Fairness reactions to selection methods: A Romanian study

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 102-110

  Ispas, Dan ^a   Ilie, Alexandra ^a   Iliescu, Dragos ^b   Johnson, Russell E ^a   Harris, Michael M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b National School of Political Studies and Public Administration   (Romania)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI ST LOUIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77349115499     PISSN: 0965075X     EISSN: 14682389     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00492.x     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Anderson N. Applicant and Recruiter Reactions to New Technology in Selection: A critical review and agenda for future research. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2003, 11:121-136.
2. Anderson N, Born M, Cunningham-Snell N. Recruitment and Selection: Applicant perspectives and outcomes. Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology 2001, 200-218. Anderson N, Ones DS, Senangil HKViswesvaran C. In, (eds), Vol. 1. London, Sage, pp
3. Anderson N, Witvliet C. Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Methods: An international comparison between the Netherlands, the United States, France, Spain, Portugal and Singapore. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2008, 16:1-13.
4. Bertolino M, Steiner DD. Fairness Reactions to Selection Methods: An Italian study. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2007, 15:197-205.
5. Chan D, Schmitt N. An Agenda for Future Research on Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: A construct-oriented approach. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2004, 12:9-23.
6. Darlington RB. Multiple Regression in Psychological Research and Practice. Psychological Bulletin 1968, 69:161-182.
7. David D, Moore M, Domuta A. Romanian Psychology on the International Psychological Scene: A preliminary critical and empirical approach. European Psychologist 2002, 7:153-160.
8. Gilliland SW. The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems - An Organizational Justice Perspective. Academy of Management Review 1993, 18:694-734.
9. Hausknecht JP, Day DV, Thomas SC. Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 2004, 57:639-683.
10. Iliescu D, Ispas D, Ilie A. Industrial/Organizational Psychology in Romania. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 2007, 45(1):71-76.
11. Imus AL, Ryan AM. Relevance and Rigor in Research on the Applicant's Perspective: In pursuit of pragmatic science. Handbook of Selection 2005, 291-305. Evers A, Anderson NVoskuijl O. In, (eds), Oxford, Blackwell, pp
12. Johnson JW. A Heuristic Method for Estimating the Relative Weight of Predictor Variables in Multiple Regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research 2000, 35:1-19.
13. Johnson JW, LeBreton JM. History and Use of Relative Importance Indices in Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods 2004, 7:238-257.
14. Koubek J, Brewster C. Human Resource Management in Turbulent Times: HRM in the Czech Republic. International Journal of Human Resource Management 1995, 6:223-247.
15. LeBreton JM, Hargis MB, Griepentrog B, Oswald FL, Ployhart RE. A Multidimensional Approach for Evaluating Variables in Organizational Research and Practice. Personnel Psychology 2007, 60:475-498.
16. Lievens F. Research on Selection in an International Context: Current status and future directions. Handbook of Research in International Human Resource Management 2007, 107-123. Harris MM. In, (ed.), Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, pp
17. Moscoso S, Salgado JE. Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Techniques in Spain and Portugal. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2004, 12:187-196.
18. Nikolaou I, Judge TA. Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Techniques in Greece. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2007, 15:206-219.
19. Phillips JM, Gully SM. Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Techniques in Singapore and the United States. International Journal of Human Resource Management 2002, 13:1186-1205.
20. Ryan AM, McFarland L, Baron H, Page R. An International Look at Selection Practices: Nation and culture as explanations for variability in practice. Personnel Psychology 1999, 52:359-391.
21. Ryan AM, Ployhart RE. Applicants' Perceptions of Selection Procedures and Decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management 2000, 26:565-606.
22. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin 1998, 124:262-274.
23. Schmitt N, Chan D. The Status of Research on Applicant Reactions to Selection Tests and Its Implications for Managers. International Journal of Management Reviews 1999, 1:45-61.
24. Schuler H. Social Validity of Selection Situations: A concept and some empirical results. Personnel Selection and Assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives 1993, 11-26. Schuler HFarr JLSmith JM. In, (eds), Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum, pp
25. Schuler H, Stehle W. Neuere entwicklungen des assessement-center-ansatzes - beurteilt unter dem aspekt der sozialen validität. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie 1983, 27:33-44.
26. Steiner DD, Gilliland SW. Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Techniques in France and the United States. Journal of Applied Psychology 1996, 81:124-141.
27. Steiner DD, Gilliland SW. Procedural Justice in Personnel Selection: International and cross-cultural perspectives. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2001, 9:124-137.