Using attributions to understand the effects of explanations on applicant reactions: Are reactions consistent with the covariation principle?

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 259-296

  Ployhart, Robert E ^a,d   Ehrhart, Karen Holcombe ^b   Hayes, Seth C ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 14844337048     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02121.x     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Barber, A. E. (1998). Recruiting employees: Individual and organizational perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Bauer, T. N., Maertz, C. P., Dolen, M. R., & Campion, M. A. (1998). Longitudinal assessment of applicant reactions to employment testing and test outcome feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 892-903.
4. Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 289-319.
5. Bobocel, D. R., & Farrell, A. C. (1996). Sex-based promotion decisions and interactional fairness: Investigating the influence of managerial accounts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 22-35.
6. Brockner, J. (2002). Making sense of procedural fairness: How high procedural fairness can reduce or heighten the influence of outcome favorability. Academy of Management Review, 27, 58-76.
7. Brockner, J., Magner, N., Magner, M., & Heur, L. B. (2000, August). Towards a dual-purpose sense-making model of procedural justice. Paper presented at the conference of the Academy of Management, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
8. Brockner, J., & Wisenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189-208.
9. Chan, D., Schmitt, N., Sacco, J. M., & DeShon, R. P. (1998), Understanding pretest and posttest reactions to cognitive ability and personality tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 471-485.
10. Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: Science and practice. New York, NY: Harper College Publishers.
11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Cohen, R. L. (1982). Perceiving justice: An attributional perspective. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 119-160). New York, NY: Academic Press.
13. Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164-209.
14. Elsbach, K. D., & Elofson, G. (2000). How the packaging of decision explanations affects perceptions of trustworthiness. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 80-89.
15. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York, NY: McGrawHill.
16. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Fosterling, F., Buhner, M., & Gall, S. (1998). Attributions of depressed persons: How consistent are they with the covariation principle? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1047-1061.
18. Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694-734.
19. Gijliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691-701.
20. Gilliland, S. W., Groth, M., Baker, R. C., IV, Dew, A. F., Polly, L. M., & Langdon, J. C. (2001). Improving applicants' reactions to rejection letters: An application of fairness theory. Personnel Psychology, 54, 669-703.
21. Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81-103.
22. Highhouse, S., Beadle, D., Gallo, A., & Miller, L. (1998). Get 'em while they last! Effects of scarcity information in job advertisements. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 779-795.
23. Horvath, M., Ryan, A. M., & Stierwalt, S. (2000). Explanations for selection test use, outcome favorability, and self-efficacy: What influences test-taker perceptions? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 310-330.
24. Joint Committee on Testing Practices. (1998). The rights and responsibilities of test takers: Guidelines and expectations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
25. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation and Emotion: Vol. 15 (pp. 192-238). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
26. Kelley, H. H. (1972). Attribution in social action. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse,. H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the cause of behavior (pp. 1-26). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
27. Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments-as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56-88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
28. Murphy, K. R., & Myors, B. (1998). Statistical power analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Ployhart, R. E., & Ryan, A. M. (1997). Toward an explanation of applicant reactions: An examination of organizational justice and attribution frameworks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 308-335.
30. Ployhart, R. E., & Ryan, A. M. (1998). Applicants' reactions to the fairness of selection procedures: The effects of positive rule violations and time of measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 3-16.
31. Ployhart, R. E., Ryan, A. M., & Bennett, M. (1999). Explanations for selection decisions: Applicants' reactions to informational and sensitivity features of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 87-106.
32. Raudenbush, S. W., & Xiao-Feng, L. (2001). Effects of study duration, frequency of observation, and sample size on power in studies of group differences in polynomial change. Psychological Methods, 6, 387-401.
33. Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1999). What's a good reason to change? Motivated reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 514-528.
34. Ryan, A. M. (2001). Explaining the Black-White test score gap: The role of test perceptions. Human Performance, 14, 45-75.
35. Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2000). Applicants' perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 26, 565-606.
36. Rynes, S. L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A call for new research directions. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 399-444). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
37. Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R., & Gerhart, B. (1991). The importance of recruitment in job choice: A different way of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44, 487-521.
38. Russell, D. (1982). The Causal Dimension scale: A measure of how individuals perceive causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1137-1145.
39. Schmitt, N., & Gilliland, S. W. (1992). Beyond differential prediction: Fairness in selection. In D. M. Saunders (Ed.), New approaches to employee management: Fairness in employee selection (Vol. 1, pp. 21-46). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
40. Schroth, H. A., & Shah, P. P. (2000). Procedures: Do we really want to know them? An examination of the effects of procedural justice on self-esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 462-471.
41. Schuler, H. (1993). Social validity of selection situations. In H. Schuler, J. L. Farr, & M. Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment (pp. 11-26). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42. Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33,46-62.
43. Shapiro, D. L., Buttner, E. H., & Barry, B. (1994). Explanations: What factors enhance their perceived adequacy? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 346-368.
44. Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey, R. W. (1993). Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 49-76.
45. Steiner, D. D., & Gilliland, S. W. (1996). Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in France and the United States. Journal of Applied Psychology, 134-141.
46. Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., Campion, M. A., & Paranto, M. E. (2001, April). Selection information, personality, and applicant reactions: A field quasi-experiment. Paper presented at the 16th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
47. Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 184-193.
48. van den Bos, K. (2001). Fundamental research by means of laboratory experiments is essential for a better understanding of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 254-259.
49. van den Bos, K., Bruins, J., Wilke, H. A. M., & Dronkert, E. (1999). Sometimes 1 unfair procedures have nice aspects: On the psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 324-336.
50. van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1034-1036.
51. van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2001). The psychology of procedural and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of heuristic theory. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 49-66). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
52. van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., & Lind, E. A. (1998). When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1449-1458.
53. Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
54. Weiner, B., Folkes, V., Amirkhan, J., & Verette, J. (1987). An attributional analysis of excuse giving: Studies of a naïve theory of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 316-324.
55. Wong, P. T. B., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask "why" questions, and the heuristics of attributional search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 650-663.