Game-based assessments (GBAs) have become increasingly popular in personnel selection. However, research on perceptions of GBAs has yielded mixed results, highlighting the need to explore variables that may shape perceptions of GBAs. Therefore, we examined whether test takers' occupational background and other person-related characteristics (i.e., gender, age, video game usage, openness to experience) are associated with their perceptions of GBAs. N = 179 individuals from technical and social occupational backgrounds rated their perceptions of GBAs and non-gamified tests. We found that GBAs were generally rated more positively than non-gamified tests in terms of organizational attractiveness, behavioral intentions toward the organization, enjoyment, and modernity. Furthermore, test takers' occupational background and several individual difference variables were related to perceptions of GBAs. These findings show the need to include individual difference variables as antecedents in applicant reaction models.

Anonymous application procedures (AAPs), which hide applicants' demographic and other identifying information, aim to reduce discrimination during preselection. However, research about applicants' perceptions of such procedures is scarce. Accordingly, we compared perceptions of traditional resum & eacute;s, anonymized resum & eacute;s, and standardized application forms. Potential applicants preferred anonymized resum & eacute;s followed by standardized forms, with traditional resum & eacute;s being least favored. Participants' gender and migration background did not emerge as moderators. In a second study, explaining that standardized application forms are used to enhance equal employment opportunities improved perceptions, whereas emphasizing job relatedness or combining both explanations was less effective. Organizations might benefit from adopting AAPs to signal their commitment to diversity and improve applicant reactions. Limitations and potential areas for future research are discussed.

In two studies, we explored the impact of body-related nonverbal information (BNI) on performance ratings in technology-mediated interviews (TMIs). Using video frames that varied in size (head and shoulders vs. head to knee), participants (N = 203 and 238) evaluated recorded interview responses. Larger frames increased the perceived extent of BNI but not its perceived usefulness. Perceived usefulness, however, showed stronger associations with performance ratings, which were (partially) mediated by social presence. These effects were consistent for varying degrees of dynamic nonverbal cues and across both samples. The findings highlight the relevance of subjective perceptions and judgments of nonverbal information in TMIs. To reduce bias, organizations should use similar video frames across applicants and train interviewers to prioritize verbal responses.

In this “Provocation Article”, we argue that the sole focus of personnel selection research and practice on job performance criteria represents a substantial limitation. While job performance remains a key outcome, employee well-being is also relevant—both as an intrinsic value and as a predictor of important organizational outcomes such as turnover, absenteeism, and citizenship behavior. Given the solid evidence on individual differences and work-related factors that influence employee well-being, and drawing on ethical, legal, and economic arguments, we call for a paradigm shift: Well-being should be treated as an explicit criterion in personnel selection. We outline five practical pathways for integrating well-being into selection systems, including the use of well-being-related traits (which should be carefully matched to job-specific demands), person–environment fit approaches, simulation-based tools, communicating well-being priorities to applicants, and using selection insights to inform onboarding and support. We also discuss four key challenges, such as the risk of discriminatory practices, balancing multiple criteria, and faking. Finally, we sketch a research agenda to guide future work on well-being-focused selection. Overall, we advocate for multi-criteria selection systems that promote not only organizational performance but also human flourishing.

Game-based assessment (GBA) in personnel selection and assessment has gained increasing attention among researchers and practitioners in recent years. A postulated advantage of this new selection method is its suggested suitability to reduce applicant faking. However, currently, it is unclear whether GBAs are indeed less susceptible to faking than traditional assessments. To address this question, we conducted an experimental study to examine whether a GBA measuring honesty-humility does indeed reduce faking compared to a traditional personality test. N = 171 participants were randomly assigned to an honest or an applicant condition and then completed a GBA and a traditional test that both measured honesty-humility. Results showed that test takers were able to distort their responses in the GBA and in the traditional honesty-humility test. However, the faking effect in the honesty-humility GBA was significantly smaller than in the traditional test. Thus, our findings suggest that using GBAs to measure personality can reduce faking compared to traditional tests to some degree but that GBAs are not a panacea to completely prevent it.

Game-based assessments (GBAs) have become increasingly popular among researchers and practitioners. However, research on their criterion-related validity is scarce, and despite the proposed benefits of GBAs, concerns remain about their fairness. Thus, this study examines the criterion-related validity of a GBA measuring cognitive abilities, and whether there is differential validity and test bias based on test takers' video game usage. For this purpose, data were collected from two samples: a working sample (N = 156) and a potential applicant sample (N = 92). In both samples, participants completed a cognitive GBA and answered questions assessing their academic performance, video game usage, and demographics. For the working sample, we also collected supervisor-rated job performance. Results showed that GBA performance was positively correlated with academic performance in both samples, suggesting criterion-related validity. Video game usage was positively associated with GBA performance and negatively with academic performance, indicating test bias. These findings suggest that video game usage enhances skills relevant to success in cognitive GBAs but not necessarily to academic performance, raising fairness concerns. This study advances research on cognitive GBAs by providing evidence for their criterion-related validity, by addressing concerns about fairness, and by providing insights for their use in personnel selection.

Although cognitive ability tests are among the best predictors of job and training performance, their acceptance among applicants is limited. However, with the current talent shortage, applicant reactions to assessments have become increasingly important. Gamification is a promising approach for improving reactions to cognitive ability tests. However, it remains unclear how findings from low-stakes studies of gamified assessments generalize to high-stakes settings. In this quasi-experimental study (N = 210), we compared reactions to a gamified cognitive test from a low-stakes simulated selection setting with experimental participants and from a high-stakes selection setting with real applicants. Test takers in both settings completed the same gamified cognitive ability test and then rated several applicant reactions variables. We found a clear effect of the test setting with real applicants showing more positive reactions to the gamified test concerning perceived fairness, test motivation, organizational attractiveness, behavioral intentions, organizational image, clarity of work activity, and enjoyment compared to participants in the low-stakes setting, whereas there were no differences for perceived job-relatedness and opportunity to perform. These findings highlight the influence of test setting on applicant reactions and underscore the importance of examining environmental factors for research on the effects of gamification in cognitive ability testing.

ABSTRACTGame‐based assessment (GBA) has garnered attention in the personnel selection and assessment context owing to its postulated potential to improve applicant reactions. However, GBAs can differ considerably depending on their specific design. Therefore, we sought to determine whether test taker reactions to GBAs vary owing to the different manifestations that GBAs may take on, and to test takers' individual preferences for such assessments. In an experimental study, each of N = 147 participants was shown six different GBAs and asked to rate several applicant reaction variables concerning these assessments. We found that reactions to GBAs were not inherently positive even though GBAs were generally perceived as enjoyable. However, perceptions of fairness and organizational attractiveness varied considerably between GBAs. Participants' age and experience with video games were related to reactions but had less impact than the different GBAs. Our results suggest that a technology‐as‐designed approach, which considers GBAs as a combination of multiple components (e.g., game elements), is crucial in GBA research to provide generalizable results for theory and practice.

We developed a game-based assessment (GBA) measuring cognitive ability for use in personnel selection and examined its construct-related validity. Moreover, applicant reactions toward this GBA were compared with a paper-pencil-based ability test. Both assessment tools were designed to measure verbal, numerical, and figural ability. N = 183 participants completed the GBA, the paper-pencil test, and questions capturing applicant reactions and personality. We found a strong positive correlation of 0.51 between the overall GBA and paper-pencil test scores, showing evidence for its construct-related validity. Applicant reactions toward the GBA were consistently worse compared with the paper-pencil test. Furthermore, males and individuals with more video game experience held more positive perceptions than females and individuals with less video game experience.

Psychological reattachment to work means mentally reconnecting with one's work before or upon returning to work in the morning. Recent studies revealed its potential to boost daily work engagement, demonstrating its relevance to research and practice. Despite this, no studies have explored the components of psychological reattachment and why and how employees reattach to their work. Yet, to expand the theoretical understanding of psychological reattachment and to apply its potential in practice, it is crucial to dive deeper into the details around this process. Therefore, this study employs a qualitative approach to test existing theoretical assumptions on psychological reattachment, uncover additional manifestations of psychological reattachment, examine its unfolding process, and identify potential predictors, benefits, and drawbacks. Our methodological procedure comprises the multi-coding of qualitative material from 35 employees with diverse backgrounds. One of our main findings is that when anticipating upcoming demands during the workday, employees also anticipate how to meet those demands. Furthermore, the more demands are expected, the longer it takes employees to mentally reattach to their work. This hints at how psychological reattachment might resemble a preventive coping mechanism for job demands during the day.

Synchronous as well as asynchronous video interviews have become increasingly common as a supplement to or replacement for face-to-face interviews for selection purposes. Recent research suggests that impairments of eye contact in video interviews might contribute to lower interview performance ratings in these interviews because establishing eye contact in them is only possible by looking into the camera, which, however, impedes the perception of the conversation partner’s emotions and reactions. Therefore, we experimentally tested the effect of eye contact in two studies using asynchronous video interviews. Results showed that a vertical deviation of eye contact led neither to lower interview performance ratings nor to more negative perceptions of applicants’ warmth and competence whereas a horizontal deviation of eye contact negatively affected perceptions of the hirability of applicants. Furthermore, deviations in eye contact led to lower perceived social presence which turned out to be a mediator for lower performance ratings. Taken together, results show that restrictions in eye contact are no immediate driving factors for lower interview performance ratings but that communication quality might still suffer from decreased social presence which can ultimately lead to negative outcomes for interviewees.

This study examined whether gamification of a computer-based cognitive ability test can positively influence applicant reactions. The gamification used a job-related storyline, avatars, and information games that were designed not only to increase enjoyment but also to convey information about the job. 212 participants completed either the gamified or the non-gamified test and answered questions concerning applicant reactions. The results showed that gamification can be used to playfully provide information about the organization and job during an assessment and, thus, can enhance perceived clarity about what to expect in a job. Additionally, the gamified assessment was rated higher on opportunity to perform compared to its traditional version, while no differences were found between the two tests for fairness, job relatedness, and enjoyment.

This meta-analysis examines biases in personnel selection based on applicants’ use of non-standard language such as ethnic and migration-based speech varieties or regional dialects. The analysis summarizes the results of 22 studies with a total N of 3615 raters that compared applicants with accent or dialect with applicants speaking standard language. The primary studies used different standard and non-standard languages and assessed different dependent variables related to hiring decisions in job interviews. The k = 109 effect sizes (Hedges' g) were assigned to the dependent variables of competence, warmth, and hirability. Non-standard speakers were rated less competent (δ = -0.70), less warm (δ = -0.17), and less hirable (δ = -0.51) compared to standard speakers. Thus, at the same level of competence, non-standard speakers are rated lower than standard speakers and might, therefore, be disadvantaged in personnel selection contexts. We also considered several potential moderator variables (e.g., applicants’ applicants’ specific language variety, raters’ own use of non-standard language, raters’ background) but only found rather limited support for them. Furthermore, publication bias also had only limited effects. Practical implications for personnel selection are discussed.

There is increasing attention to storification of assessments (i.e., embedding a storyline into a non-storified assessment) in research and practice and to gamified and game-based assessment in general. However, there is a surprising lack of agreement and of recommendations regarding what level of fantasy of the storyline one should choose for the storification from the perspective of applicant reactions. A distinction is typically made between fantasy (e.g., fighting aliens) and realistic (e.g., workday simulations) storylines, with both choices having their advantages and disadvantages. In this study, a sample of 195 participants was shown either a storified realistic test, a storified fantasy test, or a non-storified test. Afterwards, they rated various applicant reaction measures. Both storified assessments were rated equally positively on perceived modernity of the organization and enjoyment but the storified realistic test was superior to the storified fantasy test in terms of perceived job-relatedness, procedural fairness, organizational attractiveness, and clarity of work activity. Thus, the level of fantasy of a storyline in a storified assessment plays an important role for applicant reaction variables, whereby the overall pattern of results showed that the storified realistic test was rated most favorably, followed by the non-storified test, and the storified fantasy assessment.

In graded paired comparisons (GPCs), two items are compared using a multi-point rating scale. GPCs are expected to reduce faking compared with Likert-type scales and to produce more reliable, less ipsative trait scores than traditional-binary forced-choice formats. To investigate the statistical properties of GPCs, we simulated 960 conditions in which we varied six independent factors and additionally implemented conditions with algorithmically optimized item combinations. Using Thurstonian IRT models, good reliabilities and low ipsativity of trait score estimates were achieved for questionnaires with 50% unequally keyed item pairs or equally keyed item pairs with optimized combination of loadings. However, in conditions with 20% unequally keyed item pairs and equally keyed conditions without optimization, reliabilities were lower with evidence of ipsativity. Overall, more response categories led to higher reliabilities and nearly fully normative trait scores. In an empirical example, we demonstrate the identified mechanisms under both honest and faking conditions and study the effects of social desirability matching on reliability. In sum, our studies inform about the psychometric properties of GPCs under different conditions and make specific recommendations for improving these properties.

Game-related assessments (GRAs) are increasingly gaining interest in practice and research. However, little is known about how recruiters view these methods. This study examined recruiters' (N = 158) reasons for using GRAs, the influence of their characteristics on their use of these methods, and recruiters' perceptions of GRAs compared to those of potential applicants (N = 144). Results indicated that perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, innovativeness in IT, and video game pursuit partly explained recruiters' intentions to use GRAs, which then predicted actual usage. The expected positive impact on the organizational image and applicant reactions were among the most important reasons for using GRAs. Recruiters and potential applicants perceived GRAs as more enjoyable and modern than traditional assessment methods. Game-related assessment (GRA) is a new field in personnel selection that is gaining increasing interest among researchers and organizations, but there is limited research on how recruiters perceive these methods. This study contributes to our understanding of how recruiters view GRAs and whether their perceptions differ from those of potential applicants. Recruiters' perceived ease of use and usefulness of GRAs and their innovativeness in IT and video game pursuit explained intentions to use GRAs, which in turn predicted their actual usage. The main reasons for recruiters' intentions to use GRAs are the impact on the organizational image and implementation time. Recruiters view computer-based assessments more positively than applicants whereas the opposite was true for paper-pencil tests.

Interviewees' use of impression management (IM) in job interviews is clearly related to individual differences such as personality. However, research has paid less attention to how interviewee cognitive capacities (i.e., cognitive ability and executive functions) influence IM use, even though interviewees’ cognitive capacities and IM are theoretically linked. The current research aimed to address this research gap through two studies. In Study 1, 166 undergraduate business students participated in mock face‐to‐face interviews with real recruiters. In Study 2, 294 job‐seeking participants recruited through Prolific completed a mock asynchronous video interview. Overall, cognitive ability was negatively related to deceptive IM while perceived incongruency (i.e., a gap between desired and perceived current impressions conveyed to others) was positively related to deceptive IM in both studies. Furthermore, cognitive ability and working memory updating, but not inhibition and shifting nor incongruency, were negatively related to honest IM in Study 2. Additionally, in both studies the relations between personality traits and interview IM were generally in line with findings from prior research. Overall, our findings provide a more comprehensive understanding of how interview IM relates to interviewee individual differences and interview performance in different forms of job interviews.

In selection interviews, most applicants use deceptive as well as honest impression management (IM) to seem like a better candidate. To date, however, little is known about situational cues that determine these behaviors, about the psychological processes in the form of affect and cognitions caused by situational cues, and about how these processes affect subsequent impression management. Given that the absence of a conceptual model that explicitly considers both kinds of IM is holding the literature back, we explored situational cues and associated psychological processes. To do so, we conducted a qualitative study using a Grounded Theory approach. Based on the data, we were able to establish a main model and three submodels that include both deceptive and honest impression management. The submodels describe situational cues related to either the interviewer or interview content. In these submodels, we were also able to identify several cues that have not yet received attention in the literature. We also found that these situational cues are associated with positive and/or negative affect, and that affect subsequently influences IM behavior. In addition, we were able to identify IM tactics that go beyond the existing literature.