Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The contrast effect in a competency based situational interview

By Timothy Mills

Abstract

The recruitment interview is used ubiquitously by organisations in the UK as part of the recruitment and selection process. Despite improvements over the years, the method is still prone to error and it is important for organisations to take what steps they can to reduce error in selection decisions. One source of error identified and accepted as a cause of bias within the interview is that of contrast effect. This effect causes assessors to base their judgements of candidates partly on a comparison to earlier performances of other candidates. This has the effect of giving inflated scores to interviewees when others are poor and lower scores when others are good. The presence of this effect is assumed due to various studies carried out within the experimental paradigm without any quantitative evidence collected from real world settings. This study collected data on 694 interviews carried out to recruit cabin crew for a major UK based airline. The data set provided 230 interview pairs for analysis. Correlational analyses showed that the prior performance of one candidate could significantly affect the selection outcome decision of a subsequent candidate. Binary Logistic Regression revealed the scores given to the subsequent candidate mediated this relationship. The implications for practice are discussed. These include improved rater training, the implications of interview timetabling, and rotation of assessor teams

Publisher: Cranfield University School of Management
Year: 2004
OAI identifier: oai:dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk:1826/3958
Provided by: Cranfield CERES

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1996). A Meta-analytic Investigation of Cognitive Ability in Employment Interview Evaluations: Moderating Characteristics and Implications for Incremental Validity’, doi
  2. (1988). A Meta-analytic investigation of the Impact of Interview Format and Degree of Structure on the Validity of the Employment Interview’, doi
  3. (1995). Age Discrimination in Simulated Employment Contexts: An Integrative Analysis’, doi
  4. (1991). Contrast effects in behavioral measurement : An investigation of alternative process explanations’, doi
  5. (1989). Contrast Effects in Performance Ratings: Another Look Across Time’, doi
  6. (1979). Effects of interview length and applicant quality on interview decision time’, doi
  7. (1985). Effects of previous performance on evaluations of present performance’, doi
  8. (1996). Effects of Race on Interview Ratings in a Situational Panel Interview’, doi
  9. (1995). Effects of Rating Procedure and Temporal Delay on the Magnitude of Contrast Effects in Performance Ratings’, doi
  10. (2002). Exercise order and assessment centre performance’, doi
  11. (1995). Graduate recruitment in Britain: A survey of selection methods used by organizations’, doi
  12. (1972). Importance of contrast effects in employment interviews’, doi
  13. (1988). Personnel Selection and Productivity. doi
  14. (1994). Rater Training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review’, doi
  15. (1993). Rating Format Research Revisited: Format Effectiveness and Acceptability Depend on Rater Characteristics’, doi
  16. (1980). Rating the Ratings : Assessing the Psychometric quality of rating data’, doi
  17. (1997). Resistance of a past-behaviour interview to contrast error’,
  18. (1973). The Development and Evaluation of Behaviourally Based Rating Scales’, doi
  19. (1949). The Employment Interview: A Critical Review’, doi
  20. (1992). The Influence of Assessee Performance Variation on Assessors' doi
  21. (2003). The Recruitment Confidence Index: Executive report.
  22. (1965). The Selection Interview Since doi
  23. (1964). The Selection Interview: A Re-evaluation of doi
  24. (1998). The Validity and utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical doi
  25. (1979). Unfair discrimination in the employment interview: Legal and psychological aspects’, doi
  26. (1982). Validity and Fairness of Some Alternative Employee Selection Procedures’, doi
  27. (1984). Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance’, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.