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.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

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., Un i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 6 9 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OP THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION i n the Department of Commerce and Business Administration WE ACCEPT THIS THESIS AS CONFORMING TO THE REQUIRED STANDARD The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia August, 1 9 7 2 In p r e sen t ing t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that 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 for reference and s tudy. I f u r t he r agree tha t pe rmiss ion for e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l ga in s h a l l not be a l lowed wi thout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada ABSTRACT This study was intended to examine three aspects of interviewing. The f i r s t was an exploration f o r any systematic differences between ratings given by interviewers i n actual face-to-face interviews and ratings given by group (N=3) and i n d i v i d u a l observers of video-taped interviews. The second aspect was 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 of mean va r i a b l e r a t i n g s , r e -l i a b i l i t y and halo e r r o r . The t h i r d s ection sought at t i t u d e s of interviewees and r a t i n g viewers of the u t i l i t y of video-tape i n employment interviews. The interviewees f o r the f i r s t and t h i r d aspects of t h i s study were t h i r t y - f o u r fourth-year Commerce students from the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. The video-tape viewers and interviewers were t h i r t y members of the Bank of Montreal's managerial s t a f f . For the second section the interviewees were three fourth-year Commerce students from the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia and the video-tape viewers were one hundred and e i g h t y - f i v e Commerce undergraduate students also from the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. The viewers and interviewers were requested to evaluate i n t e r -viewees along t h i r t e e n dimensions and to decide whether or not to c a l l back the interviex^ees f o r f u r t h e r interviews. Minimal differences were found between interviewer - n i -an d group o b s e r v e r r a t i n g s w h i l e i n d i v i d u a l o b s e r v e r r a t i n g s were found 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 h i g h e r than b o t h i n t e r v i e w e r and group o b s e r v e r r a t i n g s . R e l i a b i l i t y e s t i m a t e s were g e n e r a l l y moderate t o low w i t h no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t i n g between group and i n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g s . Halo e r r o r was p o s s i b l y a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r f o r group and i n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g s . The a t t i t u d e s of i n t e r v i e w e e s toward the use o f v i d e o - t a p e i n i n t e r v i e w i n g were q u i t e f a v o r a b l e . The v i e w e r s , on the o t h e r hand, d i s p l a y e d o n l y a moderate enthusiasm. I n the d i s c u s s i o n , a t t e n t i o n was g i v e n t o methods f o r 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 r a t i n g s form and i n t e r v i e w i n g p r o c e d u r e . - i v -Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Outline of the Paper 4 2 RESEARCH SUMMARY 6 The Interview 6 Future Research Directions 26 3 METHODOLOGY 4-1 Differences i n Ratings - Interviewers vs Viewers 4-1 Groups vs Individuals 5 6 Attitudes Toward the Use of Video-Tape i n Interviews 63 4- RESULTS 66 Interviewers vs Viewers 72 Attitudes Toward Video-Tape In Inter-viewing 9 3 5 DISCUSSION 101 Interviewers vs Viewers 101 Group vs Individual Viewers 1 0 5 Attitudes Toward Video-Tape 124 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 128 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 3 2 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 - v i -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 and of Groups 3 6 Chapter g: 1 Schedule of Interviewing and Viewing . . . 4 J 2 Interviewer Characteristics 4 5 3 Viewer Characteristics 47 4 Analyses of Variance 48 5 Description of Interviewees 5 9 6 Sampling Distribution for Data Acquisition 60 Chapter 4 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Significant Differences for Interviewers', Groups', and Individuals' Ratings 67 2 Overall 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 4 Group, Individual and Interviewer Inter-viewer Intercorrelations Call Back - Reject Decision 7 1 5 Mean Traits Rating - Total Groups and Individuals 7 3 . -6 Mean Trait Ratings - Groups vs Individuals . 7 ^ 7 Overall Rating - Group and Individuals . . . 7 5 8 Call Back-Reject Decision - Groups vs Individuals 7 6 9 Rotated Factor Matrix - Individuals . . . . 7 7 _ v i i -Table Page 10 Rotated Factor Matrix - Groups 78 11 Correlations Between Variables and Call Back-Reject Decision-Groups and Individuals 80 12 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 1 5 Intra-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y - Groups and Individuals - Percent Perfect Agreement . 85 16 Mean Variable Ratings: Test and Retest Groups and Individuals 86 1 7 Call Back-Reject Decision - Groups and Individuals - Intra-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y . . 87 18 Call Back-Reject Decisions - Group Decision Shift 88 19 Call Back-Reject Decisions - Individuals Decision Shift 88 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 . 9 0 22 Inter-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y - Groups vs Individuals - Inter-Correlations . . . . . 9 1 23 Extent and Cause of Interviewee Dis-traction 94 24 Extent of Difference in Interviewee's Be-haviour In a Video-Taped Interview Com-pared with a Face-to-Face Interview (N=34) 95 2 5 Enthusiasm for Video-Taped I n i t i a l Screen-ing Interviews in Selection of University Graduates for Employment (N=34) 97 - v i i i -Table Page 26 How would Most Graduating Students React i f Asked by a Company to Undergo a Video-Taped Interview Conducted by the Placement Office 97 27 Student (Interviewee) Rankings of the Three Most Serious Reservations or Objections re Video-Taped Screening Interviews 97 28 Degree of Realism i n Portraying Inter-viewee Characteristics - Viewers (N=17) 99 29 Enthusiasm Toward the Possible General Use of Video-Taped I n i t i a l Screening Inter-views for Selection of University Graduates - Viewers 100 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It i s a pleasant task to acknowledge the cooper-ation of colleagues and friends i n the preparation of this manuscript. I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Larry F. Moore whose comments from afar strengthened the analyses and interpretations given here. Gratitude must also be given to Dr. Vance F. Mitchell, Dr. Gordon Walter, Dr. Ronald Taylor and Professor Merle Ace whose helpful and supportive observations cast light upon many a dark moment i n my thoughts. Mr. George Strachan and Mr. James Watt from the Bank of Montreal deserve thanks for permitting me to study their organization. Their interest and encouragement clearly i l l u s t r a t e d that the gap between the business world and the academic community may readily and profitably be bridged. Lastly, my wife Mary merits express recognition. She spurred me on to always go the next step. To her, my special thanks. To her, I dedicate this thesis. -1-CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Video-tape i s being put to more and more uses i n industry and i i n d n i s t r i a l research. Applications range from i n d u s t r i a l t r a i n i n g (Stroh, 1969), information d i s -semination, s u r v e i l l a n c e , ego development (Kennedy, 1970) to : improvements i n self-acceptance (Walter, 1971) and i n d u s t r i a l and psychological research (Wexley, Yukl, Kovacs and Sanders, 1972). Moore and Craik (1972) saw the tremendous p o t e n t i a l which video-tape may have f o r a s s i s t i n g i n personnel s e l -e c t i o n . These researchers v i s u a l i z e d the important con-t r i b u t i o n which instant playback, multiple viewing, t r a n s f e r -a b i l i t y and other video-tape features could make i n the complex and important process of interviewing. Indeed, many organizations have taken advantage of 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 of interviewing which incorporates video-tape as a c r i t i c a l element. In i t s s e l e c t i o n of volunteers f o r an overseas Canadian Goodwill Tour, the Canadian Public Service Commission recently u t i l i z e d video-tape to record interviews i n Vancouver f o r subsequent viewing by administrators i n Ottawa. A b i l i t y Search, a Washington, D.C. firm that s p e c i a l i z e s i n r e c r u i t i n g systems analysts and operations research personnel, use the video-taped interview as a replacement f o r the more common resume. Through t h i s organization candidates are interviewed and t h e i r video-tapes are sent to a number of p a r t i c i p a t i n g companies f o r screening (Business Week, 1971). In December, 1970, the personnel department of the B r i t i s h Columbia Regional O f f i c e of the Bank of Montreal expressed an i n t e r e s t i n the possib l e use of video-tape as an a i d to t h e i r personnel s e l e c t i o n procedure 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 revolved around the p o s s i b i l i t y of video taping i n one centre an interview with a candidate who wished employment with the Bank i n another centre, and send to that centre the video-taped interview rather than the candidate himself. The p r i n c i p a l question was not whether such a procedure would be f e a s i b l e , as the foregoing examples i n d i c a t e that i t i s , but whether or not a video-taped interview would introduce some bias which would not e x i s t within a face-to-face interview. This issue formed the impetus f o r the present study. A research proposal was given to the Bank's Employment and Employee Relations Manager who permitted a study not only of t h i s area but also of a number of other r e l a t e d t o p i c s . These other t o p i c s are b r i e f l y described below. Interviewing research. Video-tape as well as audio-tape has been used by a number of researchers to explore aspects of the interview ( C r i s s y , 1952; Kasl and Mahl, 1956; Wiens et a l , 1966; Grant and Bray, 1969; Blakeney and MacNaughton, 1971; Wexley, Yukl, Kovacs and Sanders, 1972). However, to date,no one has se r i o u s l y questioned the use of video-tape or audio-tape f o r t h i s type of research. McLuhan (1964) argued that the medium over which a message i s communicated forms part of the message i t s e l f . I f t h i s i s the case, then these researchers are not studying just the interview but the taped interview. With t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y i n mind, t h i s paper addresses i t s e l f to the question of whether or not ratings made i n a face-to-face interview d i f f e r - f r o m ratings made with a video-taped interview. The mode of interview presentation may be an in f l u e n c i n g moderator a f f e c t i n g the outcomes of the above-stated research. Groups vs Ind 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). How-ever, l i t t l e research has taken place to d i r e c t l y examine differences i n ratings as given by panels and as given by i n d i v i d u a l interviewers. Considerable work i s reported which examines groups vs i n d i v i d u a l decisions (Maier, 1967; Lorge et a l , 1958; H a l l and William, 1970). These works, though, have taken place outside the context of the i n t e r -view. This paper looks at groups vs i n d i v i d u a l differences within t h i s context. Interview Rating Forms. Many organizations evaluate interviewees on an interview r a t i n g form u s u a l l y c o n s i s t i n g of an accept-reject decision and a series of t r a i t s , each to be rated on a three-point, f i v e - p o i n t or seven-point _4-r a t i n g scale. The Bank of Montreal i s no exception. Very l i t t l e work, though, has been devoted to analyzing these forms. This 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 halo e r r o r . A t t i t u d e s Toward Video-Tape i n Interviews. A recent paper by Moore and Graik (1972) looked at the a t t i t u d e s which students and personnel administrators have toward the use of video taped interviews. 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. Indeed, except f o r only looking at the taped interviews, the viewers were quite removed from the interview s e t t i n g . This paper focuses upon the a t t i t u d e s toward video-tape held by actual interviewees who were being video-taped and by viewers who formally rated the applicants' s u i t a b i l i t y . Outline of the Paper The areas explained above are grouped i n t o three main subsections f o r a n a l y s i s . The f i r s t area i s aimed at determining the existence of any systematic differences between ratings given by interviewers i n actual face-to-face interviews and ratings given by observers of video taped interviews. The second area i s an examination of d i f f e r -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 var i a b l e 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 de-c i s i o n s , 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 . " The t h i r d area explores the a t t i t u d e s of interviewees and - 5 -observing raters toward the use of video-tape i n i n -terviewing. -6-CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH SUMMARY This review i s segmented into two basic sections. The f i r s t i s a summary of research on the employment interview, while this study does not directly investigate the findings reported i n this section, i t was f e l t to be worthwhile to provide such a summary i n order to highlight and explain considerations which were made i n designing this study's methodology and to offer a perspective within which this research took place. The second section i s a review of some future directions which research i n the employment interview may take. As i s described, some of these directions are examined i n this study. SECTION 1: THE INTERVIEW The employment interview has long been a topic of con-cern for 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 predictor, has received largely pessimistic reviews. Yet i t s widespread use s t i l l remains. Throughout the years at least 90-95^ of organizations surveyed employed the personnel interview in their selection processes (Spriegel and James, 1958), and as Carlson et al (1971) point out, i t i s unlikely that this condition w i l l change. The personnel interview has remained i n existence not as a result of any major supporting empirical evidence but through some process wherein i t t h r i v e s today because i t th r i v e d yesterday. Given t h i s s i t u a t i o n , then, the goal of research i n the personnel interview should not be to d i s c r e d i t i t so much as to improve i t . This i s the o r i e n t a t i o n followed 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 with c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y , with heavier emphasis and more d e t a i l being given on the recent work. Comments on e a r l i e r studies are based upon the major research summary of Wagner (194-9) , U l r i c h and Trumbo (1965), Mayfield (1964) and Wright (1969). Interviewing Review The preponderance of opinion and how-to-do-it manuals f o r interviewing became apparent i n Wagner's (1949) summary. Of the 106 studies he reviewed only 2 5 offered quantitative information. Also, as U l r i c h and Trumbo (1965) pointed out, within these 2 5 studies a number of methodological weaknesses could be r e a d i l y located. U l r i c h and Trumbo (1965) drew l a r g e l y s i m i l a r conclusions as Wagner (1949). F i r s t , greater standardization i n terms of information used as a basis f o r personnel s e l e c t i o n was c a l l e d f o r . By permitting v a r i a t i o n i n the type of information obtained and the form of interview structure 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 . Structured interviews drawing comparable data should boost r e l i a b i l i t y and thereby serve to increase the upper boundaries of p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y . -8-Second, a n c i l l a r y information (e.g. t e s t s and c r e d e n t i a l s ) should be employed more he a v i l y i n personnel decisions. This was c l o s e l y l i n k e d to the f i r s t conclusion i n that t e s t s and the l i k e are u s u a l l y standardized and not 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. F i n a l l y , i t was suggested that the scope of the interview be reduced. Rather than attempting to assess a large number of such complex psychological constructs as i n t e l l i g e n c e , leadership a b i l i t y , aptitude, and so on i n a half-hour interview, the interviewer should focus i n upon only a few such areas. U l r i c h and Trumbo suggested two impor-tant f a c t o r s to which the interviewer could devote h i s i n t e r -viewing time. These were personal r e l a t i o n s ( s o c i a b i l i t y ) and motivation to work. These two t r a i t s received some empirical evidence supporting t h e i r presence i n the interview (Woodworth et a l , 1957; Rimland, I960; Rundquist, 194-7; O t i s et a l , 1962), while other t r a i t s have been generally found to be better predicted by alternate and l i k e l y more v a l i d and r e l i a b l e means. Mayfield (1964), i n another review, drew 15 conclusions from h i s research summary. These may be grouped into two basic categories, a)interviewer c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and b) methodolo-g i c a l and s t r u c t u r a l properties of interviews. Interviewer c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : (1) Interviewers are generally consistent i n t h e i r approaches to d i f f e r e n t interviewees. -9-( 2 ) Interviewers frequently interpret or weight the same information generally differently. ( 3 ) Interviewer predictions based on a combination of interview data and scores from tests of proven v a l i d i t y are usually no better (and sometimes worse) than predictions based on test scores alone. This raises questions as to the efficacy of Wagner's (194-9) and Ulrich and Trumbo's ( 1 9 6 5 ) suggestions that ancillary information should accompany interview data when making employment decisions. (4) The attitudes of interviewers do affect the inter-pretations of what the interviewees say. ( 5 ) In unstructured interviews, the interviewer generally talks more than the interviewee. (6) Interviewers generally are influenced more by unfavourable than by favourable information. ( 7 ) In an unstructured interview, interviewers tend to make their decisions f a i r l y early. Methodological and structural properties of interviews (8) The interview can be re l i a b l y divided into various types of units. This permits a microanalytic approach to studying interview a c t i v i t i e s and dynamics. (9) The intra-rater r e l i a b i l i t y of the interview appears to be rela t i v e l y high. Test-retest time spans are of varying length, though, and no work has been done to isolate the effect which memory plays upon the retest outcomes. -10 (10) An unstructured interview with no p r i o r information 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 f o r a general s u i t a b i l i t y r a t i n g . (11) Material i s not c o n s i s t e n t l y covered i n an un-structured 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 generally higher f o r a structured interview than f o r an unstructured interview. Evidence also seems to i n d i c a t e that " s t r u c t u r i n g an interview increases i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y when interviewers from the same company use the same form, but that two d i f f e r e n t structured forms may lead to completely d i f f e r e n t r a t i n g s when used with the same interviewee." (13) Although 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 of interview s i t u a t i o n s , v a l i d i t i e s are generally quite low. (14) Only the i n t e l l i g e n c e t r a i t of an interviewee has been found to be judged s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . This appears to contradict U l r i c h and Trumbo's (1965) conclusion that motivation to work and personal r e l a t i o n s ( s o c i a b i l i t y ) show the greatest evidence of v a l i d i t y i n interviewer decisions. Each reviewer has excluded the conclusion of the other. Mayfield made no mention of motivation to work and s o c i a b i l i t y and U l r i c h and Trumbo did not consider the 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 look at the b i b l i o g r a p h i e s of each review reveals that neither included those research studies relevant to the other's conclusion. -11-(15) Answers given by interviewees are affe c t e d by the form i n which the question i s asked. Mayfield also discussed some of the overwhelming method-o l o g i c a l problems which a r i s e when attempting to compare studies of interviews. There i s frequently a v a r i a t i o n among studies i n the amount of structure imposed on r a t i n g forms and i n the types of t r a i t s or behavioural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on which subjects are asked to make judgments. Interview length i s often quite v a r i a b l e as i s the type of job f o r which applicants are being rated. Furthermore, the c r i t e r i a of success i n p r e d i c t i o n are frequently d i f f e r e n t and often 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 using job performance measures as dependent v a r i a b l e s to v a l i d a t i n g t r a i t s by using other measures of the same t r a i t s . C r i s s y (1952) dealt with t h i s issue at great length. Throughout h i s review Mayfield assumed that the most frequently used type of employment interview i s unstructured. However, he of f e r e d no i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of what "unstructured" means and gave no empirical evidence to support t h i s assumption. Two of the above conclusions drawn by Mayfield ( i . e . interviewers are generally influenced by unfavourable rather than favourable information and interviewers tend to make decisions e a r l y i n the interview) were derived from the se r i e s of studies presented by Webster (1964-). This most important book r e a l l y set the stage f o r the recent developments i n interviewing research. B a s i c a l l y , what -1*2-Webster and h i s associates did was to address themselves to problems of i d e n t i f y i n g the processes and conditions i n an interview which produce employment decisions. Rather than looking at the v a l i d i t y or r e l i a b i l i t y of decisions they looked at how the decisions themselves were developed. Webster's (1964-) work summarized nine years of h i s research and that of h i s colleagues and former graduate students at Mc G i l l U n i v e r s i t y (notably, B.M. Springbett, D. Sydiaha, C.W. Anderson, Areta Crowell and P a t r i c i a Rowe). Webster's analysis drew seven major conclusions. 1. Interviewers develop a stereotype of a good candidate and seek to match men and stereotypes. This f i n d i n g was i n i t i a l l y reported by Sydiaha (1958) and l a t e r supported by Rowe (1963). Rowe's research also pointed out that stereotypes tend to be "good" rather than "bad." 2. A bias i s established e a r l y i n the interview and tends to be followed e i t h e r by a favourable or by an unfavourable d e c i s i o n . This f i n d i n g was i n i t i a l l y reported by Springbett (1954) and l a t e r substantiated by Sydiaha (1961), Anderson (I960) and Lambert et_ al_ (I960). Furthermore, Anderson showed that interviewers tend to speak more when a decision 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 are more influenced by unfavourable than by favourable information. This f i n d i n g was f i r s t suggested -13-by Crissy and Regan (1951). Later evidence (Springbett, 1958; B o l s t e r and Springbett, 1961, and Rowe, i960) l e n t credence to t h i s discovery as did the more recent works of M i l l e r and Rowe (1967), Mayfield and Carlson (1966) and Blakeney and McNaughton (1971). 4. Interviewers seek information to support or refute hypotheses and when s a t i s f i e d , they turn 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 that interviewers change the emphasis they place on parts of information i n order to confirm e a r l y impressions. Webster reported that the evidence f o r t h i s f i n d i n g was not as conclusive as f o r the other ones. 5. Empathy r e l a t i o n s h i p s are s p e c i f i c to i n d i v i d u a l interviewers. Sydiaha (1962) discussed the problems which may a r i s e by t r e a t i n g the extent to which an empathic r e l a t i o n -ship can be obtained between interviewer and applicant as a basis f o r s e l e c t i o n decisions. The most notable problem a r i s e s out of the evidence he reported showing that the empathically based de c i s i o n may not be consistent from one i n d i v i d u a l to another. Largely, Sydiaha expressed caution against using common sense or 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 guide. He stated that with t h i s approach "the decision making cues w i l l be unspecified, unknown or s p e c i f i c to the interviewer". 6. Feeding information to a judge piece by piece a f f e c t s the d e c i s i o n . Crowell (1961) reported evidence which suggests r-14~ that when judges are given a l l information simultaneously, t h e i r decisions are d i f f e r e n t from and better than when information i s given piece by piece. Her experiment was performed i n a laboratory s e t t i n g and, as Webster stated, "generalization ... to the employment interview must be made t e n t a t i v e l y with a good deal of caution". No other research which aims at r e p l i c a t i n g t h i s study could be located. 7. Experienced interviewers rank applicants i n jbhe same order although they d i f f e r i n the proportion they w i l l accept. This f i n d i n g was reported by Rowe (1963) and represented the f i r s t major piece of research which recognized differences among interviewers and, hence, treated interviewers as an independent v a r i a b l e a f f e c t i n g s e l e c t i o n decisions. Rowe found an ordered pattern of acceptance among judges. "Those who accept a small proportion of candidates accept i n d i v i d u a l s who are most frequently accepted by a l l judges; those who accept a large proportion are favourably disposed toward men accepted by more s e l e c t i v e interviewers." More experienced interviewers were found to be more s e l e c t i v e . The term "judges" i s employed rather than "interviewers" since the research involved persons 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 of written or graphic information and not on information gathered i n an actual personal interview. "Interviewers" per se were not used i n the samples nor were interviews per se a c t u a l l y c a r r i e d out. -15-This s e r i e s of conclusions marked a change i n the d i r e c t i o n taken when researching the interview. The processes which l e d to d e c i s i o n a l outcomes became the focus rather than the e a r l i e r approach of analyzing the outcomes themselves i n terms of 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 . This i s not to say that v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y l o s t importance. They only were placed i n a more causative perspective. More current research on the employment interview has been performed notably by two research teams. These teams were r e s p e c t i v e l y Eugene Mayfield and Robert Carlson of the L i f e Insurance Agency Management Association (LIAMA) and 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. The LIAMA team undertook t h e i r program of research i n an attempt to understand the mechanism of the interview and to improve the use of t h i s s e l e c t i o n device i n the l i f e insurance industry (Carlson et _al, 1 9 7 1 ) . Their experimental designs were b a s i c a l l y the same as those employed i n the McGill studies; d e c i s i o n a l outcomes were dependent v a r i a b l e s affected by c o n t r o l l i n g and modifying processes and influences within the interview structure. I t i s worth noting at t h i s point that the LIAMA group and the McGill group generally used a paper and p e n c i l approach when presenting the interviewees to the interviewers ( r a t e r s ) . That i s , the interviewees were not p h y s i c a l l y present but were described on paper. Mayfield and Carlson (1966) described -16. t h i s approach as being quick, thereby permitting a wide scope of applicant information to be given, and experimentally convenient, i n that i t "allows control of the many outside v a r i a b l e s which otherwise might a f f e c t the r e s u l t s " . They fur t h e r stated that " r e s u l t s obtained by t h i s method could l a t e r be compared to those obtained when information i s presented by other means... to determine i f the mode of presentation has any e f f e c t " . Video-tape may c e r t a i n l y be one of these "other means" with which to compare. Carlson et a l i d e n t i f i e d four main classes of influences which operate to a f f e c t or l i m i t the interviewer's decisions. These were: 1. The p h y s i c a l and psychological properties of the interviewee; 2 . The ph y s i c a l and psychological properties of the interviewer; 3. The situation/environment i n which the interviewer works; 4. The task or type of judgment the interviewer must make. A d e t a i l e d summary of t h e i r research f i n d i n g s may be found i n t h e i r recent paper (Carlson, Thayer, Mayfield and Peterson, 1971) . Some of the more important r e s u l t s are as follows: 1. Using both photographs to represent physical appearance and personal h i s t o r y descriptions to depict interviewees' backgrounds, Carlson (1967) found that the r a t i n g of the photograph alone had a minimal e f f e c t on the mean r a t i n g of the o v e r a l l applicant. Appearance accounted f o r l e s s than 3% of the variance i n the mean r a t i n g of the applicant while the personal h i s t o r y accounted f o r about 40$. Furthermore, photographs were found to be most i n f l u e n t i a l when they complem-ented the personal h i s t o r y d e s c r i p t i o n . However, the impor-tance of appearance cannot be underestimated. In a b r i e f summary of studies exploring the e f f e c t s of appearance .. on interpersonal perception, Hakel et a l (1970) stated that appearance alone can r e s u l t i n l a s t i n g and well-structured interpersonal impressions. I t should be noted that i n the studies Hakel et_ al_ describe actual physical presence formed the basis of appearance rather than the photograph technique employed by Carlson. This may explain some of the discrepancy i n emphasis placed on the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . 2. In an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the extent to which interviewer experience a f f e c t s d e c i s i o n a l outcomes, Carlson (1967) found that there i s l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between the extent to which exper-ienced interviewers agree with each other and the extent to which inexperienced interviewers agree with each other. He postulated some reasons f o r t h i s occurrence as being that (1)"managers (interviewers) need not share the same or hi g h l y s i m i l a r experiences which would be necessary to increase i n t e r - r a t e r agreement" and (2) there i s u s u a l l y l i t t l e systematic feedback which would serve to increase inter-and i n t r a - r a t e r agreement. The only report of where experience does a f f e c t outcomes i s described i n (4) below. This work tended to l i m i t the v e r a c i t y of conclusions as to the e f f e c t s of interviewer experience as reported by Rowe (1963). =18-3. A study by Carlson, Schwab and Henemarm(1970) showed that i n t e r - r a t e r agreement was higher i n structured interviews than i n unstructured or semi-structured interviews hence showing that with more structure the l i k e l i h o o d of v a l i d s e l e c t i o n i s greater. The researchers c o n t r o l l e d f o r three conditions of structure (structured, unstructured and semi-structured) and within each condition gave 6 male interviewers 5 job applicants to rank-order. Inter-interviewer agreement i n terms of these rankings was highest f o r the structured group and lowest f o r the unstructured group. An e a r l i e r study by Schwab and Henemann (1969) also supported these conclusions. 4-. When interviewers are behind a s t i p u l a t e d quota Carlson (1967) found that they generally tend to evaluate applicants higher than i f no quota existed. Furthermore, he reported that i n t e r - r a t e r agreement was higher when r a t e r s were e i t h e r extremely ahead of or behind schedule, although the ratings i n these conditions were somewhat impaired. One other i n t e r -esting f i n d i n g which emerged here was that more experienced interviewers were l e s s susceptible to the pressure conditions than l e s s experienced interviewers. The former were more consistent i n ratings with and without a quota than were the l a t t e r . 5 . Carlson et a l (1971) reported a recent study wherein i t was found that when interviewers d i d not take notes or follow an interview guide the accuracy of r e c a l l of applicant - 1 9 -c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was lower than i f they had followed such procedures. Furthermore, when h i s accuracy was low the interviewer tended to evaluate the applicant quite favourably i n d i c a t i n g the existence of a "halo strategy." 6 . Mayfield and Carlson ( 1 9 6 6 ) postulated the hypothesis that stereotypes, c o n s i s t i n g of features s p e c i f i c to each interviewer and general to an associated group of interviewers, form a major basis f o r employment decisions. A l a t e r study (Carlson et _al, 1 9 7 1 ) supported t h i s hypothesis and l e n t f u r t h e r credence to Sydiaha 1s ( 1 9 5 8 ) work, reported e a r l i e r . Furthermore, Carlson et a l ( 1 9 7 1 ) found that when the stereo-type was i n operation, i n t e r - r a t e r agreement was higher than when i t was not. This was due to the f i n d i n g that approxi-mately 70% of the fa c t o r s considered relevant to making decisions were common to the r a t e r s i n the study, while 30% were s p e c i f i c to each r a t e r . This gave empirical support to Rowe's ( 1 9 6 3 ) contention that stereotypes tend to be "good" rather than "bad". However, i t must be recognized that t h i s does not ensure higher v a l i d i t i e s based on job behaviour c r i t e r i a (Mayfield, 1 9 6 4 ) . 7 . On the basis of two research studies, Carlson ( 1 9 6 8 , 1 9 7 0 ) argued that interviewers do not rate i n terms of an absolute standard but rather with respect to r e l a t i v e compar-isons. Applicants being interviewed by one interviewer were -20-evaluated according to one another. It was found that when an average applicant was being considered by an interviewer who had just evaluated three or four very unfavourable applicants, the average applicant was rated very favourably. This finding i s not consistent with other work performed by Hakel et a l (Hakel, Ohnesorge and Dunnette, 1970) who re-ported that while "contrast effects" exist, they account for very minor amounts of variance. From these findings the LIAMA group began to propose ways of improving the selection interview. The two major applied implications were stated as follows: " F i r s t , the selection interview should be made an integral part of an over-all selection procedure, and to accomplish this, new and additional materials are needed. The new materials should include a broad-gauge, comprehensive, structured interview guide; standardized evaluation and prediction forms that aid the interviewer i n summarizing information from a l l steps in the selection process; and an evaluation system that provides feedback to the interviewer i n language similar to the preemployment job behaviour pre-dictions he must make. The second major applied implication i s that an intensive training program for interviewers i s necessary i f interviewers are to i n i t i a l l y learn enough i n common to increase the probability of obtaining general v a l i d i t y from the selection interview." (Carlson, et a l , 1971, p. 273) A second main stream of research i n employment inter-viewing was pursued by Milton Hakel and his associates at the University of Ohio and the University of Minnesota. These investigators have followed a rather different course from the LIAMA team by focusing upon the theoretical and empirically -21-founded notion of interpersonal perception. In a recent monograph, Checklists f o r Describing Job Applicants (Hakel and Dunnette, 1970), the McGill studies (Webster, 1964) were i n t e r p r e t e d i n terms of t h i s framework and a model of Interpersonal Perception was developed on which to base future studies of employment interviewing. While t h e i r research summary i s not d e t a i l e d here, an exploration i s made of a number of important findings from t h e i r research. These are as follows: 1) As described e a r l i e r , Carlson (1968, 1970) offered evidence to support the argument that interviewers do not rate i n terms of an absolute standard but rather with respect to r e l a t i v e comparisons. For example, an average applicant w i l l be evaluated favourably when he i s preceded by unfavourable applicants or unfavourably when preceded by favourable applicants. Rowe (1967) of f e r e d evidence which showed a s i m i l a r r e s u l t and l e d her to conclude that "whether an i n d i v i d u a l i s accepted or r e j e c t e d f o r a job may well depend more on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the previous applicants than on h i s own t r a i t s " , (p. 173). However, Hakel, Ohnesorge and Dunnette (1970) provided evidence to severely l i m i t the heretofore postulated influence of "contrast e f f e c t s . " They concluded that, indeed, contrast e f f e c t s are present. Yet they only account f o r 1.2$ of the d e c i s i o n variance f o r a group of 97 employment interviewers and 1.9$ of the decision variance f o r a group of 102 male - 2 2 -psychology students, amounts which, they stated, are f o r p r a c t i c a l purposes "nearly t r i v i a l . " Furthermore, a re-evaluation of Rowe's ( 1 9 6 7 ) data shows that contrast e f f e c t s account f o r only . 7 $ of d e c i s i o n variance. Contrast e f f e c t s are not as potent as p r e v i o u s l y b e l i e v e d . This f i n d i n g i s more consistent with the notion of "stereotypes" and t h e i r influence on d e c i s i o n a l outcomes. Mayfield and Carlson (1966)> Carlson et_ a l ( 1 9 7 1 ) and Sydiaha ( 1 9 5 8 ) drew the conclusion that interviewers base decisions i n large part upon the "stereotype" of an i d e a l or at l e a s t acceptable candidate. Furthermore, the stereotype consisted p a r t l y of features s p e c i f i c to each interviewer and, i n the main, of features common to a l l interviewers (Carlson et a l , 1 9 7 1 ) . This would suggest that the standard of evaluation i s more absolute than r e l a t i v e , an idea quite contrary to the notion of contrast e f f e c t s which implies a r e l a t i v e standard. 2 ) Recognizing that stereotypes play an important r o l e i n employment decisions, Hakel, Hollmann and Dunnette ( 1 9 7 0 ) explored the extent to which interviewers' stereotypes are accurate. They took three samples of r a t e r s ; interviewers (N = 14), C e r t i f i e d Public Accountants who interview (N = 2 3 ) , and students (N = 2 0 ) and compared how well they i d e n t i f i e d the i n t e r e s t s of accountants. The t e s t instrument which they used was a 5 7 - item forced-choice t e s t constructed using data from the CPA scale of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. Their findings were e s s e n t i a l l y two-fold. F i r s t , - 2 3 -among these three samples, r a t e r accuracy was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t and i n each case was quite low. Stereotypes were used as a basis f o r decisions but, unfortunately, were sorely l a c k i n g i n accuracy. Second, f a c t o r analysis of the data y i e l d e d two d i s t i n c t c l u s t e r s . The f i r s t c l u s t e r consisted l a r g e l y of CPA's while the second was populated by mostly interviewers and students. The authors concluded that the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of r a t e r s r e s u l t i n an impression of a somewhat unique stereo-type. CPA's have a s i m i l a r background and hence form a s i m i l a r stereotype (although t h i s background i s moderated by other fact o r s such as age). Likewise, interviewers and students have formed stereotypes based on t h e i r exposure to the accounting profession; 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. This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s consistent with the theory and research underlying inter-personal perception (Hakel and Dunnette, 1 9 7 0 ) . 3 . In h i s review of research on the employment interview, Wright ( 1 9 6 9 ) supported emphasis on macroanalytic studies which would show the existence of s i m i l a r i t i e s or d i f f e r e n c e s across interviews. Hakel and Schuh ( 1 9 7 1 ) have performed the only recent piece of research which s u i t s Wright's 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 judged to be important, frequently considered and favourable by seven diverse occupational groups. Their study i d e n t i f i e d some important s i m i l a r i t i e s among occupations i n terms of interviewing.-As the authors suggest, incorporation of these 2 2 items i n t o interviewer t r a i n i n g programs would enhance interviewer -24-transferability. Also, these items could be used as a base for patterned interview guides for general use as recommended by Carlson et al (1971). 4. Considerable work has been performed isolating the favourability of applicant information as an independent variable and examining i t s effects upon decisional outcomes (Bolster and Springbett, 1961; Miller 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 had been attributed. This i s an important concern since, as Hakel et al 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 overall suit-a b i l i t y " . These authors varied the extent of favourability of three content dimensions, scholastic standing, business experience and interest and a c t i v i t i e s , and developed twelve descriptive combinations i n resume-form. Two samples (CPA interviewer, N = 22; students, N = 20) were given the task of evaluating these resumes as to overall s u i t a b i l i t y . The findings demonstrated that content moderates the evaluation of job applicants. Prom among the three content dimensions manipulated, scholastic standing played a major role i n interviewers' decisions. This finding does not infer that scholastic standing i s the most important interviewee attribute. Rather, i t suggests that at a specific l e v e l , among the three dimensions Hakel et a l studied, scholastic standing was most - 2 5 -important. More important, at a general level, this research demonstrated that content categories have d i f f e r e n t i a l influences on decisional outcomes. While they have contributed much to an understanding of what goes on during employment interviews, Hakel and his associates have only begun to explain some of the causative factors affecting decisional outcomes. Future research based on their model and Checklists as described in their recent monograph w i l l undoubtedly shed more ligh t i n this regard. CONCLUSION Recent research has taken the direction suggested at the start of this research summary; that research on the em-ployment interview should not be aimed at discrediting i t so much toward improving i t s predictive capability. Prior to the recent series of investigation, summar-ized above, the interview was f e l t to have low r e l i a b i l i t y and even less v a l i d i t y . However, current findings suggest ways to reduce these negative characteristics. Furthermore, Gh 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 and can capably use i t to predict future performance. Similar findings are gradually being reported (Grant and Bray, 1969; Palacios, Newberry and Bootgin, 1966). The present study has attempted to incorporate many of these findings into i t s design where-ever relevant, as i s described i n Chapter 3. -26-SECTION 2: FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS What f u r t h e r d i r e c t i o n s can research of the employment interview take? Undoubtedly there are many, as future research w i l l demonstrate. However, f i v e such proposals are explored here. I- D i f f e r e n t Samples' Webster's studies were conducted p r i m a r i l y with Personnel S e l e c t i o n O f f i c e r s i n the Canadian Armed Forces acting as interviewers. Carlson et a l ' s analyses were l a r g e l y made upon insurance 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 information 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 . I I . Interpersonal Perception Hakel and Dunnette ( 1 9 7 0 ) proposed a model of i n t e r -personal perception which could be employed as a basis f o r analysis of d e c i s i o n making i n the employment interview. These authors stated that "learning about another person can be viewed as e s s e n t i a l l y a matter of gathering and processing information about that person i n the context of other i n f o r -mation he has about himself, others he has observed and stereo-types he has formed". Involved i n t h i s framework i s a highly complex network of processes and conditions, drawing not only upon perception theory but also upon p e r s o n a l i t y theory and expectancy theory. I t s u t i l i t y as an i n t e r p r e t i v e system of the dynamics of interviewing i s c l e a r l y shown i n the Hakel and Dunnette monograph ( 1 9 7 0 ) . The use of such an approach adds an important dimension to the study of the interview. Not only does i t provide a - 2 7 -theoreti.cal basis but i t also offers methodologies for the examination of various constructs (e.g. perceptual accuracy and impression formation) which affect the decision making processes i n interviews. Hakel and Dunnette ( 1 9 7 0 ) demon-strated i t s theoretical usefulness as they interpreted several of Webster's (1964-) findings i n the li g h t of interpersonal perception theory and related 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, offers u t i l i t y both i n a theor-et i c a l and practical sense. With such a theoretical frame-work, findings i n interviewing research may be tied together thereby f a c i l i t a t i n g interpretation and identifying inter-relationships. To date, such a framework was clearly missing. As Lewin ( 1 9 4 - 5 ) stated, "there i s nothing so practical as a good theory". Hakel and Dunnette proposed such a theory. III. Evaluation of Rating Forms Much work has been done investigating factors i n f l u -encing decisional outcomes. However, very l i t t l e has been de-voted to analyzing the actual rating form used by interviewers. Hakel et al used only overall s u i t a b i l i t y as the dependent variable i n their microanalytic studies. Rowe ( 1 9 7 0 ) 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 this approach would enhance intrarater 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 this approach. Carlson ( 1 9 6 7 ) u t i l i z e d an accept--28-r e j e c t decision and a rank order approach. He also stated that subjects were to evaluate a "predicted behavior r a t i n g scale" although he offered no d e s c r i p t i o n . Springbett (1954 c i t e d i n Webster, 1964) used a six-point descriptive-anchored accept-ance-rejection s c a l e . Crowell (1961 c i t e d i n Webster, 1964) asked interviewers to e i t h e r accept or r e j e c t applicants as did Sydiaha (1961) and Rowe (1963). Other studies have used t r a i t - r a t i n g scales (e.g. Wagner, 1949) as dependent v a r i a b l e s . Besides Wagner's summary of r e l i -a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of interview's using these scales as dep-endent v a r i a b l e s , Rowe (1970) addressed the problem of how rating-forms (be they r a t i n g s of t r a i t s and/or o v e r a l l s u i t -a b i l i t y , accept-reject decisions, or rank-orderings) a f f e c t 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 . Using rankings, she reported i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y scores as high as .812, with 1 7 of 20 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 .05 l e v e l . Wagner reported r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s as high as .96 f o r the i n t e l l i g e n c e t r a i t , .87 f o r s o c i a b i l i t y and .77 f o r s e l f -confidence. For o v e r a l l a b i l i t y , a maximum r a t i n g of .85 was reported (Scott, Bingham and Whipple, 1916). The method f o r achieving t h i s c o e f f i c i e n t was a c o r r e l a t i o n between sets of rank-ordering. While t h i s supports Rowe's contention, i t must be taken rather l i g h t l y due to methodological inadequacies, as described by Wagner. I t would seem that a simple accept-reject decision would be most s u i t a b l e . A f t e r a l l , t h i s r e f l e c t s the primary function of the interview. However, i t appears that most -29-interviewers l i k e to have some record of the basis f o r accept-ance or r e j e c t i o n of candidates and consequently include t r a i t s i n t h e i r r a t i n g forms. Unfortunately, as Wagner (194-9) pointed out the 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 r a tings i s at best meagre. Also, very frequently there i s l i t t l e , i f any, evidence to suggest that the t r a i t s examined have any bearing on p o t e n t i a l success. T h i r d l y , as Wonderlic (194-2) stated "few (interviewers) follow a well defined pattern and the interview generally amounts to a disorganized conversation r e s u l t i n g i n a series of impressions based upon impulsive reactions". There u s u a l l y i s no systematic procedure i n the interview f o r forming adequate t r a i t impressions. F i n a l l y , there i s no evidence to show the d i f f e r e n t i a l influence which t r a i t ratings have upon o v e r a l l s u i t a b i l i t y . Perhaps the most constructive d i r e c t i o n f o r exploring interview r a t i n g forms was taken by Maas (1965) using the procedure proposed by Smith and Kendall (1963). One problem with many t r a i t r a t i n g forms i s that there i s often l i t t l e agreement among r a t e r s as to the meaning of c e r t a i n t r a i t s and as to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the t r a i t l e v e l s . What might be "good" to one r a t e r might be "very good" to another. What might be rated as "1" by one r a t e r might be rated "3" by another. Maas (1965) addressed t h i s problem by constructing a "patterned scaled expectation interview". Employing Smith and Kendall's (1963) technique, 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 of t r a i t s which were deemed to be important f o r the -30-position 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 levels 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 traditional rating adjectives (e.g. good, very good, satis-factory, etc.) for each t r a i t l e v e l , then, Maas employed behavioural descriptions of t r a i t levels. 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 total of 2,268 interviews were conducted to study inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y using two different rating scales; traditional adjective rating scales and the scaled expectation technique. Using patterned interviews with both types of scales, Maas found significantly higher inter-rater r e l i a b i l -i t y coefficients 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 setting. Maas' study was performed i n an educational setting. The present study examines the rating form used by the Bank of Montreal, i . e . i n an industrial setting. The rating form i s studied i n terms of inter- and intra-rater r e l i a b i l i t y as well as halo error. -31-IV. Modes of Applicant Presentation - Video-Tape As described e a r l i e r , the LIAMA group and the M c G i l l group generally employed a paper and p e n c i l approach when presenting candidates. The interviewees were not p h y s i c a l l y present but were described i n written form. Mayfield and Carlson (1966) describe t h i s approach as being quick, thereby permitting a wide scope of applicant information to be given, and experimentally convenient, i n that i t permits c o n t r o l over extraneous v a r i a b l e s . They fu r t h e r stated that " r e s u l t s obtained by t h i s method could be compared l a t e r to those obtained when information i s presented by other means...to determine i f the mode of presentation has any e f f e c t " , (p.4-3). C e r t a i n l y other modes of information preparation have been u t i l i z e d . Kasl and Mahl (1956) used tape recordings of actual interviews as did Wiens, Molde, Holman and Matarazzo (1966). Findings from the l a t t e r study suggest that interview i n t e r a c t i o n measures can be r e l i a b l y gathered from tape recorded interviews. However, only one recent study (Blakeney and MacNaughton 1971) has attempted to r e p l i c a t e any of these decision-making studies using a mode of presentation d i f f e r e n t from the paper and p e n c i l technique. These authors used tape recordings to t e s t the v e r a c i t y of B o l s t e r and Springbett's (1961) conclusion that there was a modified primacy e f f e c t operating i n interviews This "modified primacy e f f e c t " was based on Bruner's (1957) hypothesis that a "gating" phenomenon e x i s t s i n interview -32-Their findings did not f u i i y support B o l s t e r and Springbett's and the question was r a i s e d as to whether or not the d i f f e r e n c e occurred as a r e s u l t of using an alternate mode of applicant presentation. Indeed, interview research would be thrown i n a turmoil i f t h i s question were answered a f f i r m a t i v e l y . C e r t a i n l y the issue must be r a i s e d as to whether or not the experimental convenience of the paper and p e n c i l technique compensates f o r i t s lack of realism. The interview has u t i l i t y mainly i n terms of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , a condition completely eliminated with paper and p e n c i l . P o s s i b l y other means such as tape recordings or video tapes could be employed. Blakeney and MacNaughton ( 1 9 7 1 ) have demonstrated that the content of audio-taped interviews can be capably manipulated. Furthermore, Grant and Bray ( 1 9 6 9 ) demonstrated that audio tapes of r e l a t i v e l y unstructured interviews can o f f e r r e l i a b l e and v a l i d information. As a basis 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 , taped i . e . , interviewers decrease the range of s t i m u l i they perceive as the interview progresses. B o l s t e r and Springbett ( 1 9 6 1 ) looked at t h i s phenomenon i n terms of the e f f e c t s of placement of unfavourable information at various stages throughout the interview. They argued and supported the hypothesis that i f unfavourable information comes ea r l y i n the interview 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 hypothesized that (a) i f negative information comes i n the f i r s t t h i r d of the interview the r a t i n g s of applicants w i l l be the lowest, (b) i f negative information comes during the second t h i r d of the interview ratings w i l l be intermediate, (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 highest. 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 negative information was presented during the f i r s t t h i r d of the i n t e r -view and r a t i n g when negative information was presented during the second t h i r d . playbacks can serve a use f u l function. As C r i s s y (1952) described, a design f o r estimating i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y could consist of making "soundscripts" of completed interviews. A f t e r a time period, the interviewer could re-appraise each interviewee on the basis of the playbacks. Using e i t h e r audio-or video-tape recordings t h i s method i s f e a s i b l e . No work i n these regards has been performed with video-tape s p e c i f i c a l l y , although some i n v e s t i g a t i o n s have been made. Moore and Craik (1971) explored personnel administrators* and students' ( p o t e n t i a l interviewees) a t t i t u d e s towards the use of video-tape as an aid to employment interviewing. The most relevant aspect of t h e i r research here i s the respondents perceptions of how r e a l i s t i c a l l y playback of video-tape intex*-views portrays a number of important interviewee character-i s t i c s . These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s include appearance, manner, voice, expression, force or dr i v e , i n t e l l i g e n c e , i n t e r e s t , s o c i a l s e n s i t i v i t i t y , experience, knowledge of f i e l d , nervous-ness, stress and judgment. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences between the two samples were found. More than sixty-seven percent of the administrators checked "somewhat r e a l i s t i c " or "very r e a l i s t i c " 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 s e n s i t i v i t y , knowledge of f i e l d , stress and judgment. Over sixty-seven percent of the students checked "somewhat r e a l i s t i c " or "very 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 judgment. For 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 percent of the respondents i n both samples checked as being r e a l i s t i c , an "unable to judge" response was very highly rated, i n d i c a t i n g that these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were probably l e s s prominent i n the interviews shown. This research i s important i n that i t demonstrated that c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of interviewees commonly held to be important by r a t e r s are adequately portrayed over video-tape. However, a more important issue e x i s t s ; namely whether or not the r a t i n g s given by viewers of video taped interviews are i n any way d i f f e r e n t from ra t i n g s given by face-to-face interviewers. This has importance i n both p r a c t i c e and research. I f an organization chooses to use video-tape i n i t s personnel s e l e c t i o n process i t i s important to have knowledge of the differences between face-to-face and video-taped interviews i n order to compensate f o r them. Furthermore, i f interviewing research i s conducted using video-tape or f i l m s , as has been done or proposed (Wexley, Yukl, Kovacs and Sanders, 1 9 7 2 ; Cline and Richards, 1 9 6 1 ; Crissy, 1 9 5 2 ) , then i t i s necessary to recognize that perhaps the video-taped interview i s d i f f e r e n t i n some ways than the actual face-to-face interview. McLuhan (1964-) argued that the medium over which a message i s transmitted forms part of the message i t s e l f . I f t h i s i s the case, then researchers using video-tape are not studying the interview per se but the videotaped interview. This issue i s examined here. V. Group vs Individual Raters Much work i n s o c i a l psychological research has been performed exploring differences between groups and i n d i v i d u a l s - 3 5 -i n terms of d e c i s i o n making. However, very l i t t l e research has focused upon these di f f e r e n c e s i n terms of d e c i s i o n -making i n the employment interview. Most of the e a r l y comparative work was d i r e c t e d at exploring the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of group versus i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n a l outcomes. Table 1 provides a summary of the r e l i -a b i l i t i e s found i n some of these studies. H a l l , Mouton and 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 and i n d i v i d u a l s i n terms of decision-making outcomes. They seg-mented three h i s t o r i c a l l y accepted t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n s . The f i r s t i s the notion of "pooled products". Here, an average of i n d i v i d u a l decisions i s taken as being the more correct than any one person's d e c i s i o n . This s t a t i s t i c a l pooling was seen by other researchers as being too s i m p l i s t i c and not able to properly explain the group and i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . This l e d to the second p o s i t i o n termed the "emergent product." Here, the stand taken was that discussion and, generally, interpersonal a c t i v i t y i n a group " c a r r i e d the group toward a correct rather than an i n c o r r e c t decision." The important point here, then, i s the p o s i t i v e e f f e c t of 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 of the form elucidated by Maier ( 1 9 6 7 ) i n h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of "group assets." The t h i r d p o s i t i o n i s c a l l e d the "compromise product". The key notion here i s "bargaining" leading to compromise i n contrast to the " i n t e -g r a t i o n of the best ideas" of 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 Type of Judgment and Author The R e l i a b i l i t y of Judgments of Indi v i d u a l s and of Groups v Groups Size of Groups Individuals 5 10 ' 20 40 Weights: Gordon, 1 9 2 4 Weights: Stroop, 1 9 3 2 Weights: Bruce, 1 9 3 5 Numerosity of shot: Bruce, 1 9 3 5 P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s Smith, 1 9 3 1 E s t h e t i c Judg-ments Eysenck, 1 9 3 9 .41 .38 . 5 0 .82 .37 A7 .68 . 7 9 .86 .68 .85 . 9 2 ,67 .83 .86 .87 .87 .94 .94 .84 .46 .49 .49 , 7 7 .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. - 3 7 -i n the "emergent product" p o s i t i o n . What i s argued here i s that as a r e s u l t of l a r g e l y p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s i n a group, a group's de c i s i o n w i l l he more mediocre than the average of the i n d i v i d u a l decisions. The forces operating here resemble those headed by Maier's ( 1 9 6 7 ) "group l i a b i l i t i e s " c l a s s i -f i c a t i o n . Increased concern f o r group functioning and processes arose p r i m a r i l y as a r e s u l t of the Human Relations movement and the consequent push to involve subordinates to take active r o l e s i n the dec i s i o n making process. A wealth of research has been undertaken to explore the elements of e f f e c t i v e group functioning. A summary of research findings i n t h i s regard i s found i n H a l l and Williams ( 1 9 7 0 ) , Cartwright and Zander ( 1 9 6 8 ) and Lorge et a l ( 1 9 5 8 ) . As stated e a r l i e r , there i s l i t t l e work reported which inve 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 of employment decisions. A number of studies have used groups (Schwab and Heneman, 1 9 6 9 ; Carlson, Schwab and Heneman, 1 9 7 0 ) , yet only one o f f e r e d r e l i a b i l i t y data (Howell and Vincent, 1 9 7 0 ) and another examined group vs i n d i v i d u a l accuracy i n judging p e r s o n a l i t y (Cline and Richards, 1 9 6 1 ) . Howell and Vincent ( 1 9 7 0 ) reported r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s of . 8 9 and .92. f o r three member boards and . 9 1 to . 9 4 f o r boards of four members. In the exploration of aspects of interpersonal perception, Cline and Richards ( 1 9 6 1 ) had a sample of 186 students view s i x filmed interviews and f i r s t rate the i n t e r -viewers on p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s f i r s t as i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s and then as groups of three. 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) the accuracy of an " a r t i f i c i a l group" derived through a s t a t i s t i c a l combination of the indep-endent p r e d i c t i o n s of these same three persons and (d) the accuracy of the "best judge" from each group. Their findings showed that l e a s t accurate ra t i n g s were obtained from i n d i v -i d u a l s . They also 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 the other three procedures. Although, i n terms of time, and procedural d i f f i c u l t i e s , the a r t i f i c i a l group appeared most s a t i s f a c t o r y . Recently, Hollowman and Hendrick (1971) compared group consensus scores to averaged i n d i v i d u a l scores f o r decision accuracy when group size was var i e d . For groups of several s i z e s (3,6,9,12,15) group scores were more accurate than averages of i n d i v i d u a l scores i n completing a complex d e c i s i o n making task r e q u i r i n g group i n t e r a c t i o n and di s c u s s i o n . In summary, then, these studies suggested that groups o f f e r more r e l i a b l e and accurate decisions than i n d i v i d u a l s . This conclusion however must be pnly t e n t a t i v e l y accepted. Campbell (1968) showed that with a complex r e a l i s t i c s i t u a t i o n , the Change of Work Problem (Maier, Solem and Maier, 1957), "the q u a l i t y of the group s o l u t i o n was i n f e r i o r to the nominal group's composite score and was even i n f e r i o r to the average i n d i v i d u a l s o l u t i o n " (p.209). Campbell stated that group p a r t i c i p a t i o n and discussion tended to be i n h i b i t o r y rather _39-than b e n e f i c i a l . He further concluded that comparisons between group and i n d i v i d u a l decisions hinged upon the type of problem used f o r a n a l y s i s . In terms of the employment decision type of problem no research has been reported which d i r e c t l y compares i n d i v i d u a l s and groups. Group or panel interviewing i s widely used (OSS, 1948; Taft, 1959) yet i t s effectiveness compared to i n d i v i d u a l interviewing 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 decisions i n the interview 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 of recent i n v e s t i g a t i o n s examining the employment interview and to focus upon a number of areas where future research could be d i r e c t e d and where the research reported i n t h i s paper i s j u s t i f i e d . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s paper intends to analyze three major questions r e l a t e d to the interview. These are: 1. What differences i f any e x i s t between ratings given by viewers of video-taped interviews and by actual interviewers i n face-to-face settings? This would provide information regarding considerations to make when video-tape i s intended to be used f o r e i t h e r employment decisions or research on the employment interview. 2. What differences e x i s t between ratings of i n t e r -viewees as given by group and i n d i v i d u a l raters? No research has been reported which looks at these differences i n the - 4 0 -interview s e t t i n g . The types of dimensions analyzed here would have a bearing on some of the psychometric properties of the Bank of Montreal's r a t i n g form. 3 . What at t i t u d e s do interviewees and r a t i n g viewers have toward the use of video-tape i n interviewing? This would provide information on what people who are a c t u a l l y involved i n the interview process think about t h i s mode of interview present-a t i o n . -41-CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY As stated i n Chapter 1, the main purposes of the study were t h r e e - f o l d . The f i r s t aim was to determine the existence of any systematic differences between rat i n g s given by interviewers i n actual face-to-face interviews and r a t i n g s given by observers of video-taped interviews. The second purpose was to examine 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 v a r i a b l e 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 . The t h i r d i n t e n t i o n was to explore the atti t u d e s of interviewees and observing raters toward the use of video-tape i n interviewing. To obtain the necessary data, each of these three purposes required somewhat d i f f e r e n t methods as explained below. I-. Differences i n Ratings - Interviewers vs Viewers Procedure In order to inv e s t i g a t e the existence of any system-a t i c d i f f erences between rat i n g s given by interviewers i n face-to-face interviews and ratings given by viewers of video-taped interviews, t h i r t y - s i x interviews were conducted between s i x experienced interviewers from the Bank of Montreal and t h i r t y - s i x fourth year Commerce students from the -4-2-U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. The opportunities f o r which these interviews were held 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 designed to lead trainees to a branch managership a f t e r a period of three years. The six interviewers from the Bank each i n t e r -viewed and rated s i x d i f f e r e n t students. These students 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 representative of the labour market from which the Bank draws i t s management-trainees. Each of these interviews were video-taped on a one-half inch v-t system using a s p l i t -screen t e c h n i q u e . D u e 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 video-taping, two of the interviews were omitted from the a n a l y s i s , leaving a f i n a l sample size of t h i r t y - f o u r . At the end of videotaping the 34- interviews, s i x groups of three persons and s i x i n d i v i d u a l s each viewed and rated approximately s i x d i f f e r e n t interviews. The viewings were arranged i n such a way that no viewer saw the same i n t e r -viewer on tape more than once, and no group and i n d i v i d u a l saw the same tape together more than once. This provided the maximum mix of responses and reduced bias due to any possible redundancies. A schedule of which group and which i n d i v i d u a l viewed which taped interview i s shown on Table 1. With t h i s s p l i t - s c r e e n technique two cameras were used, one f o r the interviewer and one f o r the interviewee. Using a s p e c i a l e f f e c t s generator, the images from both cameras were played on one screen. In our case, the interviewer occupied the l e f t h a l f of the screen and the interviewee the r i g h t h a l f . MacDonald (1971) reports evidence supporting the u t i l i t y of t h i s technique when video-taping interviews. - 4 3 -Table 1 Schedule of Interviewing and Viewing Interview Inter- Group Individual Interview Inter- Group Indiv-Number viewer Number viewer idual 1 1 1 1 19 1 4 4 2 2 1 2 20 2 4 5 3 3 1 3 21 3 4 6 4 4 1 4 22 4 4 1 5 5 1 5 *23 5 4 2 6 6 1 6 24 6 4 3 7 1 2 6 25 1 5 3 8 2 2 1 26 2 5 4 9 3 3 2 27 3 5 5 •10 4 2 3 28 4 5 6 11 5 2 4 29 5 5 1 12 6 2 5 30 6 5 2 13 1 3 5 31 1 6 2 14 2 3 6 32 2 6 3 15 3 3 1 33 3 6 4 :.. 16 4 3 2 34 4 6 5 17 5 3 3 35 5 6 6 18 6 3 4 36 6 6 1 * Due to technical d i f f i c u l t i e s these two interviews were eliminated i -4-4--The groups were allowed to discuss as much as they wished. To avoid any influence which the group discussion may have upon the i n d i v i d u a l viewer, the groups and i n d i v i d u a l s viewed tapes separately. The Samples (a) The interviewees: A l l of the students who p a r t i c -ipated as interviewees were male undergraduates i n t h e i r fourth year of Commerce at 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 students of finance or accounting. 4-7.1$ (N=16) were en r o l l e d i n I n d u s t r i a l Relations and Organiz-a t i o n a l Behaviour. The remaining 8.8$ (N=3) were i n other miscellaneous f i e l d s (Transportation, Marketing). Their average age was 27.2 years (median = 23.0, mode = 22.0, range = 21-4-9.) The average grade l e v e l achieved by these students was 70.0$ (median = 70.0$, mode - 70.0$, range = 60$ - 77$). The average number of interviews which these students had been to during the year p r i o r to t h i s study was 5.4- (range = 0-16). Furthermore, each interviewee had re-ceived f a i r l y extensive p r i o r exposure to video-tape i n t h e i r classes at U.B.C. As a consequence, any bias due to nervous-ness or fear r e l a t e d to the video-taping was minimal. This bias, c a l l e d the " r e a c t i v i t y e f f e c t " was discussed by Walter and Miles (1971). (b) The interviewers: D e t a i l s of interviewers' char-a c t e r i s t i c s are shown i n Table 2. As may be seen, each i n t e r -viewer has had s i m i l a r experience and t r a i n i n g . This reduces _45~ Table 2 Interviewer C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s interviewer Sex Number Age P o s i t i o n Interviewing Experience Number of i n t e r -views t h i s study Male 29 Employment Manager Male 30 Assistant Employment Manager Female 24 Personnel O f f i c e r Male 34 Manpower Manager Male 29 Assistant Manpower Manager Male 29 Accountant Has been formally i n t e r -viewing f o r Vfi years. Took a 2-week interview-ing course i n Detr o i t Had been formally i n t e r -viewing f o r 1 year. Took course i n D e t r o i t Had been formally i n t e r -viewing f o r 2 years. Took course i n Toronto (1 week) Had been formally i n t e r -viewing f o r 4 years. Took course i n De t r o i t Had been formally i n t e r -viewing f o r 6 months. Took course i n Vancouver (1-week) Had been formally i n t e r -viewing f o r 1 year. Took course i n Vancouver -46-any bias which may e x i s t due to v a r i a t i o n s i n interviewer experiences (Carlson, 1 9 6 7 a ;Rowe, 1 9 6 3 ) . Also, since each interviewer has received p r i n c i p a l l y the same in-house t r a i n -ing ( i . e . they have a l l been exposed to the Bank's d i r e c t i v e s and p o l i c y statements dealing with employee selection) t h e i r stereotypes of i d e a l candidates should be roughly equivalent thereby reducing bias due to sterotype v a r i a t i o n s (Rowe, 1 9 6 3 ; Sydiaha, 1 9 5 8 ; Mayfield and Carlson, 1 9 6 6 ; Carlson et a l , 1 9 7 1 ) . Furthermore, interviewers were permitted to take notes and, as described below, were t r a i n e d to conduct s i m i l a r l y structured interviews with consequent s i m i l a r interview guides. This permits accuracy of r e c a l l of applicant char-a c t e r i s t i c s (Carlson et a l , 1 9 7 1 ) and reduces the l i k e l i h o o d of r a t i n g s being based on a halo strategy. F i n a l l y , each interviewer was given exposure to the video-tape p r i o r to the actual interviewing. This was designed to reduce the re-a c t i v i t y e f f e c t due to the video-taping (Walter and Miles, 1 9 7 1 ) . (c) The viewers: A l l of the viewers ( i n d i v i d u a l s and groups) were managers with the Bank of Montreal and a l l had had some involvement i n employment interviewing, i f not with the i n i t i a l screening interview, then at l e a s t f o r post i n i t i a l employment interviews. The viewers' average age, average number of years with the Bank and average number of years they have been interviewing 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 Group Individual Combined Age (years) 35 4-5 38 Number of years with Bank 15 2 5 18 Number of years they have interviewed 6 14- 8 As with the interviewers, the viewers have had roughly equivalent experience and in-house t r a i n i n g thereby reducing biases due to experience v a r i a t i o n s and stereotype v a r i a t i o n s . Also, f o r a l l viewers, note-taking was permitted. (d) intra-sample biases: A bias may be introduced i n t o the data i f there were any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among rating-variance within any of these three sub-samples. To t e s t f o r the existence of these differences an analysis of variance was applied to the o v e r a l l r a t i n g s given by each interviewer, group and i n d i v i d u a l , i n each of the s i x successive interviews rated. The t e s t s (see Table 4-) showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences i n d i c a t i n g that ratings within each of the three sub-samples were i n t e r n a l l y consistent. The Measure The measure employed here i s the Bank of Montreal's standard r a t i n g form f o r evaluating 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 consists of twelve -48-Table 4 Analyses of Variance (a) Interviewers of Sq. D.f. Est. of Var. F Total 6 . 9 7 33 Between .81 5 .162 Within 6.16 28 .220 .736 (b) Groups Total 5.53 33 Between 1 . 2 7 5 .254 Within 4.26 28 .152 1.67 (c) Individuals Total 10.62 33 Between 1.12 5 .224 Within 9.50 28 .339 .661 With d f x = 28 and d f 2 = 5, the F-value should be greater than 2.56(.05), 3.75(.01) and 5.66(.001) to i d e n t i f y a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e . Source: Blalock, H.M. S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s . McGraw-Hill: New York, I960. -4-9-t r a i t 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 evaluate the interviewer on a f i v e - p o i n t scale. Also, a space i s given f o r the r a t e r to check h i s accept-reject d e c i s i o n . The measure i s shown on E x h i b i t 1. As may he seen, each t r a i t or p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r i s accompanied with 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 associated with t h i s measure were recognized. 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 data have been accumulated to demonstrate i t s u t i l i t y . Second, no attempt has been made to determine whether the f a c t o r s have any bearing on p o t e n t i a l success. Third, no r a t i o n a l e as to why a number of the f a c t o r s were included could be located. However, when reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e , a number of studies were located which provided empirical support f o r the i n c l u s i o n of a number of the f a c t o r s . F i r s t , though, i t should be stressed that t h i s measure was selected p r i m a r i l y because i t i s t y p i c a l of the types of r a t i n g forms so commonly used by organizations f o r personnel s e l e c t i o n . Also, i t formed the basis of i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r the t h i r d part of the study wherein an exploration of some psychometric properties was made. As discussed i n Chapter 2, a number of studies show evidence supporting the i n c l u s i o n of a number of these f a c t o r s . U l r i c h and Trumbo (1965) review research which show that s o c i a b i l i t y and motivation to work may be ably measured i n the interview. Mayfield (1964-) states that i n t e l l i g e n c e GRADUATE RECRUITING - CAMPUS INTERVIEW Instructions overleaf E X H I B I T 1 BANK OF MONTREAL CONFIDENTIAL DIVISION. DATE. NAME (Surname First). UNIVERSITY .DEGREE RECRUITER. .MAJOR 2 DO NOT complete this section if a COMPLETED resume or information sheet is attached to this form. ADDRESS (Residence while attending university) . CITY_ MARITAL STATUS : SINGLE | - | POSTAL ZONE PROVINCE. MARRIED • AGE _ PHONE NUMBER NO. OF DEPENDANTS. AVERAGE MARK — ALL COURSES 1st Yr. Post Grad 2nd Yr. Post Grad. EXCELLENT SUPERIOR AVERAGE MARGINAL UNSATISFACTORY ! FACULTY EVALUATION (If Available) i RECRUITER'S OVERALL EVALUATION • EXCELLENT • • SUPERIOR • • AVERAGE • • MARGINAL • • UNSATISFACTORY • SHOULD CANDIDATE BE CONSIDERED FURTHER? • • YES NO COMPLETE SECTION 5 ONLY IF "YES" GENERAL BANKING • ADMINISTRATION • CREDIT Q 5 AREAS OF INTEREST FOR DIVISIONAL INTERVIEW : MARKETING • PERSONNEL QOTHER WAS SALARY DISCUSSED? • • RATE $_ YES NO REACTION: FAVOURABLE • UNFAVOURABLE (Explain • in Comments below) IS CANDIDATE WILLING TO ACCEPT INITIAL PLACEMENT IN ANOTHER DIVISION? YES Q NO (Explain in • Comments below) LOCATION PREFERENCE, IF ANY (Number first three choices) COMMENTS: • • • • • • • B.C. Alta. Man.-Sask. Ont. Que. Mtl. Atlantic (If necessary, continue overleaf) H.O 1510-23914 SIGNED I I COMMENTS (continued) RATING FACTORS : ATTITUDE APPEARANCE INTEREST INTELLIGENCE LEADERSHIP MATURITY MOTIVATION PERSUASIVENESS SELF-CONFIDENCE SELF-EXPRESSION SOCIABILITY POTENTIAL RATING TERMS : EXCELLENT SUPERIOR AVERAGE MARGINAL UNSATISFACTORY 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. 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 in-stitute 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 RE-CRUITER; 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 FURTHER. INTERVIEWER AS TO WHETHER THE CANDIDATE IS TO BE 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. - 5 1 -may be judged s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . Wagner ( 1 9 4 - 9 ) reviews studies which report that self-confidence, s o c i a b i l i t y , i n t e l l i g e n c e and o v e r a l l a b i l i t y may be r e l i a b l y measured through the interview. Furthermore, Howell and Vincent ( 1 9 7 0 ) demon-strated that self-expression, appearance, maturity, s e l f -confidence, s o c i a b i l i t y and i n t e r e s t as well as a number of other f a c t o r s may be independently assessed through an employment interview. Only three f a c t o r s , a t t i t u d e , leader-ship and persuasiveness, have no empirical support f o r t h e i r use. However, since they formed part of the Bank's r a t i n g form they are included here. The next question which a r i s e s i s how well does an interviewer discriminate between these dimensions and how much of h i s ratings i s based on a "halo strategy". This w i l l be discussed more f u l l y l a t e r on i n t h i s chapter. Of S t a t i s t i c a l Concern In order to compare ratings among interviewers, group r a t e r s and i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s , the Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n was o r i g i n a l l y used. However, as Brown, Lucero and Foss ( 1 9 6 2 ) discuss, t h i s s t a t i s t i c has a l i m i t a t i o n i n s i t u a t i o n s where a five~ :point c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scale i s used as the basis f o r measurement. They suggest that the r's value i s l o s t i f the measures are coarsely grouped or i f d i s t r i b u t i o n s are l i m i t e d or skewed. They recommend the use of the "Percent Perfect Agreement" (PPA) s t a t i s t i c as a better way of examining relatedness between samples. They state that " i t i s the measure most consistent with Technical - 5 2 -Recommendations (of the American Psychological Association, 1 9 5 4 ) and i s the only measure of r e l i a b i l i t y proposed by Goodman and Kruskal ( 1 9 5 4 ) i n t h e i r general discussion of measures of 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 of c o r r e l a t i o n employed i n t h i s study i s the Percent Perfect Agreement. To o f f e r a comparison, the Pearson r w i l l also be given with each PPA i n the presentation of the analyses. However, when tables are developed which exh i b i t i n t e r e o r r e l a t i o n s among factors and sub-samples (e.g. the Campbell-Fiske design) only the Pearson r was derived due p r i m a r i l y to the conven-ience of computer analyses. For most major computations, though, the PPA was formulated. The Interview The format of interviews performed i n t h i s study was the same as the Bank of Montreal 1s i n i t i a l screening i n t e r -view. E s s e n t i a l l y , the format was semi-structured (Carlson, Schwab and Heneman, 1 9 7 0 ) with structure surrounding the o v e r a l l interview plan and steps I I I , IV and VI (see below) within the plan. Beyond t h i s plan, non-directive probing was i n existence (unstructured) wherein the interviewers could ask or probe f o r any ad d i t i o n a l information they f e l t pertinent f o r t h e i r evaluations. The o v e r a l l plan i s as follows, with the suggested breakdown of steps to be observed i n an interview and with the suggested time f o r each step. - 5 3 -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 Evaluate student - education and work experience - 3 min - personal h i s t o r y - 2 min - p o t e n t i a l - 5 min 10 minutes Step IV Provide information 7 minutes Step V Questions and answers 5 minutes Step VI Inform student of future con-s i d e r a t i o n 1 minute Step VII Record r e s u l t s and evaluate 4- minutes 30 minutes A more d e t a i l e d explanation of each step i s given i n Appendix 1. The Bank's suggestion was that the interview i t s e l f ( i . e . excluding Step VII - evaluation) should take 26 minutes, The average length of the interviews i n t h i s study was 26.9 minutes. The interviews conducted i n t h i s study were b a s i c -a l l y the same i n format (as described above) although there was v a r i a t i o n i n o v e r a l l length (range: 18-38 minutes) and i n the amount of time devoted to any p a r t i c u l a r step. This, though, i s to be expected. Furthermore, no quota r e s t r i c t i o n s were given to the interviewers. They were simply asked to se l e c t from among t h e i r interviewees those who would be suitable f o r f u r t h e r consideration and those who would be re j e c t e d . This avoids any bias i n ratings which may a r i s e due to the presence of quotas (Carlson, 1967). - 5 4 -To place t h i s i n i t i a l screening interview i n per-spective, a d e s c r i p t i o n of the Bank of Montreal's h i r i n g system i s given below. The Bank's H i r i n g System As stated e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter, the opportunities f o r which these interviews were held were p o s i t i o n s i n the Bank's three-year t r a i n i n g program ( c a l l e d the Special Development Program) leading to a branch managership. The h i r i n g procedure at the Special Development Program l e v e l r e l i e s almost e n t i r e l y upon the interview. Besides references and a p p l i c a t i o n form data the decision to h i r e or r e j e c t i s made on the basis of information gathered through interviewing. The applicant f i r s t completes the a p p l i c a t i o n form (see Appendix 2) and then proceeds to the i n i t i a l screening interview, d e t a i l s about which were given e a r l i e r . At t h i s stage the interviewer makes the decision to e i t h e r r e j e c t the candidate or recommend him f o r f u r t h e r consideration. The d e c i s i o n to h i r e i s not made here. I f the applicant i s recommended he then goes down to the Bank's Personnel Department at the B r i t i s h Columbia Regional O f f i c e i n Vancouver f o r the second interview. This interview generally l a s t s from 45 minutes to 1 hour and consists mainly of describing the Bank and i t s opportunities to the interviewee. Here the interviewer goes in t o consider-ably more depth than i n the i n i t i a l screening interview, t a l k i n g about performance a p p r a i s a l , working conditions, - 5 5 -organizational structure, other programs, types of courses the r e c r u i t would have to take, and so on. I f recommended f o r fu r t h e r consideration the applicant comes back f o r a t h i r d interview with e i t h e r a l i n e o f f i c e r or a s t a f f o f f i c e r . Line o f f i c e r s include bank managers, accountants, loan o f f i c e r s , c r e d i t o f f i c e r s , etc. S t a f f o f f i c e r s include personnel managers, systems analysts, and so on. This interview u s u a l l y l a s t s about one-half hour with the format being roughly equivalent to the i n i t i a l screening interview. The p r i n c i p a l d ifference between t h i s t h i r d interview and the i n i t i a l screening interview i s that the former deemphasizes the "provide information" phase (step IV) and stresses the a c q u i s i t i o n of more data regarding the interviewee. This t h i r d interview i s p r i m a r i l y designed to introduce the applicant to the actual i n t e r n a l workings of the Bank. I f recommended again, the candidate comes back f o r a fourth interview with a l i n e o f f i c e r ( i f the t h i r d interview was with a s t a f f o f f i c e r ) or with a s t a f f o f f i c e r ( i f the t h i r d interview was with a l i n e o f f i c e r ) . This interview i s very informal and unstructured. Usually i t includes a luncheon. At t h i s stage, the applicant i s generally con= sidered to be accepted f o r employment and i s consequently given a more relaxed reception. This interview may even be considered as part of the induction process rather than the s e l e c t i o n process. However, i n the Bank i t i s considered as part of the l a t t e r , since there i s the p o s s i b i l i t y that the - 5 6 -applicant could be rejected at t h i s stage. Gra p h i c a l l y , the Bank's s e l e c t i o n process f o r r e c r u i t s to the S p e c i a l Development Program may be depicted as on E x h i b i t 2. I I . Groups vs Individuals - Psychometric Properties of  the Measure This section of the study was p r i m a r i l y designed to explore some of the more important psychometric properties of the p r i n c i p a l measure (the Bank's r a t i n g form - E x h i b i t 1 ) , 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 and halo error. Furthermore, ratings of interviewees were obtained 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 to examine the moderating e f f e c t s which these a l t e r n a t i v e sources of judgments may have upon these psychometric pr o p e r t i e s . While the measure has some empirical support, a l b e i t i n d i r e c t (as described e a r l i e r ) , and while i t i s of the type most commonly employed i n per-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 e x i s t s f o r i t to be psychometrically l a c k i n g . This section of the study was intended to provide more d e f i n i t e and meaningful evidence as to 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 ratings were com-pared to ascertain the presence and d i r e c t i o n of mean r a t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s . D e t a i l s of the Samples To obtain the necessary data, 185 students from the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration at the - 5 7 -E x h i b i t 2 The Bank of Montreal's S e l e c t i o n Process f o r Recruits to the Special Development Program Stage: Description 1 Applicant Completes A p p l i c a t i o n Form 2 I n i t i a l Screening Interview (}£ hour) — .^ r e j e c t - reference check made a f t e r i n t e r -view i f recommended 4-5 Second Interview - at Personnel O f f i c e ; mainly to provide information 3 / 4 - 1 hour) r e j e c t i f recommended Third Interview - at Regional O f f i c e > r e j e c t with l i n e or s t a f f o f f i c e r (# hour) i f recommended Fourth Interview - at Regional O f f i c e ^ r e j e c t with l i n e or s t a f f o f f i c e r (usually includes luncheon) F i n a l Acceptance f o r Employment -58-U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia were asked to provide rate - rerate data of interviewees from three video-taped interviews. Since the tapes l a s t an average of roughly 27 minutes each, i t was v i r t u a l l y impossible to expect the students to view three consecutive tapes twice. Consequently, the samples were broken i n t o three approximately equal sub-samples, with each sub-sample viewing and re-viewing one tape. Furthermore, the three sub-samples were again seg-mented int o group r a t e r s (of siz e 3) and i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s ( y i e l d i n g 6 sub-samples). By using video-taped interview, the group and i n d i v -i d u a l r a t e r s were exposed to exactly the same thing thereby eliminating bias due to candidate inconsistency, a condition which Maas (1965) found contributed s i g n i f i c a n t l y to low i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y . The three tapes selected contained interviewees who had been rated by the interviewer and the Bank of Montreal viewers as being low, average and high i n terms of s u i t -a b i l i t y f o r employment. I f each of the ra t e r s from the Bank evaluated the interviewee as u n s a t i s f a c t o r y or marginal i n t h e i r o v e r a l l r a t i n g s then he was designated as being "low". I f they a l l evaluated the interviewee as superior or excellent then he was designated as being "high". I f they a l l evaluated the interviewee as average then he was designated "average". Each of the 54 interviewees were rated i n t h i s manner and from among them three were selected. For each of the three selected the interviewer was the same, thereby avoiding b i a s •59 -due to interviewer-differences. A summary description of the three interviewees i s shown in Table 5 . It may be noted that there was a discrepancy between the "low" interviewee and the other two i n terms of the number of interviews they had been to i n the year prior to this study and their f i e l d of study at university. These differences were unavoidable and were recognized as a limitation of this analysis. Table 5 Description of Interviewees Interviewee Age Low Average High 23 24 22 Grade Level % 6 5 70 68 Number of prior Interviews 12 1 3 Field of Study Finance I/R - 0/B I/R - 0/B Three tapes were f e l t to provide a better represent-ation of interviewees than only one tape. Moreover, i f only one tape was used and the interviewee was either definitely unsatisfactory or definitely satisfactory then not only would the dispersion of ratings invariably be minimal but also the intra-rater agreement would be high thereby distorting the true picture of ratings given interviewees. Using three taped interviews reduced the probability of this distortion's occurrence. A table summarizing this sampling distribution i s given below (Table 6 ) . -60-Table 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 Interviewee Individual Viewers Group Viewers N N Low 36 8 Average 34 10 High _34 9 T o t a l 104 2? The time lapse between viewings (and associated ratings) was one week. Comparisons between group ratings and i n d i v i d u a l ratings were made f o r each interviewee. To reduce the e f f e c t s of memory upon rate-rerate decisions two procedures were followed. F i r s t , the measure f o r the rerate decisions was a l t e r e d i n format from the measure f o r the rate decisions. Second, where p o s s i b l e , a d d i t i o n a l video-taped interviews were shown to ss throughout the time lapse between viewings to confuse the importance of the interview on which these data were accumulated. This a d d i t i o n a l showing affected approximately one-third of the i n d i v i d u a l viewers and one-third of the group viewers. Groups vs Individuals - Rating Differences As i s discussed i n Chapter 5 , r i s k may have an impact on group vs i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n a l outcomes. Likewise, the importance of negative information compounded by group processes may account f o r the differences between group and r a t i n g s . Indeed, the actual group processes themselves may r e s u l t i n d i f f e r e n c e s . This aspect of group and i n d i v i d u a l employment decisions i s examined here. Due to inadequate control over the independent variables affecting decisions i n this regard, no hypotheses were developed for empirical investigation. Rather, this section of the study was exploratory in nature with post-hoc discussion being given to offer alternative reasons for the findings. The procedure involved comparing the mean variable ratings, the mean overall ratings and the call-back-reject decisions between groups and individuals. The data used here were the ratings given by the 185 students in their 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 Intra-rater r e l i a b i l i t y i s an estimate of the stab-i l i t y of ratings over time. On the basis of this estimate conclusions may be made as to the accuracy of the measure being employed. The intra-rater 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 for both groups and individuals. Inter-rater R e l i a b i l i t y Inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y provides information on the extent to which raters agree as to the amounts of any partic-ular t r a i t or personality variable which the interviewee possesses. This, then, offers an estimate of the extent to which a measure has internal s t a b i l i t y . Inter-rater 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 for each variable evaluated by individual raters on their f i r s t viewing of the -62-p interviews were compared with the equivalent scores of group raters. I f the standard deviation i s lower for one sub-sample then inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y i s higher for that sub-sample and vice versa. This approach i s the one used by Hollingworth (1922), Cottell (1910) and Norsworthy (1910) i n their evaluations of inter-rater agreement i n estimating t r a i t s of character (see Symonds, 1931 * pages 112-113, for a discussion). More recently, Carlson and Mayfield (1967) and Carlson (1967, 1968) u t i l i z e d this method to estimate inter-interviewer agreement scores. Second, an average inter-correlation score was computed by summing over cor-relations between raters for a l l rated variables and dividing by the number of correlations observed. This approach i s of the type used by Carlson, Schwab and Heneman (1970). Halo Error Measures of the kind used by the Bank of Montreal and employed in this study are notorious for permitting halo error to distort t r a i t ratings. Thorndike and Hagen (1969) defined halo error as being "the tendency of raters to base evaluations of a person being rated upon general favorable-ness toward that individual and not to differentiate degree of possession of specific t r a i t s " . While procedures were followed to reduce the existence of halo error (see e a r l i e r Since this section deals with inter-rater 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 for analysis. The re-rate decisions are not included here. - 6 3 -d i s c u s s i o n ) , i t was unreasonable t o expect t h a t i t would be n o n - e x i s t e n t . As a r e s u l t , the amount of halo e r r o r present i n the measure was determined by f a c t o r i n g the t h i r t e e n v a r i a b l e s ( 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 a n a l y s i s program with a varimax r o t a t i o n procedure. Comparisons between group and i n d i v i d u a l f a c t o r matrices was made by employing a f a c t o r s t a b i l i t y check which t e s t s the hypothesis t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e i n f a c t o r spaces occupied by the group data and the i n d i v i d u a l data i s not 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 . Canonical c o r r e l -a t i o n s between these sets of f a c t o r s were computed and t e s t e d u s i n g a c h i - s q u a r e s t a t i s t i c and i t s p r o b a b i l i t y . T h i s p r o -cedure was contained i n the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s program mentioned above. I I I . A t t i t u d e s Toward the Use of Video-Tape i n Interviews T h i s s e c t i o n of the study was intended 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 a t t i t u d e s 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 . These authors focused upon answers to three b a s i c q u e s t i o n s : a. How r e a l i s t i c a l l y does playback of video taped i n t e r v i e w s p o r t r a y a number of important 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 i s the v i d e o -taped screening i n t e r v i e w ? c . What i s the general r e a c t i o n to the suggestion t h a t video taped 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 of u n i v e r s i t y graduates seeking employment? The two samples whose a t t i t u d e s Moore and C r a i k measured were a group of students and a group of p r o f e s s i o n a l -64-recruiters and personnel administrators. Both samples were asked to view a series of video-taped interviews and complete a questionnaire containing attitudinal 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 this sense, then, they were quite removed from the interview setting. This study attempted to overcome the sampling con-dition i n Moore and Craik's research by having actual inter-viewees and actual raters and interviewers provide their attitudes. This important dimension added considerable depth to the assessment of attitudes toward video-tape use in interviewing. Not only were uninvolved observers views obtained (Moore and Craik, 1 9 7 2 ) but also were those of persons actually participating i n the interviewing process. Further to the questions asked by Moore and Craik, a number of other queries were raised. These are as follows: 1. How do viewers who are rating the interviewee's s u i t a b i l i t y feel as to the realism with which the video-tape portrays a number of important interviewee characteristics? 2 . How do interviewees feel as to the extent to which their behaviours were either better or worse i n the video-taped interviews than what they would have been had the interviews not been video-taped? 3. How distracting to the interviewees was the video-tape? The samples and interviews were the same as those described earlier i n this chapter. The measures used were modifications of the questionnaire used by Moore and Craik ( 1 9 7 2 ) and are shown i n Appendix 3 . The interviewees were asked to complete their questionnaires immediately after -65-t h e i r interviews. The group and i n d i v i d u a l viewers were asked to f i l l out t h e i r forms on t h e i r own time a f t e r they had viewed a l l of t h e i r assigned interviews. This pro-cedure f o r the viewers had l i m i t a t i o n s and re s u l t e d i n a return of 1 7 of the 24- possible questionnaires ( 7 1 $ r e t u r n ) . However, the number was deemed to be s u f f i c i e n t l y large to o f f e r an adequate representation of the sub-sample's a t t i -tudes. -66-CHAPTER 4-RESULTS This chapter i s segmented into 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 in a face-to-face setting with ratings given by observers of video-taped interviews. The second section presents differences between group and individual raters in terms of mean t r a i t ratings, overall ratings, c a l l back-reject decisions, halo error and inter- and intra-rater r e l i a b i l i t y . The third part reports attitudes of interviewees and observing raters toward the use of video-tape in interviewing. I. Interviewers vs Viewers Table 1 presents means and standard deviations of the interviewer, group and individual ratings of the inter-view Ss. Mean t r a i t ratings by interviewers following l i v e interviews agreed closely with the mean ratings of groups following videotape playback and discussion. The mean group ratings were significantly higher than the mean interviewer ratings for intelligence and self-confidence. Individual viewers differed from the interviewers to a greater extent. The mean individual ratings were significantly higher than the mean interviewer ratings for six t r a i t s . Inspection of TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e s a f o r Inter-viewers' ( I ) , Groups' (G), and Individuals' (I') Ratings T r a i t Interviewers Groups Individuals M SD I vs. G M SD G vs. I' M SD I' vs. Attitude 3.20 .69 3.35 .65 3.53 .61 2.05* Appearance 2.94 .49 3.06 .42 1.95* 3 . 2 7 .45 2.85** Interest 2.85 .61 3.00 .78 3.12 .59 I n t e l l i g e n c e 3.12 .33 2.87** 3.40 .50 3.47 . 5 1 3.41** Leadership 3.12 .54 3 . 1 5 .70 3 . 2 7 .57 Maturity- 3.20 .48 3 . 2 7 .62 2 . 2 9 * 3.62 .65 2.97** Motivation 3 . 1 5 .56 3.12 .81 3 . 2 7 .57 Persuasiveness 3.00 .43 3 . 1 5 .66 3.15 .66 Self-confidence 3.17 . 5 2 2.02* 3.44 .56 3.41 .61 Self-expression 3 . 1 7 .58 3.21 .59 1.93* 3.50 .66 2 . 1 5 * S o c i a b i l i t y 3 . 1 7 . 5 2 3 . 3 2 .53 3.44 .66 P o t e n t i a l 2.97 .58 2.85 .86 3.09 . 7 1 Overall 3.00 .43 3.12 .69 3 . 2 7 .57 2.18* a t t e s t , (two-tailed) *p_ <.05 **£ <.01 • 6 8 -the mean interviewer ratings show them to be uniformly lower than the mean i n d i v i d u a l ratings and lower than a l l of the corresponding mean group ratings except motivation and p o t e n t i a l . Furthermore, with the exception of s e l f - c o n f i d -ence, group ratings were co n s i s t e n t l y lower than i n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g s . This data i s summarized i n Table 2 . Table 2 O v e r a l l Comparison Among Samples Comparison Method D i r e c t i o n Mean 1 Interviewers vs Individuals > Individuals Interviewers** Interviewers vs Groups > Inter-Groups viewers Individuals vs Individuals > Group s Group s * * p S.D. Interviewers vs Individuals > Individuals Interviewers** Interviewers vs Groups >Inter-Groups viewers*** Individuals vs Individuals > Groups Groups ** p ^ . 0 5 *** p < . 0 1 1 . Mann-Whitney Test used to determine s i g n i f i c a n c e of differences ( S i e g e l , 1 9 5 6 ) . 2 . Sign-Test used to determine s i g n i f i c a n c e of d i f f e r e n c e ( S i e g e l , 1 9 5 6 ) . Table 3 summarizes the analysis of convergent and discriminant v a l i d i t y following the Campbell-Fiske ( 1 9 5 9 ) procedure. Convergent v a l i d i t y , i n d i c a t e d when two or more independent measures tend to agree i n the measurement of 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 Discriminant V a l i d i t i e s of interviewers- Groups, Interviewers-Individuals, and Individuals-Groups Heteromethod block Interviewers- Interviewers- I n d i v i d u a l s -groups i n d i v i d u a l s groups V a l i d - Highest No. of V a l i d - Highest No. of V a l i d - Highest No. of i t y hetero- hetero- i t y hetero- hetero- i t y hetero- hetero-coef. t r a i t t r a i t coef. t r a i t ti?ait coef. t r a i t t r a i t value values value values value values h i g h e r 3 h i g h e r a higher 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Attitude 3 1 * 56 7 38* 56 6 28* 59 7 Appearance 46* 3 9 0 21 41 9 24 3 9 3 Interest 5 1 * 4-7 0 3 9 * 41 1 13 48 16 I n t e l l i g e n c e 2 5 4-8 12 02 34 20 05 4-2 20 Leadership 60* 4-0 0 09 54 12 28* 5 2 2 Maturity- 3 2 * 44 9 36* 57 4 11 43 1 7 Motivation 16' 53 1 5 26 57 11 26 48 9 Persuasiveness 3 2 * 53 11 00 40 1 9 30* 42 3 Self-confidence 4-5* 4-1 0 15 3 2 14 34* 42 7 Self-expression 5 1 * 60 1 24- 45 6 04 46 22 S o c i a b i l i t y 4-4-* 60 7 3 9 * 45 2 01 64 24 P o t e n t i a l 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 Number of heteromethod off-diagonal c o e f f i c i e n t s i n corresponding row and column higher than v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t ; maximum = 24-* £ <.05 - 7 0 -four and seven of Table 3 . Minimal requirements f o r con-vergent v a l i d i t y were met f o r 1 0 of 1 3 t r a i t s i n the interviewer-group r a t i n g comparison (or s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from zero). In the i n t e r v i e w e r - i n d i v i d u a l and individual-group comparisons l e s s than h a l f the t r a i t s s a t i s -f i e d the c r i t e r i o n f o r convergent v a l i d i t y . The f i r s t t e s t f o r discriminant v a l i d i t y , r e q u i r i n g that the 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 be higher than the c o r r e l a t i o n s be-tween that t r a i t and other 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 interviewer-group comparison. This t e s t , however, i s not 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 discriminant v a l i d i t y not treated i n Table 3 , requires that measures of a given t r a i t made with independent methods c o r r e l a t e higher than c o r r e l a t i o n s between the given t r a i t and other t r a i t s when measured by a common method. 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 at l e a s t 5 0 $ of the i n t e r t r a i t c o r r e l a t i o n s within methods except f o r appearance, i n t e r e s t and leadership, a l l within the interviewer-group hetermethod block. These were exceeded by 8$, 2 5 $ and 1 1 $ r e s p e c t i v e l y . Furthermore, i n t e r -c o r r e l a t i o n s between t r a i t s within the three mono-method blocks were quite high ( f o r interviewers, 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 ) . C l e a r l y , the second t e s t f o r discriminant v a l i d i t y was not met. An examination of the patterns of t r a i t i n t e r - c o r r e l -ations within and between r a t i n g methods f o r s i m i l a r i t y -71-constitutes the t h i r d t e s t f o r discriminant v a l i d i t y . No pattern s i m i l a r i t y could be i d e n t i f i e d . The extent of agreement among the three samples i n terms of the dec i s i o n to r e j e c t the candidate or c a l l him back f o r a second interview i s reported i n Table 4. Table 4 Group, Individ u a l and Interviewer Intercorrelations"' C a l l Back - Reject Decision Interviewer Individual Individual .02 Group .38 .76** 1 Kendall's Q (Blalock, I960) ** p^.01 These findings i n d i c a t e low agreement between i n d i v -i d u a l viewers and interviewers and moderate agreement between group viewers and interviewers. A high c o r r e l a t i o n , however, e x i s t s between the two samples of viewers. P o s s i b l y video-tape may have had a bearing on t h i s outcome. In summary, then, the above r e s u l t s point out four major f i n d i n g s : (1) decisions made by groups of managers a f t e r ex-posure 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 having the t y p i c a l l e v e l of t r a i n i n g and experience; (2) convergent and discriminant v a l i d i t y analysis generally revealed low convergent v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s , - 7 2 -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 of the discriminant v a l i d i t y c r i t e r i a f o r the i n d i v i d u a l -interviewer and the individual-group comparisons. However, i n the main, the interviewer-group a s s o c i a t i o n approached f u l f i l l m e n t of a l l key c r i t e r i a except the second and t h i r d t e s t s f o r discriminant v a l i d i t y ; ( 3 ) i n d i v i d u a l ratings tended to be 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 both group ra t i n g s and interviewer r a t i n g s ; ( 4 ) group-individual differences i n terms of the c a l l back-reject decision were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from zero ( r = . 7 6 , p . 0 1 ) . I I . Group vs Individual Viewers Further research was prepared with non-professional interviewer samples ( i . e . students, as explained i n chapter 3 ) to fur t h e r t e s t findings ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) above, as well as to explore the 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 of halo error. Data i s reported f o r each of the three interviewees studied. Mean T r a i t Rating Differences Table 5 reports the mean t r a i t ratings given by group raters and i n d i v i d u a l raters on the basis of the t o t a l i n d i v i d u a l N and the t o t a l group N ( i . e . _ss were collapsed along interviewers). - 7 3 -Table 5 Mean T r a i t s Rating - Total Groups and Individuals Individuals Groups N = 104 N = 2 7 Attitude 3 . 22 3.07 Appearance 3.51 3.44 Interest 2.89 2 . 2 2 I n t e l l i g e n c e 3 . 2 5 3.33* Leadership 2.63 2.44 Maturity- 3 . 1 7 2.96 Motivation 3.01 2.70 Persuasiveness 2.60 2.41 Self-Confidence 2.86 2.81 Self-Expression 3 . 27 3.33* S o c i a b i l i t y - 3.37 3.44* P o t e n t i a l 3.03 2.70 •These are ratings where group means were higher 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 to t e s t the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the differences between group and i n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g s . Consistent with f i n d i n g (3) above was the r e s u l t that i n d i v i d u a l s tended to rate higher than groups (p .02). Only three t r a i t s had ratings i n the i n c o n s i s t e n t d i r e c t i o n ; i n t e l l i g e n c e , self-expression and s o c i a b i l i t y . However, when the data i s segmented i n terms of interviewee a rather d i f f e r e n t pattern emerges. Table 6 reports the mean t r a i t r a t i n g differences between group raters and i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s f o r each of the three i n t e r -viewees. Table 6 Mean T r a i t Ratings - Groups vs Individuals Interviewee Low Average High I G I G I G T r a i t s N= 36 N =8 N=34 N= 10 N =34 N= 9 Attitude 2. 81 2. 75 3.38 3. 10 3 .50 3. 33 Appearance 3. 39 3. 00 3.41 3. 30 3 .74 4. 00* Interest 2. 58 1. 88 2 . 9 1 2. 00 3 .20 2. 78 In 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 3. 11 Maturity 2. 81 2. 50 3.26 3. 10 3 .47 3. 22 Motivation . 2. 53 2. 2 5 3.12 2. 60 3 .41 3. 22 Persuasive-ness 2. 2 5 1. 75 2 . 5 0 2. 30 3 .05 3. 11* S e l f - C o n f i d -ence 2. 11 1. 75 3.09 3. 00 3 .41 3. 56* Self-Expres-sion 2. 97 3. 00* 3.12 3. 30* 3 .73 3. 67 S o c i a b i l i t y 3. 11 3. 13 3.26 3. 10 3 .74 4. 11* P o t e n t i a l 2. 36 2. 2 5 3.08 2. 40 3 .68 3. 44 •These are ratings where group means were higher than i n -d i v i d u a l means. Again, a Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Sign-Ranks t e s t ( S i e g e l , 1956) was used to t e s t the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the differences between group and i n d i v i d u a l ratings f o r each of the three interviewees. The low interviewee was consis-t e n t l y rated higher by i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s than by group _ 7 5 -raters (p^.Ol) except f o r self-expression. The average in t e r -viewee was again rated higher 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 < " . 0 5 ) , except f o r i n t e l l i g e n c e and s e l f -expression. The high^interviewee was rated higher by i n d i v -i d u a l r a t e r s than by group raters on only 7 of the 12 t r a i t s . The dif f e r e n c e here was found to be no n - s i g n i f i c a n t . O v e r a l l Rating When the o v e r a l l r a t i n g i s separately considered a s i m i l a r pattern i s found as above. Table 7 shows the o v e r a l l ratings given each interviewee by both group and i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s . Table 7 O v e r a l l Rating - Group and Individuals Group N Individuals N S i g n i f , Interviewee Low 2.00 8 2.4-7 36 p<.05 Average 3.00 10 3.00 34-High 3.33 9 3.4-7 34-Total 2 . 9 7 2 7 2.81 104-The difference i n the mean o v e r a l l ratings given by groups and i n d i v i d u a l s f o r the low interviewee was s t a t -i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , with i n d i v i d u a l s r a t i n g more favour-ably than groups. For the average and high interviewees no s i g n i f i c a n t difference was found between the group and i n d i v i d u a l mean o v e r a l l r a t i n g s . -76-C a l l Back-Reject Decisions A comparison between group and i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s i n terms of the c a l l back-reject d e c i s i o n revealed no s i g n i f i -cant d i f f e r e n c e s ; a r e s u l t consistent with f i n d i n g (4) discussed e a r l i e r . Table 8 summarized t h i s data. Table 8 C a l l Back-Reject Decision - Groups vs Individuals Groups Individuals S i g n i f . Interviewee Percent C a l l Back N Percent C a l l Back N Low 12.5 8 1 9.4 36 -Average 50 10 62 34 — High 78 9 9 7 34 -Total 48 2 7 59 104 Although no s i g n i f i c a n t differences emerged, i t may be noted that, consistent with e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s , a uniformly l a r g e r proportion of i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s than group ra t e r s chose to c a l l back interviewees. Halo E r r o r To t e s t f o r halo e r r o r a f a c t o r analysis using a p r i n c i p a l component f a c t o r analysis program with a varimax r o t a t i o n procedure was performed on a l l t h i r t e e n v a r i a b l e s ( i n c l u d i n g the o v e r a l l rating) f o r both groups and i n d i v i d u a l s . The rotated f a c t o r matrix f o r i n d i v i d u a l s i s shown i n Table 9 and f o r groups i s shown i n Table 10. - 7 7 -Table 9 Rotated Factor Matrix - Individuals Variable Factor h 2 1 2 Attitude * . 7 1 . 1 7 .54 Appearance -.02 * .82 .67 Interest * .54 . 2 9 .37 I n t e l l i g e n c e * .61 .03 .37 Leadership * .74 . 2 9 .63 Maturity .79 - . 0 9 .63 Motivation * .60 .36 .49 Persuasiveness * .67 .32 .56 Self-Confidence * .73 . 2 9 .63 Self-Expression * .55 .34 .42 S o c i a b i l i t y .37 * .67 .59 P o t e n t i a l * .65 * .43 .61 O v e r a l l * .71 * .50 .74 •loadings above .40 Two f a c t o r s emerged from t h i s analysis with i n d i v i d u a l ' r a t e r s , with the f i r s t f a c t o r containing a l l v a r i a b l e s except appear-ance and s o c i a b i l i t y (the c r i t e r i o n f o r f a c t o r loadings was .40), although s o c i a b i l i t y loaded quite h i g h l y ( . 3 7 ) . The t o t a l amount of variance accounted f o r by the two f a c t o r s was 5 5 . 7 $ (Factor 1 = 4 7 . 5 2 $ ; Factor 2 = 8 . 1 5 $ ) . As may be noted, appearance was the most outstanding v a r i a b l e i n terms of i t s inconsistency with the loading pattern set by other v a r i a b l e s . 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 1 0 . Table 10 Rotated Factor Matrix - Groups Variable Factor h 2 1 2 Attitude .20 *_ .62 .43 Appearance .03 *_ .83 .68 Interest . 2 5 *_ .69 .54 I n t e l l i g e n c e *.61 - . 2 3 .42 Leadership *.69 - .39 .62 Maturity- *.88 .08 .78 Motivation *.4-5 .55 .50 Persuasiveness *.76 urn .38 . 7 2 Self-Confidence *.75 .33 .70 Self-Expression *.42 .49 .42 S o c i a b i l i t y - *.57 - .28 .40 P o t e n t i a l *.43 • *_ .70 .67 O v e r a l l * . 7 9 — .36 .76 Again, 2 f a c t o r s emerged from t h i s a n a l y s i s , with the f i r s t f a c t o r containing a l l but at t i t u d e , appearance and i n t e r e s t . The t o t a l amount of variance accounted f o r by the two fac t o r s was 58.5$ (Factor 1 = 48.1$; Factor 2 = 10.4$). Again, appearance was the most outstanding v a r i a b l e i n terms of i t s inconsistency with the loading pattern set by other v a r i a b l e s . From the communality columns of Tables 9 and 10 i t may be seen that the v a r i a b l e s were not too well accounted f o r by the two f a c t o r s . The range of communality estimates was from .37 - .74 f o r i n d i v i d u a l s and from .42 - .78 f o r groups. -79-While the f a c t o r loadings f o r both the group and i n d i v i d u a l data are not immediately i n t e r p r e t a b l e , one trend does seem to emerge. Factor 1 has moderate to high loadings on a l l v a r i a b l e s with the notable exception of appearance, i n d i c a t i n g that the r a t e r s were not dis c r i m i n a t i n g amongst the remaining v a r i a b l e s . Factor 2 f o r both samples has extremely high loadings on appearance, as well 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 , i n t e r e s t , motivation, self-expression and p o t e n t i a l ( f o r groups). I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that appearance i s the only d i r e c t l y observable v a r i a b l e included i n the r a t i n g form. The remaining v a r i a b l e s must a l l be i n f e r r e d from the exchange of communications i n the interviews. However, recognizing the low amount of variance accounted f o r by the two fa 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 groups), t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n should not be taken as conclusive. The possib l e existence of halo error was fu r t h e r explored by c o r r e l a t i n g each of the va r i a b l e s with the f i n a l c a l l back-reject d e c i s i o n . Table 11 shows that f o r groups each v a r i a b l e with the exceptions of 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 minimally or moderately (p<:.05) with 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 outstanding c o r r e l a t i o n s . For i n d i v i d u a l s , however, each va 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 with the c a l l back-reject d e c i s i o n . Again, though, p o t e n t i a l and o v e r a l l held, by f a r , the highest r e l a t i o n s h i p . -80-Table 11 Correlations Between Variables and C a l l Back-Reject Decision-Groups and Individuals Groups Individu; N=27 N=104 Attitude .50** Appearance .35 .41** Interest i2S .36** I n t e l l i g e n c e .41* .40** Leadership .32 .59** Maturity- .37* Motivation .38* .53** Persuasiveness .54** .55** Self-Confidence .36 .57** Self-Expression .41* Soc i a b i l i t y - .40* .37** P o t e n t i a l .68** .68** Ove r a l l .62** .69** * p<.05 ** p<.01 I t should be noted that " p o t e n t i a l " and " o v e r a l l " r e l a t e to the whole person rather than to any p a r t i c u l a r aspect of him. I t i s possi b l e then that the c a l l back-reject decisions were based on general impressions or t o t a l r e-actions without d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g s p e c i f i c t r a i t s . While the -81-data i s not c l e a r - c u t enough to make d e f i n i t i v e conclusions, i t appears that halo e r r o r could have been contributing to the r a t i n g s e s p e c i a l l y those given by groups. Canonical c o r r e l a t i o n s between the f a c t o r sets of" groups and i n d i v i d u a l s demonstrated no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ences. For f a c t o r 1 the c o r r e l a t i o n between groups and i n d i v i d u a l s was .99 with the c h i p r o b a b i l i t y being l e s s than .00. For f a c t o r 2 the c o r r e l a t i o n between groups and i n -d i v i d u a l s was .74- with the chi p r o b a b i l i t y being l e s s than .00. This evidence i n d i c a t e d that the f a c t o r spaces occupied by the group data and the i n d i v i d u a l data were not s i g n i f i -cantly d i f f e r e n t from each other. Table 12 summarizes t h i s information. Table 12 Canonical Correlations Between the Two Sets of Factor Scores Factor 1 Factor 2 Canonical r .999 .738 Chi Square 980.03 101.26 d.f. 4- 1 P 0.0 0.0 Intra-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y Table 13 reports the Pearson's r and the Percent Perfect Agreement s t a t i s t i c between the rate-rerate decisions f o r each v a r i a b l e f o r both groups and i n d i v i d u a l s . For 7 of the 13 v a r i a b l e s the i n d i v i d u a l r i s greater -82-than the group r . For 9 of the 13 v a r i a b l e s the i n d i v i d u a l PPA i s greater than the group PPA. However, using a Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test ( S i e g e l , 1956) 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 f o r e i t h e r s t a t i s t i c • • Table 1 3 Intra-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y - Groups and Individuals Groups Individuals (N=27) (N=104) r PPA 1 r PPA' Attitude .30 50 .30** 49 Appearance .45* 68 .63** 7 2 Interest .34 50 .62** 61 I n t e l l i g e n c e .13 50 64 Leadership .82** 82 .69** 66 Maturity .21 54 .59** 7 2 Motivation .59** 46 .48** 55 Persuasiveness .68** 64 .64** 7 1 Self-Confidence .65** 68 .67** 62 Self-Expression .58** 68 .56** 55 S o c i a b i l i t y . 5 1 * * 43 .50** 55 P o t e n t i a l .69** 60 .73** 66 Overall .54** 68 7 1 Median .54"" 60 .59 64 1 Percent P e r f e c t Agreement * p < . 0 5 **p< . 0 1 - 8 3 -More d e t a i l e d estimates of i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y -are presented i n Tables 14 and 1 5 . Table 14 summarizes the Pearson's r s t a t i s t i c s derived from both group and i n -d i v i d u a l data f o r each of the three interviewees. Table 1 5 summarizes the Percent Perfect Agreement s t a t i s t i c s f o r the same data. Attention may be given to the comparison between the underlined estimates on Table 14 and the corresponding underlined estimates on Table 1 5 . These comparisons high-l i g h t the di f f e r e n c e s between the Pearson r method and the PPA method of c a l c u l a t i n g i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y . Using a Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test ( S i e g e l , 1 9 5 6 ) to t e s t the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the differences between group and i n d i v i d u a l Pearson's r's f o r each of the three interviewees (Table 14), a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found to e x i s t f o r the High-interviewee ratings ( p < . 0 1 ) . Por the High interviewee, i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s tended to have 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 r e l i a b i l i t y than groups. A s i m i l a r t e s t of the PPA data (Table 1 5 ) y i e l d e d no s i g n i f i c a n t 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 . A comparison of the t e s t - r e t e s t mean va r i a b l e r a t i n g s given by both groups and i n d i v i d u a l s (see Table 16) i n d i c a t e d that the r e t e s t r a t i n g s tended to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c r i t i c a l than the i n i t i a l r a t i n g s . Using a Wilcoxon Matched-P a i r s Signed-Ranks Test the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r e n c e between t e s t and r e t e s t ratings was found to be p < . 0 1 f o r both groups and i n d i v i d u a l s . -84-Table 14 Intra-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y - Groups and Individuals Pearson's r Low Average High Interviewee Group Indiv- G^oup Indiv- Group Indiv-i d u a l i d u a l i d u a l N=8 N=36 N=10 N=34 N=9 N=34 Attitude .76 .27 .15 . 1 5 -.16 . 2 5 Appearance .00 .80 . 5 1 .69 .40 .28 Interest . 7 1 .65 .00 .49 .35 .65 I n t e l l i g e n c e -.33 .50 . 1 7 .30 .00 .29 Leadership .49 .45 .90 .58 - . 1 5 . 5 2 Maturity- .64 .23 .53 .40 -.58 .78 Motivation . 7 1 .38 .30 . 2 3 .24 .59 Persuasiveness .87 .75 . 5 0 .24 .58 .24 S e l f - C o n f i d -ence .58 . 5 2 .48 .45 -.06 .43 Self-Expres-sion .53 .68 .46 .22 .79 .45 S o c i a b i l i t y . 3 2 .66 .11 . 1 5 .07 .46 P o t e n t i a l .75 .66 .34 .64 .62 .43 Overall .73 .62 .00 .11 .00 .41 Median .64 .62 .34 .30 .24 .43 -85-Table 15 Intra-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y - Groups and Individuals Percent Perfect Agreement Interviewee Low Average High Groups Indiv- Groups Indiv- Groups Indiv-iduals iduals iduals N=8 N-36 N=10 N-34 N=9 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 - 8 6 -Table 16 Mean Variable Ratings: Test and Retest Groups and Individuals Groups Indi v i d u a l s Test Retest Test Retest Attitude 3 . 0 7 3 . 0 0 3 . 2 2 3 . 1 7 Appearance 3.44 3.40 3 . 5 1 3.44 Interest 2 . 2 2 2 . 1 5 2 . 8 9 2.82 I n t e l l i g e n c e 3 . 3 3 2 . 8 9 3 . 2 5 3 . 1 3 Leadership 2.44 2.48 2 . 6 3 2 . 6 3 Maturity- 2.96 2 . 8 9 3 . 1 7 3 . 0 5 Motivation 2 . 7 0 2 . 3 7 3 . 0 1 2 . 8 9 Persuasiveness 2.41 2 . 1 5 2.60 2 . 6 3 Self-Confidence 2.81 2 . 7 0 2 . 8 6 2.80 Self-Expression 3 . 3 3 3.04 3 . 2 7 3 . 0 7 S o c i a b i l i t y 3.44 3 . 1 5 3 . 3 7 3 . 2 3 P o t e n t i a l 2 . 7 0 2 . 5 2 3.03 2 . 9 8 Overall 2.81 2 . 6 6 2 . 9 7 2 . 9 2 A t e s t of i n t r a - r a t e r 1 r e l i a b i l i t y of the ultimate d e c i s i o n to r e j e c t or c a l l back the intervieitfee y i e l d e d the following data (Table 1 7 ) . Groups appeared to be more r e l i a b l e than i n d i v i d u a l s f o r the low and average interviewee. For the high i n t e r -viewee, the opposite occurred. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note the high r e l i a b i l i t i e s i n the Low Interviewee-Group c e l l and the High Interviewee-Individual c e l l . The remaining estimates -87-were at best mediocre. Again, though, the trend towards being more c r i t i c a l i n the retest situation than i n the i n i t i a l test situation occurs. Bivariate matrixes for the total group decisions (Table 18) and for the total individual decisions (Table 1 9 ) demonstrate this trend. Table 1 7 Call Back-Reject Decision - Groups and Individuals Intra-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y * Interviewee Group N Individual N Low 1.00 8 .64 36 Average .50 10 . 2 5 34 High .23 9 .951 34 Total .58 2 7 .65 104 *phi coefficient (Siegel, 1956) this estimate i s somewhat inaccurate due to the mechanics of computing the phi coefficient. The procedure requires occupancy of a l l four c e l l s i n a 2 x 2 matrix. This data for this estimate had two vacant ce l l s limiting f i n a l com-putation. The c e l l structure was as follows: Time 1 Call Back (Test) „ . . ' Reject Time 2 (Retest) Call Back 33 1 34 Reject 0 33 0 1 0 34 - 8 8 -As may be seen on Table 18, 18.5$ of the groups s h i f t e d t h e i r decisions from " c a l l back", at Time 1, to " r e j e c t " at Time 2, while only 3 . 7 $ changed i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n . Also, as on Table 19, 12.5$ of the i n d i v i d u a l s s h i f t e d t h e i r decisions from " c a l l back" at Time 1 to " r e j e c t " at Time 2, while only 3.8$ changed i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n . Time 1 (Test) Table 18 C a l l Back-Reject Decisions - Group Decision S h i f t Time 2 (retest) C a l l Back Reject C a l l Back 8 ( 2 9 . 6 $ ) 5 (18.5$) Reject 1 ( 3 . 7 $ ) 1 3 ( 4 8 . 2 $ ) T o t a l 9 ( 3 3 . 3 $ ) 18 ( 6 6 . 7 $ ) Total 13 ( 4 8 . 2 $ ) 14 (51.8$) 2 7 (100$) Table 1 9 C a l l Back-Reject Decisions - Individuals Decision S h i f t s Time 2 (ret e s t ) C a l l Back Reject Total C a l l Back 48 (46.2$) 1 3 (12.5$) 61 (58.6$) Time 1 Reject 4 (3.8$) 39 (37.5$) 43 (41.4$) (Test) T o t a l 5 2 (50.0$) 52 (50.0$) 104 (100.0$) In summary then, except f o r a few i s o l a t e d exceptions, the i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y i s not high. A trend, however, - 8 9 -i n the d i r e c t i o n of being more c r i t i c a l i n Time 2 r a t i n g s as compared with Time 1 r a t i n g s appears to c o n s i s t e n t l y occur. Inter-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y The f i r s t method of 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 i n d i v i d u a l s was to examine differences between the standard deviations of each va r i a b l e f o r both groups and i n d i v i d u a l s . Table 20 summarizes the data f o r these s t a t i s t i c s . As may be seen, i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s had a wider d i s -persion of r a t i n g s f o r four v a r i a b l e s , a t t i t u d e , leadership, motivation and s e l f - e x p r e s s i o n . For the remaining v a r i a b l e s , the dispersion of scores f o r groups was higher than f o r i n d i v i d u a l s , 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 f o r i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s . Table 20 Inter-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y - Group vs Individuals Standard Deviation Scores Groups (N=2'7) Individuals (N=104) Attitude .62 . 7 2 Appearance .70 .57 Interest .80 .68 I n t e l l i g e n c e .68 .57 Leadership .75 .81 Maturity . 7 1 .67 Motivation .78 .83 Persuasiveness .93 .66 Self-Confidence . 9 2 . 9 2 Self-Expression .68 .78 S o c i a b i l i t y .80 .78 P o t e n t i a l .87 .84 O v e r a l l .79 .67 _9o-U s i n g a Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank T e s t ( S i e g e l , 1 9 5 6 ) to explore the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r e n c e between group and i n d i v i d u a l standard 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 was found. A more d e t a i l e d examination o f the three interviewees y i e l d e d s i m i l a r r e s u l t s (Table 2 1 ) . Table 2 1 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 Standard D e v i a t i o n Scores Interviewee Low Average High T r a i t Groups (N=8) I n d i v s . ( N = 3 6 ) Group s ( N - 1 0 ) I n d i v s . (N=34) Groups (N=9) I n d i v s (N=34) A t t i t u d e . 7 1 . 5 8 . 5 7 . 7 4 . 5 0 . 6 6 Appearance . 5 3 . 6 0 . 4 8 . 5 6 . 7 1 . 5 1 I n t e r e s t . 6 4 . 6 9 . 9 4 . 6 2 . 4 4 . 5 9 I n t e l l i g e n c e . 4 6 . 4 1 . 7 0 . 6 0 . 5 3 . 5 6 Leadership . 5 2 . 6 5 . 5 3 . 7 9 . 3 3 . 5 2 Maturity- . 7 6 . 6 2 . 5 7 . 5 1 . 6 7 . 7 1 M o t i v a t i o n . 7 0 . 9 7 . 7 0 . 6 4 . 6 7 . 5 6 Persuasiveness . 7 0 . 7 3 . 9 5 . 5 1 . 6 0 . 4 2 S e l f - C o n f i d -ence . 4 6 . 6 7 . 6 7 . 8 3 . 5 3 . 7 0 S e l f - E x p r e s -s i o n . 7 6 . 7 7 . 6 7 . 6 9 . 5 0 . 6 7 S o c i a b i l i t y - . 8 3 . 7 1 . 5 7 . 6 2 . 6 0 . 7 1 P o t e n t i a l . 8 9 . 7 2 . 7 0 . 7 1 . 5 3 . 4 7 O v e r a l l . 7 6 . 6 1 . 4 7 . 4 9 . 5 0 . 5 1 Using the Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test ( S i e g e l , 1 9 5 6 ) , 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 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 of the three i n t e r v i e w e e s . -91-From a r e l a t i v e standpoint, then, no conclusions may be drawn as to the comparative i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y between groups and i n d i v i d u a l s . The second method of estimating i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l -i t y was computing average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n scores by summing 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 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 method provided more absolute information on the i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of the samples. Table 22 summarizes the data f o r each of the three interviewees. Table 22 Inter-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y - Groups vs Individuals In t e r - C o r r e l a t i o n s Groups Individuals Interviewee Low .4-7 .33 Average .39 .19 High .29 .21 I n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y , using t h i s method, i s quite low, although groups provide uniformly higher estimates than i n d i v i d u a l s . In summary, then, the above r e s u l t s point 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 to be 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 group r a t i n g s . This applies to a l l v a r i a b l e s being rated i n c l u d i n g the - 9 2 -" o v e r a l l " v a r i a b l e . However, when the data was segmented i n terms of interviewee, a pattern emerged which i n d i c a t e d that the more unfavourable the interviewee, the higher were the i n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g s vs the group r a t i n g s . ( 2 ) There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the c a l l back-reject decisions of i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s and of groups r a t e r s . A uniformly higher percentage of the i n d i v -i d u a l r a t e r s , however, decided to c a l l back each of the three interviewees. ( 3 ) The group and i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s did not appear to discriminate among the rated v a r i a b l e s , except perhaps f o r appearance. Possible existence of halo e r r o r i s exemplified by the high c o r r e l a t i o n s of " p o t e n t i a l " and " o v e r a l l " with the d e c i s i o n to c a l l back or 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 to the t o t a l person rather than any s p e c i f i c t r a i t . (4) I n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y was not found to be high. Furthermore, except f o r the high interviewee Pearson product moment c o r r e l a t i o n s , there 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) When exploring i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y , i t was found that r e t e s t (Time 2) r a t i n g s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c r i t i c a l than the i n i t i a l t e s t r a t i n g s (Time 1). This 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 rated v a r i a b l e s as well as f o r the c a l l back-reject d e c i s i o n . (6) I n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y was found to be quite low f o r both groups and i n d i v i d u a l s . When the r e l a t i v e i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y between group ra t e r s and i n d i v i d u a l - 9 3 -r a t e r s was examined by comparing standard deviation scores, no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences were located. When comparing r a t e r - i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s , groups were uniformly more r e l i a b l e than i n d i v i d u a l s (although the c o e f f i c i e n t s were low). I I I . A t titudes Toward Video-Tape i n Interviewing  Interviewees The questionnaire asked the interviewees to i n d i c a t e the extent to which they found themselves d i s t r a c t e d by various aspects of the video-taping procedure. Table 2 3 summarizes the responses given. The presence of the cameraman and the noise of the video-tape equipment provided minimal d i s t r a c t i o n . The presence of the video-tape equipment proved d i s t r a c t i n g to 24-$ of the interviewees. This d i s t r a c t i o n l a s t e d f o r l e s s than h a l f of the interview. The main source of d i s t r a c t i o n was the knowledge of being video-taped. Again, however, t h i s proved d i s t r a c t i n g f o r l e s s than h a l f of the interview. 29$ o f s t h e interviewees f e l t that the video-taped interview would be b e t t e r than the face-to-face interview. 65$ f e l t that i t would be the same. Only 6$ i n d i c a t e d that the face-to-face interview would be more e f f e c t i v e . The respondents were asked how much b e t t e r or worse ce r t a i n aspects of t h e i r behaviour were i n the video-taped interview as compared with how they f e l t they would have been had the interview not been video-taped. Table 24 summarizes the responses. -94-Table 23 Extent and Cause of Interviewee D i s t r a c t i o n Very Dis- Quite Dis- Somewhat Not Dis-tr a c t e d t r a c t e d D i s t r a c t e d t r a c t e d ( d i s t r a c t e d ( d i s t r a c t e d ( d i s t r a c t e d at a l l throughout f o r at f o r l e s s the whole l e a s t h a l f than h a l f interview) of the of the interview) interview a. presence of the video-tape equip-ment b. presence o f t the camera-man c. the know-ledge that you were being video-taped d. the noise of the video-tape equip-ment 24 44 76 97 56 94 More than 80$ of the interviewees f e l t t h e i r behaviour was about the same or better i n the video-taped interview f o r a l l aspects but nervousness and verbal expression. 20$ f e l t they were more nervous and 3 2 $ were l e s s able to ex-press themselves v e r b a l l y i n the video-taped interview. 76$ (N=26) of the interviewees stated that they would be w i l l i n g to undergo a video-taped interview which, at t h e i r request, could be sent to companies i n which they were i n -terested. 12$ (N=4) said that they would not be w i l l i n g to - 9 5 -Table 24 Extent of Difference i n Interviewee's Behaviour In a Video-Taped Interview Compared with a Face-to-Face Interview (N=34) much s l i g h t l y about s l i g h t l y much be t t e r % b e t t e r % the same % worse % Nervousness 3 9 68 20 Honesty 6 8 5 9 Judgment 9 88 3 Voice intonation 23 62 15 A b i l i t y to express myself v e r b a l l y 12 56 32 Manner 29 56 15 Appearance 6 85 6 Force or drive 32 59 9 Interest 3 44 53 S o c i a l s e n s i t i v i t y 23 74 3 I n t e l l i g e n c e 6 85 9 O v e r a l l behaviour 18 76 6 undergo such a video-taped interview. The remaining 12$ (N=4) were undecided. Interviewees were asked to i n d i c a t e on a seven-point scale t h e i r degree of enthusiasm toward the possible general use of video-taped i n i t i a l screening f o r company s e l c t i o n of u n i v e r s i t y graduates f o r employment. As summarized i n Table 2^-, the response percentages - 9 6 -tended toward the en t h u s i a s t i c side of the scale. Table 2 5 Enthusiasm f o r Video-Taped I n i t i a l Screening Interviews i n Selection of U n i v e r s i t y Graduates f o r Employment (N=34) % Very E n t h u s i a s t i c 7 2 9 6 26 5 21 4 12 3 3 2 6 Not E n t h u s i a s t i c at a l l 1 3 Total 100$ The mean response was 5.4 on the seven-point s c a l e . This may be compared with 3.6 f o r a student group of video-tape observers and 4.3 f o r an administrative group of ob-servers (Moore and Craik, 1972). The respondents were then asked how they f e l t most graduating students would react to the suggestion, by a company, that the student undergo a video-taped interview to be conducted by a U n i v e r s i t y Placement Centre representative and forwarded to the company f o r examination. As shown i n Table 2g, s l i g h t l y more interviewees f e l t that students would be favourable to such a suggestion than unfavourable. From a l i s t of p o s s i b l e objectionable f a c t o r s con-cerning the use of video-tape screening interviews, the respondents were asked to rank the three most serious objections. Table 2 7 summarizes these rankings Table 26 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 Very Un- Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't favourable Unfavour- Favourable Favourable Know able % 9 3 5 2 9 2 1 6 Table 2 ? Student (Interviewee) Rankings of the Three Most Serious Reservations or Objections re Video-Taped Screening Interviews Objection # Rank Possible Objection 1 - Many important personal character-i s t i c s cannot be conveyed 2 - This i s j u s t one more step toward the de-personalization of the employment r e l a t i o n s h i p 3 2 - Ho assurance that v - t interview w i l l be kept c o n f i d e n t i a l 4 - The video-taped interview i s unethical 5 - Most companies do not have the expensive video-playback equipment 6 3 - Once an interview i s made there i s no way of changing i t 7 1 - The student may be forced to become an "aetor" 8 - In f r o n t of a camera, most people do not act natural 9 - The technique w i l l be too expensive The f i r s t objection r e l a t e d to a concern that 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 to a forced r o l e the interviewee must adopt. The second and t h i r d objections r e l a t e p r i n c i p a l l y to moral and e t h i c a l matters. Viewers The viewers (both groups and i n d i v i d u a l s ) were asked whether video-taped interviews were more or l e s s e f f e c t i v e than face-to-face interviews. 47$ of these respondents f e l t video-taped interviews to be more e f f e c t i v e . The r e -maining 3 5 $ f e l t that both were about the same. The viewers were then asked to i n d i c a t e on a four-point d e s c r i p t i v e scale how r e a l i s t i c a l l y they f e l t the video-taped interview conveyed the actual amounts of several interviewee c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The responses are shown i n Table 28. More than 67$ of the sample checked "somewhat r e a l i s t i c " or "very r e a l i s t i c " on a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s except appearance, knowledge of f i e l d , nervousness, and s t r e s s . For appearance and knowledge of f i e l d the "unable to judge" category was quite high (24$ i n both). Nervousness and str e s s , on the other hand, both had a high percentage of responses i n the "somewhat u n r e a l i s t i c " category. The viewers were then asked to i n d i c a t e on a seven-point scale t h e i r degree of enthusiasm toward the possib l e general use of videotaped i n i t i a l screening interviews f o r company 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. - 9 9 -Table 2 9 shows that these respondents tend to be only some-what more ent h u s i a s t i c than unenthusiastic. This i s i n marked contrast to the interviewee group (see Table 24) where s i g n i f i c a n t l y more enthusiasm was exhibited. Table 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) Degree of Realism Character-i s t i c Very Un-r e a l i s t i c % Somewhat Unreal-i s t i c % Somewhat Real-i s t i c % Very Real-i s t i c % Unable to Judge % Appearance 12 59 6 2 3 Manner 6 59 23 12 Voice 6 2 3 53 18 Force or Drive 12 53 23 12 I n t e l l i g e n c e 6 35 53 6 P o t e n t i a l 12 53 18 18 Interests 12 59 2 9 Attitude 18 47 35 S o c i a b i l i t y 18 29 47 6 Self-Expression 6 18 7 1 6 Knowledge of F i e l d 12 35 2 9 2 3 Self-Confidence 6 6 2 9 59 Nervousness 35 29 35 Motivation 12 41 41 6 Stress 35 18 2 9 18 Maturity 6 59 23 12 Judgment 12 53 18 18 Persuasiveness 6 53 3 5 6 Leadership 12 53 12 23 - 1 0 0 -Table 2 9 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 Very En-t h u s i a s t i c 7 6 5 3 2 1 Not en-t h u s i a s t i c at a l l % response 6 1 2 2 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 In addition, the viewers were asked to elaborate on any strong personal objections with regard to the use of video-tape i n screening interviews. The open ended written responses revealed three primary objections. 1 . the viewer i s unable to ask questions 2 . the interview i s not " l i v e " or personal using video-tape 3 . i t can be expensive. In summary, the a t t i t u d e s toward the use of video-tape f o r the i n i t i a l screening interview are widely divergent. On one hand, the interviewees e x h i b i t an enthusiasm and state that, with video-tape, most of the various aspects of t h e i r behaviour were r e a l i s t i c a l l y portrayed. On the other hand, the viewers ( i . e . Bank employees) d i s p l a y a hesitancy and, on the average, only a moderate enthusiasm. - 1 0 1 -CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION As i n earlier chapters, this chapter i s segmented into the three major areas; interviewers vs viewers, groups vs individuals, and attitudes toward the use of video-tape in interviewing. I. Interviewers vs Viewers The results relevant to this section showed four principle findings, two of which are explored in the next section. The two other findings, discussed here, are as follows: (1) Group decisions made after exposure to video-tape playbacks of candidates' interviews differed l i t t l e compared to the decisions of interviewers i n face-to-face settings. (2) Individual decisions made after exposure to video-tape playbacks of candidates' interviews were uniformly and significantly higher, s t a t i s t i c a l l y , than decisions of interviewers i n face-to-face settings. Each of these two findings i s discussed separately. Groups vs Interviewers It has been argued by many researchers (Webster, 1964; Wright, 1969; Ulrich and Trumbo, 1965; Mayfield, 1964), that - 1 0 2 -b i a s i n g f a c t o r s such as preconceived stereotypes, e a r l y decisions, the strong influence of negative information, and contrast 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 employ-ment interview. While these biases e x i s t , t h e i r e f f e c t s on the employment d e c i s i o n remain unclear and l a r g e l y unin-vestigated. Two recent studies (Hakel, Ohnesorge and Dunnette, 1 9 7 0 ; Carlson, 1 9 7 0 ) 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 examination of the influence of contrast e f f e c t s . Rowe ( 1 9 6 7 ) advanced the f i n d i n g that employment decisions are made i n the context of previous judgments.. Hakel et a l ( 1 9 7 0 ) , however, found that such contrast e f f e c t s on r a t e r ' s evaluations of employment resumes following previous high or low resume ratings accounted f o r very minor amounts of t o t a l d e c i s i o n variance. Carlson ( 1 9 7 0 ) i n d i c a t e d that while the q u a l i t y of the previous job applicant had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the evaluation of t e s t r e s u l t s , there was a n e g l i g -i b l e e f f e c t on the employment d e c i s i o n . These two studies brought under question the importance of a b i a s i n g f a c t o r , contrast e f f e c t s , which had e a r l i e r been f e l t to provide a major influence on the employments d e c i s i o n . In l i k e fashion, perhaps the f i n d i n g that group-viewers' ra t i n g s d i f f e r l i t t l e from interviewers' ratings suggests that some other b i a s i n g e f f e c t s exert only t r i v i a l influence on the interview d e c i s i o n . Considerable work has been performed exploring the comparative c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of groups and i n d i v i d u a l s (aolloman and Hendrick, 1 9 7 1 ; Lorge, Fox, Davitz and Brenner, 1 9 5 8 ; -103-Maier, 1967). One principle finding relates to the error-correcting propensity of social interaction in group decision-making. Erroneous assumptions and decision errors are more l i k e l y to he recognized and corrected i n a group than by an individual. Prom this might be inferred that early decisions (Springbett, 1958) and inaccurate stereotypes (Hakel, Hollman and Dunnette, 1970) are less l i k e l y to occur with groups than with individuals. If this 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 affect the interview decision given by an individual rater in a rela t i v e l y minor way. Since group-viewer ratings were found to d i f f e r l i t t l e from individual-interviewer ratings perhaps the biases that are minimally present i n groups may i n fact be minimally present with individual interviewers. Individuals vs Interviewers The finding that individual viewers' decisions were uniformly and significantly 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 individual viewers. Rowe (1963) reported that more experienced interviewers were found to be more selective and thereby more c r i t i c a l than less experienced interviewers. Indeed, i n contrast with the interviewers, the viewers i n the present study had no formal interviewer training. Also, they were farther removed from the interview setting than the interviewers, who personally screened candidates every day. As a result, these viewers may be considered as being "less experienced" than the interviewers. The outcome of such a condition may well have been that the individual viewers were less selective and, as a consequence, rated more leniently than the interviewers. Furthermore, i n line with discussion i n the previous section, the error-correcting propensity of group a c t i v i t i e s may have served to mitigate this halo strategy^ thereby resulting in the absence of any s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant differences between group viewers and interviewers. Certainly evidence exists in the literature to support such an interpretation. Its specific veracity, however, could well serve as the basis for some future research. There i s , of course, the p o s s i b i l i t y of the six individual viewers having the tendency to rate high (the generosity error (Thorndike and Hagen, 1969) or the error of leniency (Kerlinger, 1964-)) with the individual interviewers not holding such a tendency. The analyses of variance re-ported i n Table 4 of Chapter 3 show that the F-probabilities are very small demonstrating no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant differences and high internal consistency among raters in each sub-group. However, the probability of such a gener-osity error or error of leniency being committed by a l l members i n one sub-group (individual viewers) and no members of the other sub-group (interviewers) i s indeed quite small (p = .014). One remaining question relates to whether or not video-tape i t s e l f provides a "media effect" resulting i n -105-s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between i n t e r v i e w e r r a t i n g s and viewer r a t i n g s . The c l o s e agreement between the i n t e r -v i e w er and group r a t i n g s (two v e r y d i v e r s e r a t i n g u n i t s ) suggests t h a t any such "media e f f e c t " i s v e r y weak o r n o n - e x i s t e n t , i n d i c a t i n g minimal e f f e c t i v e d i f f e r e n c e between the i n t e r v i e w and the v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w . H « Group vs I n d i v i d u a l Viewers The d i s c u s s i o n o f f i n d i n g s i n t h i s s e c t i o n i s seg-mented i n t o t h r e e a r e a s . F i r s t o f a l l i s a comparison o f group vs i n d i v i d u a l 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 and r e j e c t - c a l l back d e c i s i o n s . Second, a d i s c u s s i o n o f groups vs i n d i v i d u a l s i n terms o f 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 h a l o e r r o r i s p r e s e n t e d . T h i r d , a l o o k i s t a ken a t the r a t i n g form used by the Bank o f M o n t r e a l . Groups vs I n d i v i d u a l s - R a t i n g s I n terms o f 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 and r e j e c t - c a l l back d e c i s i o n s , i n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g s tended to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than groups r a t i n g s f o r both samples s t u d i e d . F o r the managerial 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 h i g h e r than the groups' t r a i t r a t i n g s a t the .05 l e v e l . The d i f f e r e n c e , however, i n 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 ( r = .76). -106-For the student sample, the individuals' t r a i t ratings were higher than the groups' t r a i t ratings at the .02 l e v e l . The individuals' overall rating for the low inter-viewee was higher than the groups' overall rating for the low interviewee at the .05 le v e l , while for the average and high interviewees and for the aggregate of a l l three interviewees no significant differences were found (Table 7, Chapter 4). Also, no significant differences were found between groups and individuals i n terms of the re j e c t - c a l l back decision, although for each interviewee and for the aggregate of interviewees a uniformly larger proportion of individual raters than groups raters chose to c a l l back interviewees. The general finding that individuals are more lenient i n their ratings than groups may have significant importance to the personnel selection process. Many organiz-ations- employ panels of interviewers to screen candidates l i k e l y because panels are seen as being more reliable and valid than individuals. There i s evidence to suggest that this i s the case (Zajonc, 1966). However, as stated in Chapter 2, practic-a l l y a l l of the group vs individual research from which this r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y data was derived was conducted outside the interview setting. Within the setting, perhaps some other, as yet unexplored processes, unique to personnel selection, -107-operate to r e s u l t i n r a t i n g outcomes of the order 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 c e r t a i n , since the f i n d i n g emerged with two separate samples. The next issue of concern, then, i s why t h i s outcome came about. Two explanations are advanced below. (a) One aspect of interviewing 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 that interviewers are more influenced by unfavourable than by favourable information about a can-didate ( C r i s s y and Regan, 1951; Springbett, 1958; Rowe, I960; B o l s t e r and Springbett, 1961; Mayfield and Carlson, 1966; M i l l e r and Rowe, 1967; Blakeney and McNaughton, 1971). Webster (1964) described "an a t t i t u d e of caution on the part of the interviewer who develops a high s e n s i t i v i t y to negative information with respect ... to i t s detection" (p. 90). The i n d i v i d u a l interviewer, then, focuses h i s a t t e n t i o n quite h e a v i l y upon i d e n t i f y i n g negative information. In groups, t h i s a t t e n t i o n i s f u r t h e r amplified with a consequent concomitant increase i n the amounts of negative information perceived. Given t h i s broader base of negative information on which to 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, give lower r a t i n g s . This explanation i s f u r t h e r r e i n f o r c e d by the f i n d i n g that, when the data was segmented i n terms of interviewee, a pattern emerged which i n d i c a t e d that the more unfavourable the interviewee, the broader the gap between the i n d i v i d u a l and group r a t i n g s . Groups became dis p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more c r i t i c a l of the unfavourable interviewee than did the i n --108-dividuals. Group members were readily able to col l e c t i v e l y perceive this increase i n the negative attributes of the candidate. On the other hand, the individuals, being con-strained by having the perceptual capacities of only one person, were much less influenced by this increase. (b) A second interpretation links this aspect of unfavour-able information to the dynamics i n process within groups. The likelihood i s quite strong that an emphasis upon unfavour-able information may serve as a norm of behaviour within a personnel decision-making group. Pressure l i k e l y exists i n such a group to conform to this norm for fear of reprisal or for fear of being perceived as having unprofessionally low standards. The interviewer whose standards are too low i s l i k e l y the one who meets with these reprisals since he i s the one who has the highest probability of permitting entry of unfavourable personnel into the organization. As Webster (1964) states, "the interviewer i s c r i t i c i z e d because of misfits hired; praise for hiring good employees rarely occurs" (p. 90). Pressures to conform, based upon professional expec-tations, then, are quite strong. At another l e v e l , the group setting evokes a personal need for social acceptance i n each group member (Walter, 1972). Here, the concern shifts away from giving primary emphasis upon the hiring decision and towards satisfying social needs. To minimize the personal risk attached to social rejection and to satisfy needs for social acceptance, members are moved to conform to perceived group norms. I f the perceived group - 1 0 9 -norm i s to have high evaluative standards then the behavioural outcome i s to be more c r i t i c a l i n one's r a t i n g s . The group fu r t h e r serves to p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e the conforming be-haviours of members by o f f e r i n g s o c i a l support when these behaviours are exhibited. The process operating here i s much l i k e the one des-cribed by Brown ( 1 9 6 5 ) as he i n t e r p r e t s Stoner's ( 1 9 6 1 ) f i n d i n g -of the " r i s k y s h i f t " i n terms of value theory. "Stoner's subjects were graduate students i n the School of I n d u s t r i a l Management at M.I.T. and when members of the school f i r s t heard about the outcome of Stoner's experiment they argued that i t could be explained by the f a c t that the f i e l d of i n d u s t r i a l management sets a p o s i t i v e value on the a b i l i t y to take r i s k s . I t i s part of the r o l e of an i n d u s t r i a l management student to favor r i s k y decisions, they held. The as s e r t i o n may be true but i t w i l l not of i t s e l f account f o r Stoner's r e s u l t . The subject i s equally a student of i n d u s t r i a l management when he answers the questions i n d i v i d u a l l y and when he agrees to a group d e c i s i o n following d i s c u s s i o n . The e f f e c t i s an increase i n r i s k i n e s s of the same subjects. One must argue, therefore, that the value o f the r o l e i s more s a l i e n t , more f i r m l y en-gaged, when the management student i s t a l k i n g with peers. That seems reasonable enough. The student alone would be l e s s concerned to manifest i d e a l r o l e behaviour than would the student i n the presence of other students. In the group each one has an audience to play to and that audience values r i s k i -ness." (p. 6 9 8 ) In Brown's ( 1 9 6 5 ) discussion, the audience values r i s k i n e s s . In t h i s study, the audience values having high evaluative standards or being c r i t i c a l by focusing upon un-favourable information. The e f f e c t i s an increase i n the amount; of attention given to t h i s unfavourable information. Besides the two aspects of pr o f e s s i o n a l expectations and s o c i a l need s a t i s f a c t i o n exerting pressure to conform, ^110-uniformity within the groups i n t h i s study also stems from s i m i l a r i t i e s of members (they are a l l Bank managers) and s i m i l a r i t i e s of environments i n which they function; two fur t h e r f a c t o r s which Walter (1972) i d e n t i f i e s as being i n -strumental i n f a c i l i t a t i n g group uniformity. With t h i s explanatory hypothesis, then, not only i s the group pe r c e i v i n g more negative information than an i n -d i v i d u a l (as with the f i r s t explanation) but also each i n -d i v i d u a l member i n the group i s per c e i v i n g more negative i n -formation than he would as an i n d i v i d u a l . The amount of negative information perceived as a r e s u l t of group i n t e r a c t i o n i s not simply concomitant (a function of the number of members i n the group) but rather g e s t a l t . R i s k y - S h i f t One i n t e r e s t i n g i m p l i c a t i o n of the f i n d i n g that i n d i v -i d u a l r a t e r s are more l e n i e n t than group r a t e r s i s i t s r e -l a t i o n s h i p to what would be predicted by the " r i s k y - s h i f t " model. The U.risky-shift" i n phenomenon r e f e r s to the 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 with 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 d e c i s i o n matter. B a s i c a l l y , groups are seen as being more r i s k y than i n d i v i d u a l s . This discovery was f i r s t reported by Stoner i n 1961 i n an unpublished master's t h e s i s and l a t e r s u b s t a n t i a t e d by Wallach, Kogan, Bern and others (Wallach, Kogan and Bern, 1962; Marquis, 1962; Wallach, Kogan and Bern, 1964; Bern, Wallach and W l l l -Kogan, 1965; Wallach and Kogan, 1965; Kogan and Wallach, 1967). This notion of the " r i s k y ' s h i f t " could have s i g n i f -i c a n t e f f e c t s on employment interviewing. I f groups are used, one might expect t h e i r decisions to be more r i s k y . Depending upon the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r i s k , i n t h i s s e t t i n g , t h i s could prove c o s t l y . The key question, then, i s how does r i s k r e l a t e to the employment interview. 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 decision-making? Perhaps t h i s question should be looked at i n terms of Type I versus Type I I err o r . Type I err o r i s r e f l e c t e d by the h i r i n g of an unsuitable candidate while Type II e r r o r i s the f a i l u r e to h i r e a sui t a b l e candidate. What must f i r s t be determined i s which of these errors involves more r i s k . Springbett's (see Webster, 1964) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the import of negative information on the h i r i n g d e c i s i o n provides some ideas i n t h i s regard. As Webster (1964) states: "Springbett ... impressed by the apparent pre-dominance given to negative information, suggests an a t t i t u d e or set on the part of the interviewer i s created by the system of awards and punishments that marks the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the employment and the production depa rtments. He points out that two f a c t s are c l e a r s : punishment i s more c e r t a i n than reward and only one type of error i s punished. As to the f i r s t , 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 ; praise f o r h i r i n g good employees r a r e l y occurs. This s i t u a t i o n produced an att i t u d e of caution on the part of the interviewer who develops a high s e n s i t i v i t y to negative evidence with respect both to i t s de-t e c t i o n and to the weight attached to i t . " (p. 9 0 ) This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n suggests Type I err o r as being the more r i s k y a l t e r n a t i v e . -112-Furthermore, i t would seem that organizations would desire to minimize costs of t r a i n i n g and s e l e c t i o n , or at l e a s t o f f s e t these costs by ensuring that t r a i n e d personnel w i l l remain with the organization i n a productive capacity. At the same time, the "costs" associated with a low i n t e r -viewer performance r a t i n g or a lowering of esteem on the part of the interviewer;'s superior or peers towards him as the outcome of," committing a Type I error may be higher than any personal costs suffered as a r e s u l t of Type I I er r o r . Besides, the l i k e l i h o o d of others i n the organization knowing that the interviewer released a sui t a b l e candidate i s quite slim. Even i f others did f i n d out, the interviewer i s always able to r a t i o n a l i z e h i s actions by de c l a r i n g that the candidate performed very poorly i n the interview. These i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s would suggest that more r i s k i s associated with committing a Type I e r r o r than with a Type I I er r o r . That i s , the r i s k y stance i s taken by being more le n i e n t i n evaluative r a t i n g s and thereby increasing the 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 that 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 completely inconsistent with the f i n d i n g s reported here. I f , however, the r i s k y a l t e r n a t i v e i s taken as being the Type I I e r r o r then the fin d i n g s are consistent with the model's p r e d i c t i o n . One could argue that the costs of a Type I I e r r o r are always or u s u a l l y unknown, henee^., there i s -113-always a greater Type II r i s k operating i n selection decisions. The framework within which r i s k i s defined here, however, i s from an organizational point of view. In the p r i o r discussion, r i s k was approached from personal and interpersonal points of view. Quite p o s s i b l y Type II e r r o r i s the more r i s k y a l t e r n -ative to the o v e r a l l organization. For 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. This discussion brings under question the u t i l i t y of the " r i s k y -s h i f t " as a p r e d i c t i v e model. Should r i s k only be defined i n terms of d e c i s i o n a l outcomes, as Wallach, Kogan, Bern and others have done, or should i t be approached i n terms of out-comes of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s and intragroup processes. The findings reported here suggest the " r i s k y - s h i f t " to be spurious as a p r e d i c t o r and l a r g e l y dependent on the i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n given to the r i s k - a l t e r n a t i v e s . Groups vs Individuals - R e l i a b i l i t y and Halo (a) I n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y Generally, 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 study were only meagr© to moderate. The median t r a i t c o r r e l a t i o n s were found to be .54- f o r groups and .59 f o r i n d i v i d u a l s (see Table 13, Chapter 4-). While these co-e f f i c i e n t s were not as high as i s customarily required, they were both s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from zero (p<.01). The Percent Pe r f e c t Agreement s t a t i s t i c s were only s l i g h t l y b e tter (median: 60$ f o r groups; 64$ f o r i n d i v i d u a l s ) . The " o v e r a l l " 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 the Pearson product moment c o r r e l a t i o n ( r = .54- f o r groups; r = .59 f o r i n d i v i d u a l s ) . When measured by the PPA, however, the c o e f f i c i e n t s became more respectable (68$ f o r groups; 71$ f o r i n d i v i d u a l s ) . These, however, were s t i l l not as high as they should be. These findings cast suspicion on the t r a i t s themselves; 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 of overlap or commonality, and t h e i r realism and relevance to the r a t e r s . Noteworthy i s the f i n d i n g that the groups were not 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 , as may have been preducted. Zajonc (1966) reports data which suggests the advantages of groups over i n d i v i d u a l s i n terms of r e -l i a b i l i t y . Here, however, l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e was found to e x i s t . The incidence of meagre to moderate i n t r a - r a t e r r e -l i a b i l i t i e s may be explained when viewing the d e c i s i o n - s h i f t between t e s t and r e t e s t r a t i n g s . For both groups and i n -d i v i d u a l s , r a t i n g s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c r i t i c a l (p^.Ol) i n 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 . As with explan-ations f o r fin d i n g s reported e a r l i e r i n t h i s study, perhaps the impact of unfavourable information may have had a bearing on t h i s outcome. In the t e s t s e t t i n g , viewers were l a r g e l y influenced i n t h e i r r a t i n g s by the unfavourable aspects about the candidate. In the r e t e s t s e t t i n g , the same process operates, only t h i s time the o r i g i n a l perceptions of negative information (from the t e s t setting) are f u r t h e r r e i n f o r c e d and also coupled with a d d i t i o n a l negative evidence. This whole process serves to accentuate the weighting given to the unfavourable aspects of the candidate, and r e s u l t s i n more c r i t i c a l r e t e s t r a t i n g s . I t i s p o s s i b l e that the one-week time span may have been inadequate i n terms of lessening the impact of memory on r e t e s t r a t i n g s . A f t e r such a time lapse, the viewers may well have remembered the negative aspects of the candidate. However, i f memory was a contributing:" influence, one would expect the i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y -correlations to be higher. I t appears that some other influence 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 the consequent lower r e -l i a b i l i t i e s . Indeed, fu r t h e r work i n t h i s regard i s j u s t i f i e d to examine t h i s explanation's v e r a c i t y , (b) I n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y As with the i n t r a - r a t e r ^ r e l i a b i l i t i e s , i n t e r - r a t e r agreement was quite low as shown on Table 22, Chapter 4, although here groups' c o e f f i c i e n t s were uniformly higher than those of i n d i v i d u a l s . When comparing the dispersion scores (standard deviations) f o r both samples, though, no 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 were loaated. These fin d i n g s again i n d i c a t e a lack of d e f i n i t i o n a l c l a r i t y among the t r a i t s . Furthermore, they suggest a stereo-type inconsistency i n that the r a t e r s may have held divergent images of what i s expected of an applicant f o r t h i s type of p o s i t i o n . This divergent image was not only held by the student sample but also by the managerial sample. The data i n Column 4- on Table 3, Chapter 4- are i n d i c a t i o n s of r e l i a b i l i t y i n accord with the method suggested by C r i s s y (1952). In the -116-foregoing data, the i n d i v i d u a l viewers showed minimal agree-ment (median r = .26) with the i n d i v i d u a l interviewers. I t i s important to r e c a l l that both of these managerial sub-samples have s i m i l a r experience and are equally aware of the nature of the job f o r which the interviews were held. (c) halo error The incidence of halo e r r o r was suggested by the con-c u r r e n t l y high loadings of most t r a i t s and the " o v e r a l l " v a r i a b l e on one general f a c t o r , and by the high c o r r e l a t i o n s between the global v a r i a b l e s of " p o t e n t i a l " and " o v e r a l l " and the c a l l back-reject d e c i s i o n . In the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , the only t r a i t which con-s i s t e n t l y gave very high loadings 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 discussed i n Chapter 4, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that appearance i s the only d i r e c t l y observable t r a i t on which7:;.ratings must be given. Ratings f o r the remaining t r a i t s must a l l be i n f e r r e d from the exchange of communications i n the interview. I t i s quite p o s s i b l e , then, that i f each of the t r a i t s were t i e d to d i r e c t l y observable behaviours, as Maas ( 1 9 6 5 ) recommends, that separate f a c t o r s f o r each trait'may emerge, much l i k e that reported by Howell and Vincent ( 1 9 7 0 ) . Furthermore, contrary to what might be predicted, no d i f f e r e n c e s were found to e x i s t between the f a c t o r space occupied 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 propensity of groups (Holloman and Hendrick, 1 9 7 1 ) » -117-one might expect groups to discriminate among the t r a i t s more so than the i n d i v i d u a l s . The very high canonical cor-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 (see Table 12, Chapter 4-) i n d i c a t e thattsuch an expectation was not met. Restructuring the Bank's Interview Procedure The foregoing f i n d i n g s regarding r e l i a b i l i t y and halo error 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 of Montreal's interview procedure i s i n order. This re-organization could focus upon three aspects of the Bank's personnel s e l e c t i o n process; the r a t i n g form, the interview i t s e l f , and interviewer t r a i n i n g , (a) the r a t i n g form: Maas (1965) proposed a procedure where r a t i n g s are made using scaled examples of on-the-job behaviour rather than using a t r a d i t i o n a l adjective r a t i n g scale (as was used here). As discussed i n Chapter 2, Maas' fin d i n g s showed quite markedly the improvement i n r e l i a b i l i t y by using the former approach instead of the l a t t e r . The procedure he followed i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h i s technique was as below: 1. "the t r a i t s to be evaluated were established by a committee of interviewers who were f a m i l i a r with the job to be performed." The managers with the Bank may pursue t h i s a c t i v i t y by f i r s t of a l l divorcing themselves from the current r a t i n g form and turning to the job i t s e l f . A guiding question they - 1 1 8 -c o u l d f o l l o w i s : what c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s h o u l d a t r a i n e e h o l d to s u c c e s s f u l l y complete the d u t i e s a s s i g n e d t o h i s p o s i t i o n ? One a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n i s , o f c o u r s e , - why? T h i s p r o c e d u r e , o f n e c e s s i t y , i m p l i e s the e x i s t e n c e o f an adequate job d e s c r i p t i o n . 2. "examples o f on-the-job b e h a v i o u r were w r i t t e n t o i l l u s t r a t e t h r e e l e v e l s o f each t r a i t - a h i g h degree o f the t r a i t , an average degree ... and a low degree..." Here, the approach t o be taken i s t o address the q u e s t i o n , what w i l l t h e t r a i n e e be d o i n g t o demonstrate t h e s e t h r e e l e v e l s o f each t r a i t ? F o r i n s t a n c e , i f l e a d e r s h i p was f e l t t o be a c r i t i c a l t r a i t , an example o f b e h a v i o u r s which r e l a t e d t o each l e v e l would be: I f an i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t .'..arises between h i m s e l f and one o f h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s the t r a i n e e w i l l : h i g h degree (a) i d e n t i f y and c o n f r o n t the problem immediately w i t h t h e i n t e n t i o n o f a c h i e v i n g a r e s o l u t i o n m u t u a l l y 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 s u b o r d i n a t e ; average degree (b) i d e n t i f y the problem and 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 ; low degree ( c ) i g n o r e the problem a l l t o g e t h e r o r 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 . T h i s i s a f a b r i c a t e d i t e m and i s not i n t e n d e d t o be one a c t u a l l y u s ed by the Bank. I t does however a l t e r t r a i t - 1 1 9 -d e f i n i t i o n s away from being nebulously i n t e r p r e t e d toward being t i e d to s p e c i f i c behaviours. Perhaps f o r each t r a i t , three or four such items could be employed. 3. "independent judges, not knowing which examples were written f o r which t r a i t s and l e v e l s , r e a l l o c a t e d the examples back i n t o t r a i t s and l e v e l s " . 4 . "only examples with complete agreement as to t r a i t and l e v e l were retained". 5 . "these examples were arranged on a continuous v e r t i c a l graphic r a t i n g s c a l e , ... p u t t i n g each example at i t s proper scaled l e v e l f o r the t r a i t " . One f u r t h e r procedure, not s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d by Maas ( 1 9 6 5 ) i s to construct questions around each item. The method recommended by Kahn and Cannell ( 1 9 5 7 ) i n t h e i r Chapters 7 and 8 would provide a use f u l g u i d e l i n e . Again, these questions should be agreed upon as being relevant and useful by a l l interviewers concerned. The outcome of the above o v e r a l l p r a c t i c e would be a standardized interview guide of the type recommended by Carlson et a l ( 1 9 7 1 ) . Once the guide i s developed, r e l i a b i l i t y and, i f p o s s i b l e , v a l i d i t y checks should be made, s i m i l a r to thosetresearched i n t h i s study. (b) the interview: The key aspect of a redesigned interview i s standard-The d e f i n i t i o n of leadership as shown on the current form used by the Bank i s : "degree of leadership experience, extra-c u r r i c u l a r p o s i t i o n s held". -120-i z a t i o n . The interviewers should a l l be asking e s s e n t i a l l y the same core questions and thereby r e c e i v i n g comparable responses from interviewees. Furthermore, as Maas (1965) recommends, each interviewer should rate each candidate on each t r a i t by making analogies from the candidates responses to the standardized questions, to behaviour that might be expected of the candidate, were he a c t u a l l y on the job. This procedure, coupled with the intensive^and rigorous prelim-inary a c t i v i t i e s described e a r l i e r should serve to increase the r e l i a b i l i t y and comparability?of the interviews as well as the confidence which the interviewers place i n t h e i r r a t i n g decisions. (c) interviewer t r a i n i n g : Carlson et a l (1971) stress the importance of an i n -tensive t r a i n i n g program f o r interviewers. They emphasize that such a program i s c r i t i c a l " 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". One program which would be u s e f u l was attempted as an addendum to t h i s study. While no empirical data was obtained to demonstrate i t s u t i l i t y , the program appeared to be bene-f i c i a l according to the reports obtained'from the interviewers involved. The procedure was as:follows: In order to construct a questionnaire r e l a t i n g to the interviewers* interviewing a b i l i t i e s , the approach recommended by Robert F. Mager (1962, 1968) was u t i l i z e d . Discussions with the Employment and Employee Relations Manager, the Personnel Manager and a number of interviewers, a l l from the Bank, r e s u l t e d i n i d e n t i f y i n g necessary steps involved i n performing an employment interview. I n i t i a l l y , the job was broken down int o i t s various component steps. These were found to consist of: 1. Create an atmosphere of rapport; 2 . Demonstrate an i n t e r e s t i n the interviewee; 3. Gather information r e l a t i n g to the interviewee's s u i t a b i l i t y f o r the job; 4. Ask interviewee to describe h i s conception of the job; 5. Correct interviewee's misconceptions ( i f any); 6. Give a d d i t i o n a l information regarding the job; hours, pay, mobi l i t y , etc.; 7. Generally improve or at l e a s t maintain the interviewee 1s image of the Bank or whatever organization i s concerned. Around these steps, a questionnaire (see Appendix 4) was constructed which aimed at i d e n t i f y i n g the extent to which interviewers s a t i s f i e d these r e q u i s i t e task components. At the end of each interview, the interviewer rated himself on the questionnaire and the interviewee evaluated the interviewer. This was f e l t to be an important aspect of the program since, very r a r e l y , do interviewers f i n d out how well they communicated or generally "came across" to the interviewee; the person about whom the interviewer must make an evaluation, and the person f o r whom the interviewer must at l e a s t leave a favourable impression. Furthermore, at the end of each showing of the video-. -122-taped interviews, the viewers (both groups and i n d i v i d u a l s ) evaluated the interviewer on the questionnaire. Responses to the questionnaire i n d i c a t e d areas of interviewer strength and weakness and, more important, i d e n t i f i e d interviewer t r a i n i n g needs;. For each interviewer, a summary.-was made of h i s r a t i n g s of interviewees and t h e i r comparison with the interviewees* s e l f - r a t i n g s and with groups' and i n d i v i d u a l s ' r a t i n g s of the interviewees. The form used here was the Bank's r a t i n g form (see E x h i b i t 1, Chapter 3). Also summarized were the i n t e r -viewees', the groups; and the i n d i v i d u a l s ' evaluations of the interviewer, as well as the interviewer's s e l f - r a t i n g s . A l l t h i s information was presented to each interviewer i n a numeric and d e s c r i p t i v e form, c a l l e d a Summary Sheet (see Appendix 5 f o r an example). At the same time as t h i s inform-ation was given back to the interviewer he was shown some of h i s video-taped interviews to h i g h l i g h t those areas of strength and weakness described i n the Summary Sheet. With the video-taped interviews the interviewer served as h i s own example. He was encouraged to make notes and ask questions. He was also i n v i t e d to stop or replay the tape at any time. Concurrent with the viewing session, the Employment and Employee Relations Manager of the Bank, other interviewers and t h i s author offered suggestions f o r the interviewer to consider f o r self-improvement. This describes the extent of the t r a i n i n g program a c t u a l l y administered i n the Bank. One f i n a l c r i t i c a l stage, -123-and one f o r which inadequate time and resources were av a i l a b l e f o r i t s implementation, would be to video-tape more i n t e r -views with the same interviewers using the same procedure to determine whether or not there was an improvement i n interviewing a b i l i t y . Responses given to the questionnaire by interviewees and viewers would provide adequate measures of any changes. One important feature of t h i s program was that a hig h l y structured and intensive feedback component was coupled with the video-tape playbacks of interviews. This meets with the suggestion given by Weber ( 1 9 6 9 ) and Walter and Miles ( 1 9 7 2 ) . In a study of group decision-making Weber ( 1 9 6 9 ) d i s -covered that groups provided with 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 to guide t h e i r viewing "experienced greater i n -creases i n personal agreement with group decisions, s a t i s -f a c t i o n with personal performance, perceived adequacy of group decision-making procedures and personal understanding of group decisions than groups which lacked i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r viewing" or groups which received no feedback at a l l . Walter and Miles ( 1 9 7 2 ) found that the amount of personal change experienced 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 to the degree of feedback structure imposed during playbacks. This evidence i n d i c a t e s that a t r a i n e r cannot r e l y s o l e l y on the trainee's i n s i g h t to perceive s u f f i c i e n t information from video-tape viewings to develop personal improvement. Rather, i t suggests that p a r t i c i p a n t s should be furnished with a "viewer's guide" f o r playback sessions to o f f e r d i r e c t i o n -124--regarding what important personal behaviours to observe and what each behaviour means. Such a guide was employed here. As stated e a r l i e r , no empirical evidence was gathered to support or refute the u t i l i t y of t h i s t r a i n i n g program fo r interviewers. I t d i d , however, meet with the approval of a l l involved, and, by way of s e l f - r e p o r t i n g , the i n t e r -viewers d i d i n d i c a t e that they learned a considerable amount about t h e i r behaviour i n the interview s e t t i n g . I l l A t titudes Toward Video-Tape In the study reported by Moore and Craik ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 6 6 $ of the student group and 5 3 $ of the administrator group f e l t that most graduating students would react unfavourably to the suggestion that they take part i n a video-taped interview. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study, however, showed that 7 6 $ of the interviewees (who were a l l graduating students) would ?be w i l l i n g to undergo such a video-taped interview. Furthermore, 7 6 $ of the interviewees exhibited marked enthusiasm f o r the use of video-taped i n i t i a l screening interviews i n s e l e c t i n g u n i v e r s i t y graduates. The fears expressed by Moore and Craik's ( 1 9 7 2 ) samples that many of a person's " r e a l " 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 transmitted e f f e c t i v e l y v i a video-tape may well be al l a y e d by the data found here. The interviewees from t h i s study stated that, except f o r nervousness and verbal self-expression, t h e i r behaviours were quite p a r a l l e l to what - 1 2 5 -they would have been without the video-tape, and that i n no way were they as threatened by the medium as might have been expected. The most important objection expressed by the interviewees was that the student may be forced to become an "actor". This, however, i s a common objection held to-wards non-video-taped face-to-face interviews. The more important aspect of t h e i r objections i s that they d i d not f e e l that many important personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s cannot be conveyed over video-tape and that i n front of a camera, most people do not act n a t u r a l l y . This i s i n marked contrast to the objections held by Moore and Craik*s samples, and, indeed, lends support to the possible u t i l i t y of video-tape i n i n t e r -views. Furthermore, again i n opposition to Moore and Craik's samples, there was a d e f i n i t e concern shown by the interviewees f o r e t h i c a l and control issues. The second and t h i r d objections given by t h i s sample r e l a t e d to the c o n f i d e n t i a l nature of the video-taped interview (objection 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 of the video-tape equipment and noise and the presence of the operator reported by the interviewees as being minimally present throughout the interview. The most s i g n i f i c a n t cause of d i s t r a c t i o n was the knowledge that they were being video-taped and t h i s , too, served to d i s t r a c t f o r only approximately one-fourth of the interviews. The d i s t r a c t i o n problem can i n most instances be overcome by o f f e r i n g some non-threatening exposure before actual video-taping takes place. S p e c i f i c techniques which may be employed -126-to minimize t h i s problem's p r o b a b i l i t y of occurence are t h r e e f o l d . F i r s t of a l l , the p a r t i c i p a n t s could have a l l the video-tape equipment f u l l y explained to them. This gives them a non-threatening i n t r o d u c t i o n to the equipment and should 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 to work with i t . Second, a few non-interview r e l a t e d s i t u a t i o n s could be taped and played back. Johnston (1967) mentioned the technique of allowing t r a i n e e s to do anything they want to do i n f r o n t of the camera, from making face to r e c i t i n g Shakespeare. When they see themselves they u s u a l l y are i n i t i a l l y shocked by seeing what they are r e a l l y l i k e . Very quickly most people lea r n to accept themselves and behave n a t u r a l l y . Third, the interviewees could be given the opportunity to do some video-taping themselves. Let them become the operators. Again, t h i s should make them f e e l more relaxed and l e s s threatened i n the presence of the camera. The foregoing evidence suggests that video-tape may well be accepted as part of the interviewing process. Inter-viewees exhibited l i t t l e defensive behaviour regarding i t s use and f u r t h e r stated that they were minimally d i s t r a c t e d and that t h e i r behaviours were not too d i f f e r e n t from what they would have been i n the absence of video-tape. The major area of concern r e l a t e d to e t h i c a l matters which could e a s i l y be accomodated by a formal contractual arrangement between the interviewee and the interviewing organization regarding p r i v a c y and r e s t r i c t e d use of the video-taped interview. The viewers, on the other hand, showed considerably l e s s enthusiasm toward video-tape use While, i n general, the interviewee c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were described by the viewers as being r e a l i s t i c a l l y conveyed over the video-tape, they s t i l l showed a lack of acceptance f o r the medium. Perhaps t h i s may be explained by looking at t h e i r major objections. Besides a concern f o r cost, the viewers seemed to be quite occupied with the f a c t that they were removed from the interview s e t t i n g and could not ask questions or probes. This l a t t e r concern by the viewers exemplifies the statement by Webster (1964) that interviewers look f o r d i f -ferent things. This may serve to explain why the viewers, e s p e c i a l l y the i n d i v i d u a l s , d i f f e r e d from the interviewers i n t h e i r judgments. C e r t a i n l y , d i f f e r i n g perceptions i s a source of i n t e r - i n t e r v i e w e r disagreement and r a t i n g error. Perhaps t h i s problem could be r e c t i f i e d by the adoption of a more structured interview containing questions which a l l interviewing personnel have seemed to be important and which a l l such personnel would ask i f they were i n the r o l e of interviewer. The procedure f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g such an interview structure would be the same as was e a r l i e r described. O v e r a l l , these findings i n d i c a t e that video-tape can serve a purpose i n employment interviewing, p r i n c i p a l l y i n the supplementary r o l e as discussed by Moore and Craik (1972). Furthermore, i f adequate measures are taken, the primary issues of concern stated by both interviewees and viewers can be r e a d i l y a l l e v i a t e d . -128-CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS; RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY The major findings emerging i n t h i s study may be summarized as follows: (1) Decisions made by groups of managers a f t e r ex-posure 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. (2) I n d i v i d u a l ratings tended to be 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 interviewer r a t i n g s . (3) In general, i n d i v i d u a l viewer ra t i n g s tended to be uniformly and, i n most cases, 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 group r a t i n g s . This f i n d i n g emerged f o r both the managerial sample and the student sample. (4-) 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 to be low to moderate. Furthermore there was l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c 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 except f o r the r a t e r i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s ( i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y ) where groups were uniformly more r e l i a b l e than i n d i v i d u a l s (although the c o e f f i c i e n t s were low). (5) The group and i n d i v i d u a l raters d i d not appear to discriminate among the rated v a r i a b l e s , except perhaps f o r appearance. Possible existence of halo error was exemplified by the high c o r r e l a t i o n s of " 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 to c a l l "back or 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 to the whole person rather than any-s p e c i f i c t r a i t . (6) When exploring i n t r a - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y , i t was found that r e t e s t (Time 2) ratings were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c r i t i c a l (p-^.01) than the i n i t i a l t e s t ratings (Time 1). This 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 rated v a r i a b l e s as well as f o r the c a l l back-reject de-c i s i o n . (7) The interviewees exhibited an enthusiasm f o r the use of video-tape. Furthermore, they stated that several elements of the video-tape offered minimal d i s t r a c t i o n and that, with video-tape, most of the various aspects of t h e i r behaviour were r e a l i s t i c a l l y portrayed. On the other hand, the viewers displayed a hesitancy and, on the average, only a moderate enthusiasm. These findings and the discussion surrounding them in d i c a t e a number of areas where f u r t h e r research would be i n order. Three such areas, seen by t h i s author as being of p a r t i c u l a r importance are as follows. (1) One i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the f i n d i n g that 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 ratings of candidates was that the dynamics of group i n t e r a c t i o n l e d members to conform to a group norm that emphasizes high evaluative standards. Further research could address the issue of whether or not such a norm e x i s t s i n a personnel decision-making group and, i f so, what type and amount of -130-influence does i t have on the rating decision. ( 2 ) Further to the second recommendation above, perhaps the "risky s h i f t " could be examined from the point of view of personal risks based on the attempted satisfaction of group member's social needs through conformity to group norms, rather than from the more traditional point of view of decisional outcomes. When interpreting risk i n terms of decisional outcomes, this study found the "risky s h i f t " to be an inadequate predictor of group vs individual differences. When treated i n terms of personal risks, however, the "risky-shif t " became a viable alternative explanation. (3) Rating viewers of the video-taped interviews expressed as an objection the fact that they were not a direct part of the interviewing process and, as a result, could not ask questions or probes to interviewees. Further-more, the fact that they wished to ask questions other than or i n addition to those asked by the interviewer suggests that they were focusing upon different candidate attributes. This condition may explain the low levels of agreement between individual viewers and interviewers. Would the restructuring of the interview process, as described i n Chapter 5, have led to high levels of inter-rater agreement? Considerable evidence exists to show that higher inter-rater agreement i s found with more structured interviews (Carlson, Schwab and Heneman, 1970; Schwab and Heneman, 1969). Would this be the case i f the video-taping procedure, as u t i l i z e d i n this study, were employed? Also, would the viewer's attitudes toward video-tape become more favourable? - 1 3 1 -Furthermore, the r e l i a b i l i t y data found in this study suggest that the Bank of Montreal's interviewing procedure suffers from numerous sources of error, notably the different perceptual f o c i i of the raters and the ambiguity and lack of definitional c l a r i t y surrounding the rating factors. As i s consistently shown i n the literature (Anderson, 1 9 5 4 ; Maas, 1 9 6 5 ; Carlson, Schwab and Heneman, 1 9 7 0 ) , restructuring this interviewing procedure along the lines described i n Chapter 5 would i n a l l likelihood result i n more respectable r e l i a b i l -i t i e s and more confidence i n interviewers' ratings. These are only three areas where this study indicates that further research may be carried out. The discussion i n Chapters 2 and 5 provide suggestions for research i n other directions. Only with such research can meaningful answers be found and can the "state of the art" of interviewing be improved. Bibliography American Psychological Association. Technical Recommend-ations f o r Psychological Tests and Diagnostic Tech-niques. Psychological B u l l e t i n Supplement. March, 1954, 5 1 , Number 2, Part 2. ( c i t e d i n Brown, Lucero and Poss, 1962). Anderson, C. W. The Relation Between Speaking Times and Decision i n the Employment Interview. Journal of  Applied Psychology, I960, 44, 4, 267-268": Bern, D. J . , Wallach, M. A., and Kogan, N. Group Decision Making Under Risk of Aversive Consequences. Journal  of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1965, 1, 455-460. Blakeney, R. N., and MacNaughton, J. P. E f f e c t s of Temporal Placement of Unfavorable Information on Decision Making During the S e l e c t i o n Interview. Journal of Applied  Psychology, 1971, 5 5 , 138-142. Blalock, H. M. Soeial S t a t i s t i c s . McGraw-Hill: New York, i960. B o l s t e r , B. I., and Springbett, B. M. The Reaction of Inter-viewers to Favorable and Unfavorable Information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 45, 2, 97-103. Brown, B. W., Lucero, R. J . , and Poss, A. B. A S i t u a t i o n Where the Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t Leads to Erroneous Assessment of R e l i a b i l i t y . Journal of  C l i n i c a l Psychology, XVIII, 1962, 9 5 - 9 7 ^ Brown, Roger. S o c i a l Psychology. New York: Free Press, 1965. Bruce, R. S. Group Judgments i n the F i e l d s of L i f t e d Weights and V i s u a l Discrimination. Journal of Psychology, 1935, 1, 1 1 7-121. ( c i t e d i n Zajonc, 1966). Bruner, J . S. On Perceptual Readiness. Psychological Review, 1 9 5 7 , 64, 1 2 3 - 1 5 2 . Business Week, July 10, 1 9 7 1 , p. 36. Campbell, John P. Indivi d u a l Versus Group Problem Solving i n an I n d u s t r i a l Sample. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 5 2 , 4, 205-210. Campbell, David T., and Fiske, Donald W. Convergent and Discriminant V a l i d a t i o n by the M u l t i t r a i t Multimethod Matrix. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1 9 5 9 , 56, 8 1 - 1 0 5 . - 1 3 3 -Carlson, Robert E. S e l e c t i o n Interview Decisions: The E f f e c t of Interviewer Experience, Relative Quota S i t u a t i o n And Applicant Sample on Interviewer Decisions. Personnel Psychology, 2 0 , 1 9 6 7 a , 259-280. Carlson, Robert E. S e l e c t i o n Interview Decisions: The Relative Influence^of Appearance and Factual Written Information on an Interviewer's F i n a l Rating. Journal  of Applied Psychology, 1 9 6 7 b , 5 1 , 6 , 461-468. Carlson, Robert E. Employment Decisions: E f f e c t of Mode of Applicant Presentation on Some Outcome Measures. Personnel Psychology, 1968, 2 1 , 1 9 3 - 2 0 7 . Carlson, 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 , 5 5 , 1 , 6 6 - 7 2 " : Carlson, R. E. and Mayfield, E. C. Evaluating Interview and Employment A p p l i c a t i o n Data. Personnel Psychology, 1 9 6 7 , 2 0 , 441-460. Carlson, Robert E., Schwab, Donald P., and Heneman, SH, Herbert, G. Agreement Among St y l e s of S e l e c t i o n Inter-viewing. Journal of I n d u s t r i a l Psychology, 1 9 7 0 , 5 , 1 , 8 - 1 7 . Carlson, R. E., Thayer, P. W., Mayfield, E. C , and Peterson, D. A. Improvements i n the S e l e c t i o n Interview. Personnel Journal, A p r i l , 1 9 7 1 , 2 6 8 - 2 7 5 . Cartwright, D., and Zander, A. Group Dynamics, Research and  Theory. New York: Harper-Row, 1968. C a t t e l l , J . McK. American Men of Science ( 2 n d Ed., 1 9 1 0 ) , Appendix ( c i t e d i n Symonds, 1 9 3 1 ) . C l i n e , V i c t o r B., and Richards, James M., A Comparison o f f Individuals Versus Groups i n Judging P e r s o n a l i t y . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 9 6 1 , 4 5 , 3 , 1 5 0 - 1 5 5 . Crissy, W. J . E. The Employment Interview - Research Areas, Methods and Results. Personnel Psychology, 1 9 5 2 , 5 , C r i s s y , W. J . , and Regan, J . Halo i n the Employment Interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 9 5 1 , 3 5 , 3 3 8-341. Crowell, A. R. Decision Sequences i n Perception. 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 , 1 9 6 1 , ( c i t e d i n Webster, 1 9 6 4 ) . Eysenck, H. J . The V a l i d i t y of Judgments as a Function of the Number of Judges. Journal of Experimental Psy-chology, 1 9 3 9 , 2 5 , 650-654 ( 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 of a Personnel Interview. Personnel Psychology, 1 9 6 6 , 1 9 , 3 8 9 - 3 9 4 . Goodman, Leo A., and Kruskal, William H. Measures of Association f o r C r o s s - C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . Journal of the American S t a t i s t i c a l Association, 1 9 5 4 , 4 9 , 7 3 2 - 7 6 4 . Ccited i n Brown, Lucero and Poss, 1962). Gordon, K. H. Group Judgments In the P i e l d of 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. Contributions of the Interview to Assessment of Management P o t e n t i a l . Journal of.' Applied Psychology, 1 9 6 9 , 5 3 , 2 4 - 3 4 . Hakel, M i l t o n D., and Dunnette, Marvin D. Checklists Por Describing Job Applicants. I n d u s t r i a l Relation Center, U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, 1 9 7 0 . Hakel, M. D., Dobmeyer, T. W., and Dunnette, M. D. Relative Importance of Three Content Dimensions i n O v e r a l l S u i t a b i l i t y Ratings of Job Applicants' Resumes. Journal  of Applied Psychology, 1 9 7 0 , 5 4 , 1 , 6 5 - 7 1 . Hakel, M. D., Ohnesorge, J . P., and Dunnette, M. D. Inter-viewer Evaluations of Job Applicants' Resumes As a Function of the Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of the Immediately Preceding Applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 9 7 0 , 5 4 , 1 , 27—30. Hakel, M i l t o n D., Hollmann, Thomas D., and Dunnette, Marvin D. Accuracy of Interviewers, C e r t i f i e d P u b l i c Accountants, and Students i n I d e n t i f y i n g the Interests of Accountants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5 4 , 2 , 1 9 7 0 , 1 1 5 - 1 1 9 . Hakel, M. D., and Schuh, A. J . Job Applicant A t t r i b u t e s Judged Important Across Seven Diverse Occupations. Personnel Psychology, 1 9 7 1 , 24, 4 5 - 5 2 . H a l l , E. J . , Mouton, J . S., and Blake, R. R. Group Problem Solving E f f e c t i v e n e s s Under Conditions of Pooling and I n t e r a c t i o n . Journal of S o c i a l Psychology, 1 9 6 3 , 5 9 , 1 4 7 - 1 5 7 . ~~" H a l l , J . , and Williams, M. S. Group Dynamics Tr a i n i n g and Improved Decision Making. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science*, 1 9 7 0 , 6 , 1 , 3 9 - 6 8 " : Hollingworth, H. L. Judging Human Character. Appleton: New York, 1 9 2 2 . Ccited i n Symonds, l93l). Holloman, C. R., and Hendrick, H. W. Problem Solving i n D i f f e r -ent Sized Groups. Personnel Psychology, 1 9 7 1 , 24, 4 8 9 - 5 0 0 . -135-Howell, M. A., and Vincent, J . W. Factor Analysis of Inter-view Data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 9 7 0 , 54, 4, 313, Johnston, William R. Closed C i r c u i t TV i n Sales T r a i n i n g . Training and Development Journal. A p r i l , 1967, 21, 4, 18 - 2 5 . Kahn, R. L., and Connell, C. F. The Dynamics of Interviewing. New York: Wiley, 1957. Kasl, S. V., and Mahl, G. F. A Simple Device f o r Obtaining Certain Verbal A c t i v i t y Measures During Interviews. Journal of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1956, 5 3 , 288-390. Kennedy, Joanna B. Use of Audio-Visual Techniques i n Training The Hard-Core. T r a i n i n g and Development Journal, February, 1970, 20-32. K e r l i n g e r , Fred N. Foundation of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. Kogan, N., and Wallach, M. A. R i s k y - S h i f t Phenomenon i n Small Decision-Making Groups: A Test of the Information-Exchange Hypothesis. Journal of Experimental S o c i a l  Psychology, 1967, 3 , 73~=cW. Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C., and Fillenbaum, S., Eval u a t i o n a l Reactions to Spoken Languages, Journal  of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, I960, 60, 44-5H Lewin, Kurt, 1945 (given i n a speech by E.E. Lawler, I I I , 1972). Lorge, I., Fox, D., Davitz, J . , and Brenner, M. A Survey of Studies Contrasting the Quality of Group Performance and Indivi d u a l Performance, 1920-1957. Psychological  B u l l e t i n , 1958, 5 5 , 6, 3 3 7 - 3 7 2 . MacDonald, J . Brian. The Use of Video Tape i n the Personnel 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, Marshall. Understanding Media. Toronto: McGraw-H i l l , 1964. Maas, James B. Patterned Scaled Expectation Interview: R e l i a b i l i t y Studies On a New Technique. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49, 6, 431-433. Mager, Robert F. Preparing I n s t r u c t i o n a l Objectives. Belmont, C a l i f . : Fearon, 1962. -136-Mager, Robert F. Developing Attitude Toward Learning. Belmont, C a l i f . : I'earon, 1968. Maier, N. R. F. Assets and L i a b i l i t i e s i n Group Problem Solving: The Need f o r an Integrative Function. Psychological Review, 1967, 74, 4, 2 3 9-249. Maier, N. R. F., Solem, A. R., and Maier, A. Supervisory and  Executive Development. New York: Wiley, 1 9 5 7 . Marquis, D. G. Ind i v i d u a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y and Group Decisions Involving Risk. I n d u s t r i a l Management Review, 1962, 3 , 8 - 2 3 . Mayfield, Eugene C. The S e l e c t i o n Interview - A Re-evaluation of Published Research. Personnel Psychology, 1964, 17, 2 3 9-260. Mayfield, Eugene C , and Carlson, Robert E. S e l e c t i o n Inter-view Decisions: F i r s t Results From a Long-Term Research Pro j e c t . Personnel Psychology, 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. Influence of Favorable and Unfavorable Information Upon Assessment Decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 5 1 , 5 , 432-435. Moore, L. F., and Craik, J . C. Video Tape and the Screening Interview. Personnel Journal, 1972, 51, 3 , 1 7 3-178. Norsworthy, N., The V a l i d i t y of Judgments of Character. Essays i n Honor of William Jones, 1910 ( c i t e d i n Symonds, 1 9 3 1 ) . O f f i c e of St r a t e g i c Services. Assessment of Men. New York: Rinehart, 1948. Ot i s , J . E., Campbell, J. H., and Prien, E. P. Assessment of Higher-Level Personnel: VII. The Nature of Assessment. Personnel Psychology, 1962, 1 5 , 44-1-446. Palac i o s , M. H., Newberry, L. A., and Bodtzin, R. R. P r e d i c t i v e V a l i d i t y of the Interview. Journal of Applied  Psychology, 1966, 50, 1 , 6 7 - 7 2 . : Rimland, B. A Follow-up Analysis of the New Composite System f o r S e l e c t i n g NROTC Regular Students. USN Bureau of  Naval Personnel Technical 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. Individual Differences In Assessment Decisions. Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n , McGill U n i v e r s i t y , I960 ( c i t e d i n Webster, 1964). -137-Rowe, P a t r i c i a M. Individual Differences i n Se l e c t i o n Decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1963? 4-7, 304-307. Rowe, P a t r i c i a M. Order E f f e c t s In Assessment Decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, ;967, 51, 2 , 170-173. Rowe, P. M. Differences i n S e l e c t i o n Decisions Among Personnel Interviewers. Canadian Personnel and I n d u s t r i a l Re-l a t i o n s Journal, 1970, 19-23. Rundquist, E. A. Development of an Interview f o r S e l e c t i o n Purposes. In G. A. K e l l y (Ed.), New Methods i n Applied  Psychology. College Park: U n i v e r s i t y of 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 , Herbert, G. Relationship Between Interview Structure and Interviewer R e l i a b i l i t y In an Employment S i t u a t i o n . Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 1969, 53, 3, 214-217. Scott, 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 of Salesmen. Salesmanship, 1916, 4, 106-108 ( c i t e d i n Wagner, 1949). S i e g e l , Sidney. Non-Parametric S t a t i s t i c s . New York: McGraw-H i l l , 1956. " Smith, M. Group Judgments In the P i e l d of Per s o n a l i t y T r a i t s , Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1 9 3 1 , 14, 562-565 Ccited i n Zajonc, 1966J. Smith, P a t r i c i a C., and Kendall, L. M. Retranslation of Expectations: An Approach to the Construction of Unambiguous Anchors f o r Rating Scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1963, 47, 2 , 149-155T S p r i e g e l , W. R., and James, V. A. Trends i n Recruitment and Sele c t i o n P r a c t i c e s . Personnel, 1958, 35, 3, 42-48. Springbett, B. M. Series E f f e c t s i n the Employment Interview. Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n , McGill U n i v e r s i t y , 1954 ( c i t e d i n Webster, 1964). Springbett, B. M. Factors A f f e c t i n g the F i n a l Decision i n the Employment Interview. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1958, 12, 13 -22 . Stoner, J . A. F. A Comparison of Individual and Group De-ci s i o n s Involving Risk. Unpublished Master's Thesis, M.I.T. School of I n d u s t r i a l Management, 1961 ( c i t e d i n Brown, 1965). -138-Stroh, Thomas F. The Uses of Video Tape i n Train i n g and Development. New York: American Management Association, 11. Stroop, J . B. Is the Judgment of the Group Better than that of the Average Member of the Group? Journal of  Experimental Psychology, 1 9 3 2 , 1 5 , 550-560. Sydiaha, Daniel. The Relation Between A c t u a r i a l and Des-c r i p t i v e Methods i n Personnel Appraisal. Unpublished Doetoral 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, Daniel. Bales' I n t e r a c t i o n Process Analysis of Personnel S e l e c t i o n Interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 45, 6, 393-401. Symonds, P. M.- Diagnosing P e r s o n a l i t y and Conduct. New York: App1et on-Century, 1931. T a f t , R. Multiple Methods of P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment. Psych-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 . Thorndike, R. L. and Hagen, E. Measurement and Evaluation  i n Psychology and Education? 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 Interview Since 1949. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1965, 63, 2, 100-116. Wagner, R. F. The Employment Interview: A C r i t i c a l Summary. Personnel Psychology, 1949, 2, 17-46. Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N. The Roles of Information, Discussion and Consensus i n Group Risk Taking. Journal of Experi-mental S o c i a l Psychology, 1965, 1, 1-19. Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., and Bern, D. J . Group Influence on Individ u a l Risk Taking, Journal of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1962, 65, 2, 7 5 - 8 6 . Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., and Bern, D. J . D i f f u s i o n of Re-s p o n s i b i l i t y and Level of Risk Taking i n Groups. Journal of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1964, 68, 3, 263-274. Walter, Gordon A. Augmentation of Task Group Performance Through Video Tape Feedback and S o c i a l Learning. Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n , Berkeley, C a l i f . , 1 9 7 1 . Walter, G. and Miles, R. The Impact of Task Group P a r t i c i p -a t i o n a l Plus Video Tape Feedback on S e l f Acceptance Scores, 1972 (submitted 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 of Videotape Feedback on Inter-a c t i o n Behavior and Role Perceptions i n Small Decision-Making Groups. Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n , Berkeley, C a l i f . , 1969. Webster, E. C. Decision Making In the Employment Interview. I n d u s t r i a l Relations Centre, McGill 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 of Contrast E f f e c t s i n Employment Interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 9 7 2 , 56, 1, 45^48. Wiens, N., Molde, D. A., Holman, D. C., and Matarazzo, J . D. Can Interview In t e r a c t i o n Measures be Taken from Tape Recordings? Journal of Psychology, 1966, 63, 249-260. Wonderlic, E. P. Improving Interview Technique. Personnel, 1942, 18, 232-238 ( c i t e d i n Wagner, 194-9). Woodworth, D. G., Barron, P., and MacKinnon, D. W. An Analysis of L i f e History Interviewers' Ratings f o r 100 A i r Force Captains. USAF Personneland Traini ng Research Center  Technical Note, 1957, Wo. 57-129 ( c i t e d i n U l r i c h and Trumbo, 1965). Wright, Orman R. Summary of Research on the S e l e c t i o n Inter-view Since 1964. Personnel Psychology, 1969, 22, 391-413. Zajonc, R. B. S o c i a l Psychology: An Experimental Approach Wadsworthl Belmont, Cal., 1966. APPENDIX A THE CAMPUS INTERVIEW APPENDIX A -14-1-The Campus Interview Bank of Montreal This i s p r i m a r i l y a screening interview i n which you must decide i f the student should be i n v i t e d to the d i v i s i o n a l o f f i c e f o r a second "look". o Allow s u f f i c i e n t time to review your day's schedule of interviews before the f i r s t interview s t a r t s . o Keep on schedule. I f you don't students may e i t h e r skip the interview or miss c l a s s e s . The following i s a suggested breakdown of steps to be observedain an interview with times suggested f o r each step: Step I Review resume Step I I E s t a b l i s h rapport Step I I I Evaluate student -o Education and work experience o Personal h i s t o r y o P o t e n t i a l 3 min. 2 min. 5 min. Step IV Step V Step VI Step VII Provide information Questions and answers Inform student of future consideration Record r e s u l t s and action 1 min. 2 min. 10 min. 7 min. 5 min. 1 min. (I) 4- min. 30 min. Each of these steps are explained i n d e t a i l below: Review Resume In almost a l l cases you w i l l be provided with a resume on each student. Study t h i s before 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 information on the student along with some information on h i s background, education and work exper-ience. Use i t to a s s i s t you i n planning your interview and a l to avoid asking f o r information he has already supplied. -142-(II) E s t a b l i s h Rapport There are many methods used to gain the confidence and acceptance of a student, each varying according to the pe r s o n a l i t y of the interviewer and the student. The student may be nervous or tense. Put him at ease -(a) Rise from your ch a i r , give him a f r i e n d l y greeting, a firm handshake and introduce yourself by your f i r s t and l a s t name. (b) Use some, not too much, small t a l k . (c) O f f e r him a ci g a r e t t e or permit him to smoke i f he so desires and generally provide an informal but bu s i n e s s l i k e atmosphere conducive to e f f e c t i v e communication. (d) Switch to the meat of the interview q u i e t l y by introducing a broad ser i e s of questions on a t o p i c you think the candidate w i l l t a l k f r e e l y about. (e) Let the student do most of the t a l k i n g . In so doing he w i l l reveal h i s p e r s o n a l i t y and the features he considers important about himself and h i s future. ( f ) Your job i s to l i s t e n c r i t i c a l l y and with understanding, i n t e r s p e r s i n g b r i e f comments only to guide the interview i n t o the areas that w i l l help you to make a proper appraisal of the applicant as a person. ( I l l ) Evaluate Student (see also Section 6) This i s the prime purpose of the interview - to obtain an accurate evaluation of the student while he i s t r y i n g to favourably impress you. (a) Education and Work Experience The student should be encouraged to discuss h i s educational background and work experience. In ad d i t i o n to providing an i n d i c a t i o n of the student's previous t r a i n i n g t h i s provides him with subjects he knows well and can discuss e a s i l y . Statements rather than questions w i l l u s u a l l y produce more information. I f the student i s permitted to discuss h i s background and experiences, a greater i n s i g h t i n t o h i s pe r s o n a l i t y w i l l be obtained. This period of the interview w i l l provide the i n t e r -viewer with the opportunity to evaluate the student * s state-merits, note any inc o n s i s t e n c i e s and shortcomings, observe h i s manner, and consider h i s experience. (b) Personal History The interviewer should, i f p o s s i b l e , consider the influence of the student's home background from the stand-point of e a r l y advantages or disadvantages e f f e c t i n g h i s development during the formative years. Only i f good rapport  has been established, should questions be asked p e r t a i n i n g to the student's home environment. His answers may uncover basic reasons f o r pursuing a higher education, h i s motivation, attitude towards himself, and h i s ambitions. I f the inform-ation i s not provided r e a d i l y by the student or rapport i s not extremely well-established, i t would be best f o r the 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 inexperienced) not to inv e s t i g a t e t h i s subject i n depth. Instead, questions should concentrate on the student's educational background and work experience. The extent of the student'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 sports should be explored, as should any hobbies he enjoys. This may provide i n d i c a t i o n of leadership a b i l i t y and s o c i a b i l i t y . While the student discusses h i s personal h i s t o r y you may be able to assess i f h i s goals are compatable with h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . (c) P o t e n t i a l The student should be questioned as to his career objectives and how he f e e l s these can be f u l f i l l e d i n the Bank. I t should be determined i f he i s cas u a l l y i n t e r e s t e d i n banking or i f he has been considering i t as a career f o r some time. Generally, t h i s may be determined by exploring h i s understanding of banking. Enthusiasm i s also an i n d i c a t o r of p o t e n t i a l , as those with a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e are l e s s l i k e l y to be discouraged by the d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered through demanding job assignments and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . (IV) Provide Information In t h i s part of the interview you should turn from evaluating the student to describing the Bank and i t s oppor-t u n i t i e s . Here you w i l l do most of the t a l k i n g . The student should be informed of the Bank of Montreal, our development programme and the s a l a r i e s and b e n e f i t s , offered by the Bank. Be honest and do not o v e r s e l l . (a) The Bank of Montreal In addi t i o n to the "quick f a c t s " and organization charts included i n the Recruiter's Guide, you should stress -144-our new management philosophy, i . e . to be "the most successful bank i n Canada - which to us means the most p r o f i t a b l e . " Students should be informed of our promotion from within p o l i c y , and the f a c t that we are prepared to give heavy r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to those with 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 thoroughly f a m i l i a r with the Special Development Programme f o r graduates. The nature and extent of assignments and objectives of t h i s programme should be covered as ou t l i n e d i n Section 9 of the Recruiter's Guide. Following t h i s , the i n i t i a l employment l o c a t i o n should be discussed. I f he i s not w i l l i n g to rel o c a t e , reasons should be explored and noted on the Campus Interview form. (c) S a l a r i e s and Benefits The student should be informed of the basic s t a r t i n g s alary f o r h i s l e v e l of education, and that merit increases are provided at regular i n t e r v a l s based on performance. The Bank's ben e f i t s should be covered, i n c l u d i n g our p o l i c y regarding 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 Plan. (V) Questions and Answers You should answer a l l the student's questions i f possible at the time of the interview. Be honest and frank with a l l students p a r t i c u l a r l y with those who are to be considered f u r t h e r . I f a question i s asked which you cannot answer at the time, obtain 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 necessary, and forward a r e p l y to the student. In the i n t e r e s t s of good r e l a t i o n s , t h i s procedure i s to be followed even i f the student does not warrant f u r t h e r con-s i d e r a t i o n . As a general r u l e , the question and answer period should be dealt with as b r i e f l y as possible without l o s s of c l a r i t y . 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 student and, therefore, no time should be wasted. (VI) Inform Student of Future Consideration Close the interview by informing the student that time i s running out and give him a chance to ask one or two l a s t questions. * A l l students should be informed that they w i l l receive a l e t t e r , mailed within ten day of the interview informing them of the outcome of the interview. I f the student i s to remain a candidate t e l l him that h i s resume w i l l be considered thoroughly by management p r i o r to a possible v i s i t to the D i v i s i o n a l O f f i c e . No f i r m o f f e r of employment should be made at the time of the campus interview. 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 pleased you are to have had the chance to t a l k with him. (VII) Record Results and Action Immediately following the interview you must complete the Graduate Recruiting - Campus Interview form. Section 1, 2 (where necessary), 3 and 4 are to be completed on a l l students interviewed. As a r e c r u i t e r , you must decide whether the student i s to be considered f u r t h e r or not. I f the student i s to be considered f u r t h e r , section 5 i s to be completed. Any comments you believe 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 students f o r a "second look" should be included i n the "comments" s e c t i o n . In making your decision watch f o r the f o l l o w i n g : -o Any b i a s that may have r e s u l t e d from an i n c i d e n t i n the interview that e i t h e r very much disturbed or pleased you. o Tendency to se l e c t candidates of a c e r t a i n image pattern. o Evaluations r e s u l t i n g from "halo" r a t i n g . o A b i l i t y of the candidate 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 . APPENDIX B APPLICATION POR EMPLOYMENT B a n k o f M o n t r e a l i Application for Employment Please' print all particulars clearly Divisional Off ice Use Only Division Branch Salary A P P E N D I X B -Entry Date -14-7-Al lowance S h o w Mr., M iss , Mrs. Last Name Given names as on birth cert i f icate—Underl ine or indicate name by wh i ch you are known. Address Number and Street City or T o w n Province Telephone - s C h e c k boxes appl icable Single • & . Marr ied • W i d o w e d • A Separated • •v. Divorced • Languages Speak Fluently or Good work ing knowledge Write wel l or Write fairly wel l • • • • • • • • • • • • Married female applicants—give maiden name t, Person to be contacted in case of emergency  Relationship Telephone CO Birth date_ Q 15 A g e -C Day Month Sex Year Socia l Insurance No. He igh t -We igh t -No. of brothers Sisters If married, does spouse w o r k ? -Name of spouse's employer No. of dependent children 0) OL Yes No • Do you, have any physical defects or diseases? • • If yes, expla in-Yes No Have you ever been guilty of a criminal offence? • • If yes, exp la in-Yes No Have you applied to us before? • • If yes, date Yes No Have you worked for us before? • • If yes, where? -Loca t ion--From -1 9 to_ Yes No Have you ever been discharged or requested to resign from any posit ion you have held? • • If yes, expla in--1 9-If your appl icat ion is accepted, when could you commence wo rk? Yes No ' »Do you have any debts? • • If yes. give particulars of amounts, creditors, e t c Yes No _Will you accept transfers periodically ? • • Yes No Addi t ional sources of income? • • If yes, explain List present or past affiliations in High Schoo l , University, professional or community activities (excluding religious, national or racial groups), mentioning ^offices held, if any. What hobbies or recreational activities do you enjoy? List three persons other than relatives or previous supervisors from w h o m we may request references. Full Address (n^Name o c 0) © Occupat ion Years known Circle highest educational level achieved High Schoo l 10 11 12 13 University 1 2 3 4 Graduate Sc ioo l 1 2 3 4 Name Address From To I I Diploma or Dajree and Major cJjrse Month Year Month Year High S rhnn l P i i c i n e " S rhnn l I in iv p rs i ty Gradua t p S rhnn l Other c o CO u 3 •D UJ If d ip loma or degree not obtained state reason Average marks obtained during each of last 3 years of educat ion List any scholast ic honours including scholarships and a w a r d s — FinaL What were your two best subjects? First S e c o n d -Yes No Do you plan to continue formal educat ion? • • If yes, when , where and what type? Indicate any special skills you have acquired through job experience or specif ic training. Typing • Filing • Posting Mach ine • Shorthand • Bookkeeping • Other • Specify — Dictating machines • Cash Experience • co "(5 c o •H CO Q. 3 O O O List particulars of last three employers from w h o m we may request references. If no previous permanent employment give information concerning part-time and summerwork . If employed at present may we contac tyour employer? Yes • No • Dates 1 Name of Company 2 Address of Company and Telephone No. 3 Name of Supervisor and Title Salary J o b Title or type of work performed Reason for Leaving Starting Final Month Year From 1 $ $ Month Year To 2 per per I 3 I Month Year From 1 $ $ Month Year To 2 per per 3 1 Month Year From 1 $ $ • Month Year To 2 per per 3 i t c CO CO +J CO • c CD £ > o a E Which previous position provided the greatest sat isfact ion?-CO +•> CO Q CO c CD O Addi t ional information wh i ch you feel may be of assistance in assessing your application . W h y are you interested in banking ?_ 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 -149-APPENDIX C Videotaped Interview Questionnaire 1. How many employment interviews have you been to t h i s year? 2. To what extent 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 of the following: (please check the appropriate response) a. presence of the video-tape equipment b. presence of the camera-man Very Dis-t r a c t e d ( d i s t r a c t e d throughout the whole interview) (1) Quite Dis- Somewhat Not trac t e d Distracted Distracted ( d i s t r a c t e d ( d i s t r a c t e d at a l l f o r at l e a s t h a l f of the interview) (2) f o r l e s s than h a l f of the interview) ( 3 ) (4) c. the know-ledge that you were being video-taped d. the noise of the video-tape equipment 3» In t h i s question we are not concerned with such f a c t o r s as  the interviewer, questions asked, room etc., but rather  with the e f f e c t s of being video-taped i n an interview as  compared with not being video-taped. Please keep t h i s i n  mind as you respond. For each of the following behavioural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s please check the extent to which you f e l t your behaviour was b e t t e r or worse i n t h i s video-taped interview as com-pared to how you f e e l i t would have been had the interview not been video-taped. -150-In t h i s video-taped interview, my behaviour along each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was: much be t t e r about s l i g h t l y the better same s l i g h t l y much worse worse (1) (2) (3) (4-) (5) nervousness: honesty: judgment: voice i n t o -nation: a b i l i t y to express myself v e r b a l l y : manner: appearance: force or driv e : i n t e r e s t : s o c i a l s e n s i t i v i t y : i n t e l l i g e n c e o v e r a l l behaviour: 4-. A f t e r having experienced a video-taped interview, how do you f e e l the video-taped interview compares to non-video-taped interviews? (check one) Video-taped interviews are: a. l e s s e f f e c t i v e than non-video-taped interviews (1) b. more e f f e c t i v e than non-video-taped interviews ( 2 } c. about the same as non-video-taped interviews (3; -151-Would you be w i l l i n g to undergo a video-taped interview which, at your request, could be sent to companies you are i n t e r e s t e d in? yes no undecided (3) 6 . How e n t h u s i a s t i c are you toward the possible general use of video-taped i n i t i a l screening interviews f o r company 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? (please check the appropriate response) very not enthus-enthusiastic i a s t i c at a l l VTJ W) T5J W!) T31 T7J U T 7. How do you f e e l that most graduating students would react to the suggestion, by a company, that the student undergo a videotaped interview conducted by a U n i v e r s i t y Placement Center representative and forwarded to the company f o r examination? very unfavourable somewhat unfavourable somewhat favourable very favourable don't know (5) 8 HI 8. In which of the following areas do you have reservations  o r objections regarding videotaped screening interviews? (Please rank the three most serious objections you have, then check any others that apply) 1 Many important personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s cannot be conveyed through the videotaped interview. 2 This i s j u s t one more step toward the de-personal-i z a t i o n of the employment r e l a t i o n s h i p . 3_ There i s no assurance that a videotaped interview w i l l be kept c o n f i d e n t i a l — too easy to duplicate and use f o r unauthorized purposes. 4- The videotaped interview i s u n e t h i c a l . 5 Most companies do not have the expensive video playback equipment necessary. 6 Once an interview i s made, there i s no way of changing i t . 7 The student may be forced to become an 'actor' i f wants to get a job. 8 In f r o n t of a camera, most people do not act natural 9 The technique w i l l be too expensive. 10 Other ( s p e c i f i y ) -152-VIDEOTAPE INTERVIEW EVALUATION The videotape technique may or may not be u s e f u l i n employment interviewing. The following questionnaire i s de-signed to assess some of the aspects on which the videotape interview may be evaluated. Please answer the questions honestly and candidly. There are no r i g h t or wrong answers. You are asked not to discuss t h i s evaluation u n t i l a l l those involved have completed t h e i r questionnaires. We are i n t e r e s t e d i n how you f e e l . Thank you. 1. In your experience, and a f t e r having seen a number of videotaped interviews, how do you f e e l the videotaped interview compares to the face-to-face interview technique ( i . e . without video-tape)? (check one) Generally, videotaped interviews are: l e s s e f f e c t i v e than face-to-face interviews (1) more e f f e c t i v e than face-to-face interviews (2) about the same as face-to-face interviews ( 3 ) 2. In the whole, how r e a l i s t i c a l l y do you f e e l the videotaped interviews conveyed the actual amount of the following personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s possessed by the interviewees? (Please check the appropriate responses). - 1 5 3 -very un- somewhat somewhat very unable r e a l i s t i c u n r e a l i s t i c r e a l i s t i c r e a l i s t i c to judge ( 1 ) (2) ( 3 ) W ( 5 ) appearance manner voice force or drive i n t e l l i g e n c e p o t e n t i a l i n t e r e s t a t t i t u d e s o c i a b i l i t y s e l f-expression knowledge of f i e l d self-confidence nervousness motivation str e s s maturity judgment persuasiveness leadership 3 . How enthusiastic are you toward the possible general use of video-taped i n i t i a l screening interviews f o r company 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? (please check) very enthusiastic not enthusiastic at a l l ~C7) "(6) " ( 5 ) "GO Ii) " ( 2 ) APPENDIX D VIDEO-TAPE VIEWERS QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX D - 1 5 5 -Video-tape V i c t o r ' s E v a l u a t i o n of the In t e r v i a w e r In t h i s s e r i e s of questions wa are i n t e res ted i n your perceptions of 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 . For each question please check the appr o p r i a t e response. 1. To vrhat extent do you thi 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 interviewee? The i n t e r v i e w e r was: very i n t e r e s t e d i n the int e r v i e w e e (1) q u i t e i n t e r e s t e d i n the interviewee ( 2 ) somewhat i n t e r e s t e d i n the interviewee (3) not i n t e r e s t e d i n the interviewee at a l l (4) 2 . I n terms of the content of t h i s i n t e r v i e w , how knowledgeable do you th i n k the i n t e r v i e w e r was of the banking f i e l d ( i . e . banking train-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 , etc.) The interviewer was: very knowledgeable _______ (1) q u i t e knowledgeable (2) soaaahat knowledgeable . (3) not knowledgeab;!e at al]. . (a) 3. To what extent do yen thi n k the i n t e r v i e w e r made the int e r v i e w e e f e e l at ease? The i n t e r v i e w e r made the interviewee f e e l : very r.iuch at ease (1) qu i t e at ease (2) s l i g h t l y ac ease • ^ not at ease at a l l (a). h. How w e l l do you thi n k Che i n t e r v i e w e r communicated information to the intervie w e e ? The i n t e r v i e w e r : couii.-Mi^J c.afcod i n foinna t.lori vary w e l l (1) conuiM'.nieatod i n f o r m a t i o n q u i t e w e l l (2) ."COv.au:;ical.ad i n f o r m a t i o n reasonably a e l 1 . (3) di d not ce.e--'nlente information well. at. a l l (4) T o w h a t e x t e n t : d o y o u f e e l t h e . i n t e r v i e w e r s p o k e i n ; : h i s i n t e r v i e w ? - 1 5 6 -t o o m u c h o r t o o l i t t T h e i n t e r v i e w e r : s p o k e x u c h t o e m u c h • ( 1 ) • s p o k e i t o r o t h a n e n o u g h ( 2 ) .. s p o k e a b o u t t h e r i g h t : e x e u n t ( 3 ) d i d n o t s p e a k q u i t s enough ' ' 'J_ • ( 4 ) s p o k e m u c h t o o l i t t l e ( 5 ) P l e a s e c h e c k t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g p a i r e d - a d j e c t i v e s • d e s c r i b e t h e q u e s t i o n s ; i v h i c h t h e i n t e r v i e w e r a s k e d t h e i n t e r v i e w e e . O n t h e w h o l e , t h e I n t e r v i e w e r ' s ques t i ons w e r e : e x - - e x -t r e m e - - s e x e - - s o r a a - t r e r a e -l y v e r y v h f . t w h a t v a r y l y r e l e v a n t _ i r r e l e v a n t " ( 1 ) " " ( 2 ) " ( 3 ) • • • > ' " ( 5 ) " ( 6 ) " d i f f i c u l t e a s y t o t o a n s w e r _ • a n s w e r " (1) ( 2 7 "(3) ' (//')' ~ (5) ( 6 ) ' "(f) " ( 2 ) "13)" "C-'O ~~{T) "'(-)' ' T o w h a t e x t e n t d o y o u f e e l t h a t t h e i n t e r v i e w e r g a t h e r e d s u f f i c i e n t o r i n s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e a p p l i c a n t ? ( p l e a s e c h e c k ) Trie i n t e r v i e w e r g a t h e r e d e n o u g h i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e a p p l i c a n t _ ( 1 ) c o u l d h a v e gathered s o m e w h a t n o r o i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e a p p l i c a n t ( 2 . ) ' c o u l d h a v e g a t h e r e d a l o t i r . o r f c i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t : t h e a p p l i c a n t ( 3 ) P l e a s e l i s t a n y a d d i t i o n a l i t e x s o f i n f o v x n t i o a y o u w o o d : d l i k e t o h a v e o b t a i n e d a b o u t t h e a o a k l o o a u L , 1 5 7 -A s f a r a s y o u c a a t e l l , h o w f a v o u r a b l e o r r.aaearable b o y o u t h i n k t h e i n t e r v i e w e e ' s i m a g e o f t h o b a n k , o f M o n t r e a l ' . - / a s b e f o r e h a s c a w a _ t o _ u h a i n t e r v i e w ? T h a i n t e r v i a a a:0 ' s i a r y - . ; o f t h e b a r k w a s : ._ C O "1- <A) T o w h a t e x t e n t d o y o u t h i n k t h e i n t e r v i e w e r m a d e t h e i n t e r v i e w e e ' s i m a g e o f t h e B a n k m o r e f a v o u r a b l e o r 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 r m a d e t h e i n t e r v i e w e e ' s i m a g e o f t h e B a n k : m u c h m o r e f a v o u r a b l e ( 1 ) s o m e w h a t m o r e f a v o u r a b l e (2j r e m a i n a b o u t t h e s a m e _ ( 3 ) s o m e w h a t m o r e u n f a v o u r a b l e ' _ _ (4) m u c h m o r e u n f a v o u r a b l e . (5) v e r y f a v o u r a b l e q u i t a f a v o u r a b l e " • a e ' u c a ' a l " ' . •' a - ' - •* . .:" q u i t e u a f a v o u r a b l e v e r y u n f a v o u r a b l e I n t e r m s o f t h i s i n t e r v j e w > hov? g o o d a n i n t e r v i e w e r d o y o u t h i n k h e ( s h _ _ - _ -a v e r y g o o d i n t e r v i e w e r (1) q u i t e a g o o d i n t e r v i e w e r ^ (2) a a a v e r a g e i n t e r v i e w e r _ ( 3 ) q u i t e a b a d i n t e r v i e w e r _ (4) a v e r y b a d i n t e r v i e w e r ( 5 ) APPENDIX E SUMMARY SHEET SUN APPENDIX E A PPT D I X - 1 5 9 -V T FACTOR SELF A t t i t u d e . • •. ? 3 ^ 5 . Appearance 3 . 0 9 I n t e r e s t 2 . 8 3 I n t e l l i g e n c e 3 - 3 3 L e a d e r s h i p 3 . 5 9 M a t u r i t y 3 - 3 3 M o t i v a t i o n 3-17 P e r s u a s i v e n e s s 3 . 0 0 S e l f - C o n f i d e n c e 3-17 S e l f - E x o r e s s i o n 3 .17 S o c i a b i l i t y 3 - 4 2 P o t e n t i a l 2 . 8 3 O v e r a l l 2 . 1 7 INTERVIEW?: 3.-5Q-3 . 6 5 3 . 5 0 3 . 3 3 3 . 5 0 3 . 6 5 3 . 5 0 3 . 5 0 3 . 5 0 3 . 0 0 3 . 3 3 3 . 5 0 2 . 3 3 GROUP -.3 • [ ! 2 3 - 00 3 . 1 7 3 - 5 9 3 . 4 2 3 . 4 2 3 . 3 3 3 . 1 7 3 . 4 2 3 . 1 7 3 . 3 3 3 . 0 9 2. 25 INDIVIDUAL . 6 5 3 . 5 0 3 . 3 3 3 . 8 3 3 . 7 0 3 . 8 3 3 . 5 0 3 .17 3 . 8 3 3.7's 3 . 8 3 3 - 5 0 2 . 4 1 2nd I n t e r v i e v ; ( H a l l i b u r t o n ) . (McNish) ( S a u n d e r s ) (Gordon.) (•Roy s t o n ) ( D u o u i s ) 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 - yes 2 = no KEY FOR RATING FACTORS: E x c e l l e n t 5 S u p e r i o r 4 Average • 3 M a r g i n a l 2 U n s a t i s f a c t o r y ! OVERALL RATING E x c e l l e n t 4... S u p e r i o r 3 Average 2 M a r g i n a l ' 1 -160-SOMB INTERPRETATIONS AND COMMEHTS - Jim J o n e s VJhen l o o k i n g at these r a t i n g s i t would be worthwhile to keep i n mind 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 purposes on l y and .is. i n no way to be used as a. .... ,. • •• • '•' •' ' formal' performance ' 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 of the data i t appears t h a t groups tend to be more c r i t i c a l than i n d i v i d u a l r a t e r s ; (3) the group 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 v i e w i n g v i d e o - t a p e d i n t e r v i e w , not a f t e r a c t u a l l y engaging i n an i n t e r v i e w . E v a l u a t i o n o f the Inter viewees G e n e r a l l y , your r a t i n g s are much more c r i t i c a l than those o f the viewers and of the i n t e r v i e w e e s . At t h i s p o i n t i t i s not p o s s i b l e to determine whether t h i s f a c t i s a r e s u l t o f the vid e o - t a p e or 'whether i t i s something which i s p e c u l i a r to y o u r s e l f . You p a r t i c u l a r l y are more c r i t i c a l o f the i n t e r v i e w e e i n terms o f appearance, i n t e r e s t , s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e and p o t e n t i a l (see a s t e r i s k s on the Summary Sh e e t ) . The appearance facte may be q u i t e r e a d i l y e x p l a i n e d by the v i d e o - t a n e . The viewers d i d not o b t a i n as good a view o f the i n t e r v i e w e e as you d i d w h i l e you were i n h i s presence. In l i k e f a s h i o n , i n t e r e s t and s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e are two f a c t o r s 'which may be i n f l u e n c e d by the m c e r v i e w e e ' s f a c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ancL. vgesture5 which the vxleo-taoe viewers 'would not p e r c e i v e as.-, we'll as y o u r s e l f . -161-Co nci i t i o n s such as the above may have a f f e c t e d y o u r g e n e r a l i m p r e s s i o n o f the a p p l i c a n t i n a manner q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t o f the v i d e o - t a p e v i e w e r s . T h i s c o u l d c o n s e q u e n t l y 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 r a t i n g and .upon . y o u r r a t i n g o f t h e i n t e r v i e w e e 1 s p o t e n t i a l ( b o t h o f w h i c h a r e a g a i n q u i t e l o w e r t h a n t h o s e o f t h e v i e w e r ' s r a t i n g s ) . E v a l u a t i o n o f the I n t e r v i e w e r F o r each o f t h e s e 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 . q u i t e h i g h . The d a t a p o i n t s out t h a t y o u r knowledge o f t h e Bank's programmes, the e x t e n t t o w h i c h you put t h e a p p l i c a n t a t e a s e , your i n t e r e s t and t h e r e l e v a n c e and c l a r i t y o f y o u r q u e s t i o n s were v e r y p o s i t i v e . O v e r a l l , you spoke about t h e r i g h t amount; an amount (36%) w h i c h comes w i t h i n t h e a c c e p t a b l e range g i v e n y o u r i n t e r v i e w s t r u c t u r e . A l s o , you improved th e a p p l i c a n t s ' a v e r a g e image o f the Bank; an image w h i c h vras on t h e f a v o u r a b l e s i d e o f n e u t r a l . Your a b i l i t y t o communicate i n f o r m a t i o n met w i t h some d i s a g r e e m e n t , p a r t i c u l a r l y from the p a r t o f . t h e group. The group's r a t i n g , though, was s t i l l on the p o s i t i v e s i d e . O v e r a l l , y o u r a b i l i t y as an i n t e r v i e w e r was c o n s i s t e n t l y r a t e d as b e i n g q u i t e good e s p e c i a l l y from t h e p o i n t o f view o f 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 may be c o n s i d e r e d as b e i n g most i m p o r t a n t i n an i n t e r v i e w . There was v e r y l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n amongst s c o r e s f o r each o f t h e f a c t o r s c o n s i d e r e d i n y o u r a n a l y s i s . You v.-ere c o n s i s t e n t l y r a t e d q u i t e h i g h l y . . .. .... .... . .. . I hope t h a t t h i s d a t a p r o v e s t o be o f some v a l u e t you J i m , and I thank you v e r y much f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the s t u d y . -163-5'C —i 1 -inO .ivicUi?.! i \o~'' kno'.'.'l'v-1 '' '2? Lvle '."fere " '0 ' i r i d V i d u a l 1.1-7 --i — HI <--h 1 s e l f it er v ~!.(:'-'c e . r idividuel vou r-ufc t" re o ^ n i i c a i ' t at ease' i 66 - - i — -1.66-- I -— -• f.Ct - < -Lev? ji -164->l . rev- ' r XI c . i l V O U CO: 'o a " on' 1 i 33 px-oun ind.1 vrldual •J.il I • SO 53. To vhat extent 65 cj V O 1! f - ; o j too nuc 1i or too I j 111 a • aien too much i . eves-'idV"" •rlml a'\'.o U:\Y-• 2 - / 7 I -• " . . C P / :i.cv • 3.vi-n-uch 1; o o l i t t l . +• Y- - . y i p r . n < c e n t a r e ct s e l f i_ p_ t e r v i o".T e e pro U P 1 nd 1 v 1 d ua 1 a c t u a l -he t l t v e d i d you *?pe?J: 7 v r ; I R' R <' x--165-6, Your o u e s t i o n s wore a. r e l e v a n t ex- • • •' ' tr s ' P . e l v v e r 1 2 what l\ ex-v e r v tremel'-' s e l f i n t e r v i e w e e croup i n d i v i d u a l 2.lit 2 b. vacrue ; e l -..nterviewee PToiro i nd 1 v i d ua 1 5 c l e a r 6 4 a '5".cc 7. The i n t e r v -i e w e e s • a na^e o f t h e Pan!-: was v e r y f a v o u r a b l e 1 n e u t r a l 3 v e r y u n f a v o u r a b l e 5 s e l f i n t e r v i e w e e r rroup ind.i v:i d u a l 7.->c • - - h f ~ -166-3. You ?„ade the ; i n t e r v i e w e e s 5 _na^e o f the Bank • .••rnuch • .•• •.{. : '• g-r^r^vVri '•• .•• • n\uch "'  ' ''' "•" wore about more f a v o u r a b l e the same unfavourable 1 2 ?, i| 5 s e l f l n t e r v i e v.r e e groun _ _ i n d i v i d u a l o How good an i n t e r v i e w e r ' are you ( i n terms of these i n t e r v i e w s ) ? very an very good averame bad i n t e r - i n t e r - i n t e r -viewer viewer 1 2 3 1{ s e l f Interviewee n r-'roup _ 2*^] i n d i v i d u a l ' \s'3 •i.'A, 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0103919/manifest

Comment

Related Items