be e x p l o r e d and noted on t h e Campus I n t e r v i e w form. (c)  S a l a r i e s and B e n e f i t s  The s t u d e n t s h o u l d be informed o f the b a s i c s t a r t i n g s a l a r y f o r h i s l e v e l o f e d u c a t i o n , and t h a t m e r i t i n c r e a s e s are p r o v i d e d a t r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l s based on performance. The Bank's b e n e f i t s s h o u l d be covered, i n c l u d i n g our p o l i c y r e g a r d i n g i n i t i a l moves, t r a n s f e r s and the T u i t i o n Refund P l a n . (V)  Questions  and  Answers  You s h o u l d answer a l l the s t u d e n t ' s q u e s t i o n s i f p o s s i b l e a t t h e time o f the i n t e r v i e w . Be honest and f r a n k w i t h a l l s t u d e n t s p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h those who are t o be considered further. I f a q u e s t i o n i s asked which you cannot answer a t the t i m e , o b t a i n the answer l a t e r from the D i v i s i o n a l O f f i c e i f n e c e s s a r y , and forward a r e p l y t o the s t u d e n t . In the i n t e r e s t s o f good r e l a t i o n s , t h i s procedure i s t o be f o l l o w e d even i f t h e student does n o t warrant f u r t h e r consideration. As a g e n e r a l r u l e , the q u e s t i o n and answer p e r i o d s h o u l d be d e a l t w i t h as b r i e f l y as p o s s i b l e without l o s s o f clarity. The few minutes a v a i l a b l e w i l l not be s u f f i c i e n t to s a t i s f y the s t u d e n t and, t h e r e f o r e , no time should be wasted. (VI)  Inform Student  of Future C o n s i d e r a t i o n  C l o s e the i n t e r v i e w by i n f o r m i n g the student t h a t time i s r u n n i n g out and g i v e him a chance t o ask one o r two l a s t questions. * A l l s t u d e n t s s h o u l d be informed t h a t t h e y w i l l r e c e i v e a l e t t e r , m a i l e d w i t h i n t e n day o f the i n t e r v i e w i n f o r m i n g them o f the outcome o f the i n t e r v i e w . I f the s t u d e n t i s to remain a c a n d i d a t e t e l l him t h a t h i s resume w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d t h o r o u g h l y by management  p r i o r to a p o s s i b l e v i s i t  to the D i v i s i o n a l  Office.  No f i r m o f f e r o f employment should be made a t the time o f the campus i n t e r v i e w . Thank the student f o r h i s i n t e r e s t i n the Bank and t e l l him how p l e a s e d you are t o have had the chance t o t a l k w i t h him. (VII)  Record R e s u l t s and  Action  Immediately f o l l o w i n g the i n t e r v i e w you must complete the Graduate R e c r u i t i n g - Campus I n t e r v i e w form. S e c t i o n 1, 2 (where n e c e s s a r y ) , 3 and 4 are t o be completed on a l l s t u d e n t s interviewed. As a r e c r u i t e r , you must d e c i d e whether the student i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d f u r t h e r o r n o t . I f the student i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d f u r t h e r , s e c t i o n 5 i s to be completed. Any comments you b e l i e v e would a s s i s t the d i v i s i o n i n s e l e c t i n g s t u d e n t s f o r a "second l o o k " s h o u l d b e i n c l u d e d i n the "comments" section. In making your d e c i s i o n watch f o r the f o l l o w i n g : o  Any b i a s t h a t may have r e s u l t e d from an i n c i d e n t i n the i n t e r v i e w t h a t e i t h e r v e r y much d i s t u r b e d o r p l e a s e d you.  o  Tendency t o s e l e c t c a n d i d a t e s o f a c e r t a i n image pattern.  o  E v a l u a t i o n s r e s u l t i n g from " h a l o "  o  A b i l i t y o f t h e c a n d i d a t e to f i t i n t o the Bank and s t i l l maintain h i s i n d i v i d u a l i t y .  rating.  APPENDIX B  APPLICATION POR EMPLOYMENT  Divisional O f f i c e Use Only  APPENDIX  -14-7-  B  B a n k of Montreal i  Division  Application for Employment Please' print all particulars clearly  -Entry Date  Branch Salary  S h o w Mr., M i s s , M r s .  Address  Last Name  Allowance  Given names as on birth certificate—Underline or indicate name by w h i c h you are k n o w n .  Number and Street  City or T o w n  Province  Telephone  - s C h e c k boxes applicable  &  Single  •  . Married  •  Speak Fluently or  Widowed  •  Good working knowledge  Separated  •  Write w e l l or  •  Write fairly w e l l  A  •v. Divorced  Languages  • • • •  • • • •  • • • •  Married female applicants—give maiden name t, Person to be contacted in case of emergency CO  Birth date_  Q 15 A g e -  Day  Relationship  Month  Year  Sex  Telephone  Height-  If married, does s p o u s e w o r k ? -  Weight-  Name of spouse's employer  C N o . of brothers  S o c i a l Insurance N o . 0) OL  D o you, have any physical defects or diseases? Have y o u ever been guilty of a criminal offence? Have y o u applied to us before? Have y o u w o r k e d for us before?  Yes  No  •  •  Yes  No  •  •  Yes  No •  •  •  Yes  No  •  •  Sisters  N o . of dependent children  If yes, e x p l a i n If yes, e x p l a i n -  If yes, date  -Location-  Have y o u ever been discharged or requested to resign from any position y o u have held?  Yes  No  •  •  If your application is accepted, w h e n could y o u c o m m e n c e w o r k ? ' »Do y o u have any debts?  A d d i t i o n a l sources of i n c o m e ?  Yes  No  •  •  -1 9  -From  If yes, w h e r e ?  -1 9-  to_  If yes, e x p l a i n -  _Will y o u accept transfers periodically ?  Yes  No  •  •  If yes. give particulars of amounts, creditors, e t c  Yes  No  •  •  If yes, explain  List present or past affiliations in High S c h o o l , University, professional or c o m m u n i t y activities (excluding religious, national or racial groups), mentioning ^offices held, if any.  W h a t hobbies or recreational activities do you e n j o y ? List three persons other than relatives or previous supervisors from w h o m w e may request references.  (n^Name  o c  0)  ©  Full A d d r e s s  Occupation  Years k n o w n  High S c h o o l Circle highest educational level achieved  10  11  12  University 1  13  2  3  Graduate S c i o o l  4  From Name  Month  Address  Year  Month  1  I  To  2  4  3 I  Diploma or Dajree  Year  and Major  cJjrse  High Srhnnl P i i c i n e " Srhnnl  I iniv rsity p  c o CO  u  3 •D UJ  Graduat Srhnnl p  Other  If d i p l o m a or degree not obtained state reason FinaL  Average marks obtained during each of last 3 years of education List any scholastic honours including scholarships and a w a r d s — W h a t were your t w o best subjects?  First Yes No  Do you plan to continue formal e d u c a t i o n ?  •  •  SecondIf yes, w h e n , where and w h a t t y p e ?  Indicate any special skills y o u have acquired through job experience or specific training.  — co  "(5  Typing  •  Filing  •  Posting M a c h i n e  Shorthand  •  Bookkeeping  •  Other  Dictating machines  •  Cash Experience  • •  Specify  •  List particulars of last three employers from w h o m w e may request references. If no previous permanent employment give information concerning part-time and s u m m e r w o r k . If employed at present may w e c o n t a c t y o u r employer?  c o  1 2 3  Dates  •H  CO Q.  3  Month  O From O  O  Month  Yes  •  No  •  Salary  Name of C o m p a n y A d d r e s s of C o m p a n y and T e l e p h o n e N o . Name of Supervisor and Title  Final  Starting  J o b Title or type of w o r k performed  Reason for Leaving  Year 1  $  $  2  per  per  I  Year  To  c  I  CO CO  3 Month  +J  Year  CO From  •  c  Month  a  E  $  $  2  per  per  Year  To  1  CD  £ > o  1  3 Month  Year  From Month  1  $  $  2  per  per  •  Year  To  i t 3 W h i c h previous position provided the greatest satisfaction?CO +•> CO  Q W h y are y o u interested in banking ?_ CO  c  CD O A d d i t i o n a l information w h i c h you feel may be of assistance in assessing your application .  I certify that all information contained herein is correct to the best of my knowledge. Form 519-57283-Printed in Canada  Signature  Date  APPENDIX C VIDEOTAPED INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE  -149APPENDIX C  Videotaped  Interview Questionnaire  1.  How many employment i n t e r v i e w s have you been t o t h i s  2.  To what e x t e n t d i d you f i n d y o u r s e l f d i s t r a c t e d by each o f the f o l l o w i n g : ( p l e a s e check the a p p r o p r i a t e response) Very D i s tracted (distracted throughout the whole interview)  a. presence of the videotape equipment  (1)  Quite D i s tracted (distracted f o r at least half o f the interview) (2)  year?  Somewhat Not Distracted Distracted (distracted at a l l for less than h a l f o f the interview) (3)  (4)  b. presence o f t h e cameraman c . t h e knowledge t h a t you were b e i n g video-taped d. the noise of the videotape equipment 3»  I n t h i s q u e s t i o n we a r e n o t concerned w i t h such f a c t o r s as the i n t e r v i e w e r , q u e s t i o n s asked, room e t c . , but r a t h e r w i t h t h e e f f e c t s o f b e i n g v i d e o - t a p e d i n an i n t e r v i e w as compared w i t h n o t b e i n g v i d e o - t a p e d . P l e a s e keep t h i s i n mind as you respond. F o r each o f t h e f o l l o w i n g b e h a v i o u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p l e a s e check the e x t e n t t o which you f e l t your b e h a v i o u r was b e t t e r o r worse i n t h i s v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w as compared t o how you f e e l i t would have been had t h e i n t e r v i e w not been v i d e o - t a p e d .  -150-  I n t h i s v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w , my b e h a v i o u r a l o n g each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was: much better  (1)  slightly better  about the same  slightly worse  much worse  (2)  (3)  (4-)  (5)  nervousness: honesty: judgment: voice intonation: a b i l i t y to express myself verbally: manner: appearance: force or drive: interest: social sensitivity: intelligence overall behaviour: 4-.  A f t e r h a v i n g e x p e r i e n c e d a v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w , how do you f e e l t h e v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w compares t o non-video-taped interviews? (check one) Video-taped i n t e r v i e w s are:  a. b. c.  l e s s e f f e c t i v e t h a n non-video-taped i n t e r v i e w s more e f f e c t i v e than non-video-taped i n t e r v i e w s about t h e same as non-video-taped i n t e r v i e w s  (1) (2} (3;  -151Would you be w i l l i n g t o undergo a v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w which, a t your r e q u e s t , c o u l d be sent t o companies you are i n t e r e s t e d i n ? yes no undecided 6.  (3)  How e n t h u s i a s t i c are you toward the p o s s i b l e g e n e r a l use o f v i d e o - t a p e d i n i t i a l s c r e e n i n g i n t e r v i e w s f o r company s e l e c t i o n o f u n i v e r s i t y graduates f o r employment? ( p l e a s e check the a p p r o p r i a t e response) very enthusiastic  not enthusi a s t i c at a l l  VTJ 7.  W)  T5J  W!)  T7J  UT  How do you f e e l t h a t most g r a d u a t i n g s t u d e n t s would r e a c t to the s u g g e s t i o n , by a company, t h a t the student undergo a v i d e o t a p e d i n t e r v i e w conducted by a U n i v e r s i t y Placement Center r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and forwarded t o the company f o r examination? very unfavourable somewhat u n f a v o u r a b l e somewhat f a v o u r a b l e very favourable don't know  8.  T31  8  HI (5)  I n which o f the f o l l o w i n g areas do you have r e s e r v a t i o n s objections regarding videotaped screening interviews? ( P l e a s e rank t h e t h r e e most s e r i o u s o b j e c t i o n s you have, then check any o t h e r s t h a t a p p l y ) o  r  1 2 3_ 45 6 7 8 9 10  Many important p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s cannot be conveyed through the v i d e o t a p e d i n t e r v i e w . T h i s i s j u s t one more s t e p toward the d e - p e r s o n a l i z a t i o n o f the employment r e l a t i o n s h i p . There i s no assurance t h a t a v i d e o t a p e d i n t e r v i e w w i l l be kept c o n f i d e n t i a l — too easy t o d u p l i c a t e and use f o r u n a u t h o r i z e d purposes. The v i d e o t a p e d i n t e r v i e w i s u n e t h i c a l . Most companies do not have the expensive v i d e o p l a y b a c k equipment n e c e s s a r y . Once an i n t e r v i e w i s made, t h e r e i s no way o f changing i t . The s t u d e n t may be f o r c e d t o become an ' a c t o r ' i f wants t o get a j o b . In f r o n t o f a camera, most people do not a c t n a t u r a l The t e c h n i q u e w i l l be too e x p e n s i v e . Other ( s p e c i f i y )  -152-  VIDEOTAPE INTERVIEW EVALUATION  The  videotape  t e c h n i q u e may  employment i n t e r v i e w i n g . s i g n e d to a s s e s s i n t e r v i e w may  be  Please  The  o r may  following questionnaire  some o f the a s p e c t s  on which the  answer the q u e s t i o n s  discuss t h i s evaluation u n t i l t h e i r questionnaires.  1.  videotape  honestly  We  You  and  candidly.  are asked not  to  a l l those i n v o l v e d have completed  are i n t e r e s t e d i n how  you  feel.  you.  I n your e x p e r i e n c e , videotaped  and  a f t e r having  i n t e r v i e w s , how  do you  seen a number o f  f e e l the  videotaped  i n t e r v i e w compares to the f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r v i e w ( i . e . without video-tape)? Generally, videotaped  2.  i s de-  evaluated.  There are no r i g h t o r wrong answers.  Thank  not be u s e f u l i n  (check  technique  one)  interviews  are:  l e s s e f f e c t i v e than f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r v i e w s  (1)  more e f f e c t i v e than f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r v i e w s  (2)  about the  (3)  In the whole, how  same as f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r v i e w s r e a l i s t i c a l l y do you  f e e l the  i n t e r v i e w s conveyed the a c t u a l amount o f the personal  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p o s s e s s e d by the  ( P l e a s e check the  appropriate  responses).  videotaped  following  interviewees?  -153-  v e r y unrealistic  somewhat unrealistic  somewhat realistic  very realistic  unable t o judge  (2)  (3)  W  (5)  (1)  appearance manner voice force or drive intelligence potential interest attitude sociability self-expression knowledge o f field self-confidence nervousness motivation stress maturity judgment persuasiveness leadership 3.  How e n t h u s i a s t i c a r e you toward the p o s s i b l e g e n e r a l taped i n i t i a l  screening  interviews  f o r company s e l e c t i o n o f  u n i v e r s i t y g r a d u a t e s f o r employment?  (please  very enthusiastic  ~C7) " ( 6 )  "(5)  use o f v i d e o -  "GO Ii)  check) not enthusiastic at a l l  "(2)  APPENDIX D  VIDEO-TAPE VIEWERS  QUESTIONNAIRE  APPENDIX D  Video-tape V i c t o r ' s Evaluation  -155-  of t h e I n t e r v i a w e r  I n t h i s s e r i e s o f questions wa a r e i n t e res ted i n your p e r c e p t i o n s o f how the i n t e r v i e w e r behaved i n t h i s i n t e r v i e w . F o r each q u e s t i o n p l e a s e check the appropriate response. 1.  To vrhat e x t e n t interviewee?  do you t h i n k the i n t e r v i e w e r was i n t e r e s t e d i n the  The i n t e r v i e w e r was: v e r y i n t e r e s t e d i n the i n t e r v i e w e e q u i t e i n t e r e s t e d i n the i n t e r v i e w e e somewhat i n t e r e s t e d i n the i n t e r v i e w e e n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n the i n t e r v i e w e e a t a l l 2.  (1) (2) (3) (4)  I n terms o f t h e c o n t e n t o f t h i s i n t e r v i e w , how k n o w l e d g e a b l e do y o u t h i n k the i n t e r v i e w e r was o f the b a n k i n g f i e l d ( i . e . b a n k i n g t r a i n ing programs, p o s s i b l e a v a i l a b l e p o s i t i o n s , e t c . ) The interviewer was: very knowledgeable q u i t e knowledgeable  soaaahat knowledgeable  not knowledgeab;!e 3.  To what e x t e n t at ease?  .  at al].  _______ ( 1 ) (2)  How w e l l do you t h i n k Che i n t e r v i e w e r interviewee?  feel  feel:  v e r y r.iuch a t ease q u i t e a t ease s l i g h t l y ac ease not a t ease a t a l l  The  (a)  do yen t h i n k the i n t e r v i e w e r made the i n t e r v i e w e e  The i n t e r v i e w e r made t h e i n t e r v i e w e e  h.  (3)  .  •  communicated information  (1) (2) ^ (a).  to the  interviewer: c.afcod i n foinna t.lori v a r y w e l l conuiM'.nieatod i n f o r m a t i o n q u i t e w e l l ."COv.au:;ical.ad i n f o r m a t i o n r e a s o n a b l y a e l 1 d i d n o t ce.e--'nlente i n f o r m a t i o n w e l l . at. a l l couii.-Mi^J  (1) (2) . (3) (4)  -156To  what  in  ;:his interview?  The  extent:  d o y o ufeel  spoke  too  much  spoke  xuch  t o e much  • spoke  itoro  than  spoke did  about  P l e a s e  check  •d e s c r i b e  much  (1) (2)  q u i t s  exeunt  (3)  enough '  '  'J_  t h e extent  t o which  (5)  each  o f t h e f o l l o w i n g  t h e interviewer  t h e Interviewer's  questions  asked  t h e  p a i r e d - a d j e c t i v e s interviewee.  were:  ex--  e x -  treme--  sexe--  soraawhat  ly  very  v h f .t  " (1)  ""(2)  " ( 3 ) • • • > '  treraevary  relevant  l y  _  i r r e l e v a n t  " (5)  "(6)"  d i f f i c u l t  easy  answer  _ (27  " (1)  "(3)  " ( 2 ) "13)"  ' "(f)  •  ' (//')'  ~ (5)  "C-'O  ~~{T)  t o  answer  (6)  "'(-)' '  To what extent d o y o uf e e l that t h e interviewer gathered s u f f i c i e n t i n s u f f i c i e n t information about t h e a p p l i c a n t ? (please check) Trie  • (4)  t o o l i t t l e  t h e q u e s t i o n s ; ivhich  t h e whole,  •  enough  t h e right:  n o t speak  spoke  to  o r t o o l i t t  interviewer:  ..  On  the.interviewer  o r  interviewer gathered could  enough  have  information  gathered  somewhat  about  noro  about t h e a p p l i c a n t c o u l d h a v e g a t h e r e d a l o t ir.orfc the a p p l i c a n t  Please  l i s t  obtained  any a d d i t i o n a l  about  itexs  t h e aoaklooauL,  t h e a p p l i c a n t  _  (1)  information (2.)'  information  o f i n fo v x n t i o a  about: (3)  y o u wood: d l i k e  t o  have  157As  far  as  you  caa  interviewee's  t e l l ,  image  how  of  tho  favourable bank, of  or  Montreal  r.aaearable  bo  you  '.-/as b e f o r e  has  c a w a _to_ u h a  think  the  interview? Tha  i n t e r v i aaa:0 ' s very  iary-.;  quite  The  of  extent the  do y o u  interviewer  made more  remain  terms  this  a  very  quite  the  .:"  very  interviewer or  CO  "1-  <)  about  the  interviewee's  image  of  the  Bank:  the  more  (2j  same  (3)  _  unfavourable  '  _  _  (4)  unfavourable  good  .  an  interviewer  do  you  think  interviewer  interviewer  he  (5)  (sh  (1)  interviewer  good  bad  (1)  favourable  i n t- e r_v j e w - > hov? g o o d  a  made  A  unfavourable?  interviewee's  aa a v e r a g e i n t e r v i e w e r quite a bad interviewer a  ._  favourable  more  of  the  favourable  more  somewhat  _I n_  .  think  more  somewhat  much  a - ' - •*  unfavourable  Bank  much  was :  uafavourable  very  what  bark  favourable  " • a e ' u c a ' a l " ' . •'  To  the  favourable  quita  image  of  ^  (2) _ _  (3) (4) (5)  APPENDIX E  SUMMARY  SHEET  A PPT  SUN  D I X  APPENDIX E  -159-  VT  FACTOR  SELF  A t t i t u d e . •• •. Appearance Interest Intelligence Leadership Maturity Motivation Persuasiveness Self-Confidence Self-Exoression Sociability Potential  ?  Overall 2nd I n t e r v i e v ; (Halliburton) .(McNish) (Saunders) (Gordon.) (•Roy s t o n ) (Duouis)  3^5. 3.09 2.83 3-33 3.59 3-33 3-17 3.00 3-17 3.17 3-4 2 2.83  3.65 3.50 3.33 3.50 3.65 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.33 3.50  2.17  2.33  1 2 2 1  2 2 1 1  1  1  2  FACTORS:  Excellent 5 Superior 4 Average • 3 Marginal 2 Unsatisfactory! OVERALL RATING Excellent Superior Average Marginal '  3.-5Q-  1  1 - yes 2 = no  KEY FOR RATING  INTERVIEW?:  4... 3 2 1  GROUP  INDIVIDUAL  -.3 • ! 2 3 - 00 3.17  3.09  .65 3.50 3.33 3.83 3.70 3.83 3.50 3.17 3.83 3.7's 3.83 3-50  2. 25  2.41  [  3-59  3.42 3.4 2 3.33 3.17 3.4 2 3.17 3.33  2 2 2 1 1 2  1 2 2  1 1 1  -160SOMB INTERPRETATIONS AND COMMEHTS VJhen l o o k i n g to  keep  i n mind  -  a t these r a t i n g s  Jim  J  o  n  e  i t would  s  be w o r t h w h i l e  a few p o i n t s :  (1)  t h i s e x e r c i s e i s f o r t r a i n i n g and i n f o r m a t i o n a l p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d .is. i n no way t o be u s e d a s a. • •• • '•' •' ' f o r m a l ' p e r f o r m a n c e ' e v a l u a t i o n ; (2)  from a p r e l i m i n a r y review o f the data i t appears t h a t g r o u p s t e n d t o be more c r i t i c a l t h a n individual raters;  (3)  t h e g r o u p and i n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g s were made a f t e r viewing video-taped interview, not a f t e r a c t u a l l y e n g a g i n g i n an i n t e r v i e w .  Evaluation  o f the  i s not possible  of  the video-tape  to  t o determine whether  this  critical At t h i s  fact  than  point  i s a result  o r 'whether i t i s s o m e t h i n g w h i c h  particularly  a r e more  a s t e r i s k s on t h e Summary  quite  r e a d i l y explained a s good  obtain  you  were i n h i s p r e s e n c e . In  factors  like  Sheet).  i s peculiar  perceive  o f the interviewee  a view o f the i n t e r v i e w e e  fashion,  f a c t e may  The v i e w e r s d i d as y o u d i d w h i l e  i n t e r e s t and s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e by t h e m c e r v i e w e e ' s  ancL. gesture5 w h i c h t h e v x l e o - t a o e  as.-, we'll  and p o t e n t i a l  The a p p e a r a n c e  by t h e v i d e o - t a n e .  'which may be i n f l u e n c e d  characteristics  critical  interest, self-confidence  not  not  more  and o f the i n t e r v i e w e e s .  terms o f appearance,  (see be  a r e much  yourself. You  in  your r a t i n g s  o f the viewers  it  ,.  Interviewees  Generally, those  ....  v  as y o u r s e l f .  a r e two  facial  v i e w e r s 'would  -161Co nci i t i o n s general  impression  from t h a t o f the  s u c h as  o f the  the  a b o v e may  have a f f e c t e d y o u r  a p p l i c a n t i n a manner q u i t e  video-tape  viewers.  This  could  have a s i g n i f i c a n t , b e a r i n g upon y o u r o v e r a l l your r a t i n g again  of the  interviewee s  q u i t e lower  than those  E v a l u a t i o n of the For .quite high.  data  of the  viewer's  ease, your i n t e r e s t were v e r y  positive.  an  (36%)  of which  .  are  ratings).  and  extent  that your knowledge of  t o w h i c h you  the r e l e v a n c e  O v e r a l l , you  and  your i n t e r v i e w s t r u c t u r e . the  Bank;  A l s o , you an  put  the  clarity  spoke about the  w h i c h comes w i t h i n t h e  a v e r a g e image o f  .upon  f a c t o r s y o u r r a t i n g s were g e n e r a l l y  p o i n t s out  Bank's programmes, the  amount  r a t i n g and  Interviewer  each o f these The  consequently  p o t e n t i a l (both  1  different  acceptable  the  applicant of your  at  questions  right  amount;  range  given  improved the a p p l i c a n t s '  image w h i c h vras on  the  favourable  side of n e u t r a l . Your a b i l i t y  t o c o m m u n i c a t e i n f o r m a t i o n met  disagreement, p a r t i c u l a r l y group's r a t i n g ,  t h o u g h , was  from the still  O v e r a l l , your a b i l i t y rated the  as b e i n g  on  as  i n an  interview.  group.  some  The  the p o s i t i v e s i d e .  an  i n t e r v i e w e r was  q u i t e good e s p e c i a l l y f r o m t h e  i n t e r v i e w e e s , whose i m p r e s s i o n s  most i m p o r t a n t  part of.the  with  may  be  consistently  p o i n t of view  considered  as  of  being  T h e r e was v e r y each o f t h e f a c t o r s consistently  rated  quite  J i m , and I t h a n k  study.  v a r i a t i o n amongst s c o r e s f o r  considered i n your  I hope t h a t you  little  highly..  ..  t h i s data proves  analysis. ....  ....  You v.-ere . .. .  t o be o f some v a l u e t  y o u v e r y much f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e  -163-  5'C  —i  1 -  inO.ivicUi?.!  i  \o~'' kno'.'.'l'v-1 '''2? vle  '."fere " ' 0 '  L  1.1-7  --i —  iridVidual  vou r-ufc t" e o ^ n i i c a i ' t a t ease' r  Lev? ji  HI <--h 1  self it er v ~!.(:'-'c e  i  1.66- I -— -• f.Ct - <  .ridividuel  66  -- i —  -  -  -164>l  .  rev-  ' r XI  c.il  CO:  VOU  'o  a"  on'  1  i  33 •J.il  px-oun I•  ind.1 v r l d u a l 53.  To  vhat  extent  SO  65 cj  V O 1! f - ; o j  too  • aien too much i  nuc i 1  or  too  I j 111 a n-uch 1; o o littl  a'\'.o U:\Y-  •2-/7 I -  . eves-  • " . . C P  /  :i.cv • 3.vi-  'idV"" •rlml  . +•  c er . nn < tare  -.yip  Y-  ct  -he  tltve  did  you  *?pe?J: 7v ; r  self i_ p_ t e r v i o". e e T  pro  U P  1 nd 1 v 1 d ua 1 actual  x-  I ' ' R  R<  -165-  6,  Your o u e s t i o n s a.  wore  relevant ex• • •' ' trs'P.elv v e r  1  what l\  2  verv  extremel'-'  self 2.lit  interviewee  2  croup individual b.  vacrue  clear 5  6  ;el-  4 a  ..nterviewee PToiro i nd 1 v i d ua 7.  The  '5".cc  1  i n t e r v - i e w e e s • a na^e  o f t h e Pan!-: was  very favourable  neutral 3  1  self  7.->c •--h  interviewee r roup r  ind.i v:i d u a l  f ~  very unfavourable 5  -166-  3.  You ?„ade t h e  ;interviewees  5  • .••rnuch • .•• •.{. : '• wore favourable 1 2  _na^e  of  the  Bank  g-r^r^vVri '•• about t h e same ?,  .•• •  n\uch "'' ' ''' "•" more unfavourable i|  5  self l  n t e r v i e v. e e r  groun  _  _  individual o  How good an i n t e r v i e w e r ' a r e  you  very good interviewer 2  3  •i.'A,  self Interviewee  individual  terms o f these  an averame interviewer  1  r-'roup  (in  n  2*^]  _ ' \' s  3  interviews)? very bad inter-  1{  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0103919/manifest

Comment

Related Items