A personality-based similar-to-me effect in the employment interview: Conscientousness, affect-versus competence-mediated interpretations, and the role of job relevance

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, Jan 2003 by Greg J Sears, Patricia M Rowe

Abstract

Past research on the employment interview has unearthed a "similar-to-me" effect signaling that raterapplicant similarity on various demographic and attitudinal variables will tend to inflate (bias) rater judgments. This study probes whether a similar-to-me effect hinging on personality dimensions also exists in the employment interview. Results revealed rater-applicant similarity on the study's focal construct - conscientiousness - significantly influences job suitability evaluations. The similarto-me phenomenon is explored in terms of competenceand affect-based explanations, and a modified paradigm applicable to job-relevant constructs is proposed. Contrary to conventional conceptualizations of the similar-to-me phenomenon, we suggest that the similar-to-me effect does not necessarily reflect rater error; in some cases, rater-applicant similarity may be leveraged to bolster interview validity.

Resume

La recherche passee sur Fentrevue d'emploi a mis au jour un effet > qui porte a croire que les similitudes entre 1'evaluateur et le candidat, relativement A diverses variables demographiques et d'attitudes, auront tendance A gonfler (biaiser) le jugement de 1'evaluateur. L'etude tente de determiner si un effet > reposant sur les dimensions de la personnalite existe aussi dans Fentrevue d'emploi. Les resultats revelent qu'une similitude evaluateur-candidat dans le construit focal de l'etude - la conscience - influence significativement l'evaluation des aptitudes A l'emploi. Le phenomene > est explore en fonction des competences et des explications basees sur l'affect, et un paradigme modifie aux construits relatifs au travail est propose. Contrairement aux conceptualisations conventionnelles du phenomene , nous suggerons que l'effet > ne refl&te pas necessairement une erreur de 1'evaluateur; dans certains cas, la similarite evaluateur-candidat peut avoir un effet de levier pour appuyer la validite de Fentrevue.

Over the last decade, Industrial/Organizational psychologists have demonstrated a revitalized interest in exploring the role of personality assessment in employee selection and applying various personality assessment methods in the workplace. The resurgence of personality assessment can largely be attributed to: (a) the advent and subsequent corroboration of the Five-Factor taxonomy (e.g., Digman & Inouye, 1986; Goldberg, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987; McCrae & John, 1992), and (b) contemporary metaanalytic support for the validity of personality measures in predicting job performance (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). Complementing this evidence, various constructs in the Five-Factor Model (the "Big Five") have exhibited incremental validity beyond predictors with distinguished track records in employee selection, such as cognitive ability (e.g., Day & Silverman, 1989; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).

The employment interview is the most prevalent of all selection techniques (Harris, 1989). Employers and applicants alike believe in the interview (Hakel, 1989). However, as with personality assessment in past years (e.g., Guion & Gottier, 1965), the interview has attracted its fair share of detractors. The interview has been diabolized on grounds of unreliability and attendant invalidity due to a number of process contaminants; foremost among them being rater bias. One rater bias that has proven to influence interviewer judgments is the "similar-to-me effect." Research has reported that interviewers accord more favourable interview ratings to candidates who possess similar demographic (e.g., age, race) and attitudinal characteristics to themselves. This phenomenon has yet to be explored in the context of personality similarity.

Given the pervasive use of the interview, the advances forged in personality research, and recent data (e.g., Cooke, Vance, & Spector, 2000; Corona, Goldstein, Payne, Davison, & Gilliland, 2000) suggesting that the incremental validity of the interview over other selection techniques may reside in "softer" dimensions, more systematic exploration of personality dynamics in the employment interview is sorely needed. A paucity of research exists addressing the topic at a time when more elaborate interviews are being devised with explicit emphasis on a candidate's personality structure (e.g., "The Structured Interview for the Five-Factor Model," Widiger & Trull, 1997). Greater weight placed on personality predictors in selection decisions necessitates enriched understanding of biases driving person-perception. In particular, any interactive, and potentially confounding effect of rater-applicant personality in determining hiring decisions must be unraveled.

Conscientiousness

In personnel selection research, conscientiousness has surfaced as the most valid and robust of the "Big Five" personality constructs in predicting job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Mount & Barrick, 1995). Moreover, applicants exuding qualities of conscientiousness and openness to experience are viewed more favourably than applicants projecting qualities of extraversion and agreeableness (Williams, Munick, Saiz, & Forny-Duval, 1995).

Various researchers have detailed the defining features of conscientiousness. Daus (1996) characterizes conscientious individuals as more likely to adopt a planful problem-solving strategy at work. Likewise, Buss (1996) asserts conscientious individuals tackle adaptive problems through "discipline, industry and hard work" (p. 192). McCrae and John (1992) describe agreeable and conscientious individuals as "strongwilled," as opposed to "weak-willed," embodying traits such as "thorough, neat, well-organized, diligent, and achievement-oriented" (p. 197). Sackett and Wanek (1996) submit that measures of conscientiousness contain four subcomponents: self-control, orderliness, perseverance, and conformity. Finally, in referring to Project A research (McHenry et al., 1990) and their earlier meta-analytic results, Mount and Barrick (1995) stipulate that conscientiousness circumscribes both "will do" (motivational/affective) and "can do" (ability/competence) components of performance. Taken together, these semantic descriptions suggest conscientiousness is associated with job performance largely via two mechanisms: first, it taps work motivation (achievement orientation); second, conscientiousness connotes the use of a more systematic and calculating approach to work (dependability). Commensurate with this interpretation, Barrick, Mount, and Strauss (1993) unveiled that goal-setting (likewise encompassing facets of achievement and dependability) mediates the conscientiousness-job performance relationship. Conscientiousness directly influenced performance, and operated indirectly through autonomously set goals and goal commitment. Given this portrait of conscientiousness - the focal personality construct in this study - we now address the question of whether personality constructs, including conscientiousness, can be accurately assessed in the employment interview.