implications of the elaboration likelihood model for interviewer decision processes

J O U R N A L O F B U S I N E S S AND PSYCHOLOGY Volume I0, No. 4, Summer 1996

IMPLICATIONS OF THE, ELARORATION L ,LIHOOD MODEL FOR INTERVIEWER

DECISION PROCESSES

Monica L. Forret Daniel B. Turban

University of Missouri

ABSTRACT One dimension of corporate social performance is concern for em- ployee relations. The selection interview represents one of the earliest points at which employers develop relationships with future employees. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) is useful for predicting when variables which are irrelevant for predicting performance on the job can influence an interviewer's rating of an applicant. Such knowledge is helpful for organizations in terms of improving the validity of their selection interview decisions and en- hancing applicants' perceptions of fairness.

One dimension of corporate social performance is concern for em- ployee relations (Johnson & Greening, 1994; Sha, fman, 1993). The selection interview represents one of the earliest points at which employers develop relationships with future employees. As the interview tends to be a subjective process, it is important to ascertain how interviewers' decision processes are determined. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) is one useful framework for investigat- ing when variables that are unrelated to job performance will influence an interviewer's decision process. If applicants believe they are being evaluated on extraneous factors and subsequently voice their perceptions of unfair treatment, the organization's rePutation may be dam- aged. Even more problematic for the organization is the consequence of not selecting the most qualified candidates, as a result of variables which are unrelated to success on the job influencing the interviewer's ratings of applicants. In order to improve the selection process, it is ira-

Address correspondence to Monica L. Forret, Department of Management, Long Island University-C. W. Post, Brookville, New York 11548.

415 @ 1996 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

416 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

portant to ex~mlne how factors irrelevant for predicting job success may influence interviewers' decisions about applicants.

The purpose of the selection interview is to evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for employment (Dipboye, 1992). Recent reviews of the interview literature have called for an increased use of theories and models in order to determine how interviewer evaluations are derived (Arvey & Campion, 1982; Harris, 1989). The Elaboration Likel~ood Model (ELM) holds much promise in this respect. The ELM is a theory of persuasive communication which describes how attitudes develop. Ac- cording to Petty and Cacioppo (1986) an attitude is a "general evaluation people hold in regard to themselves, other people, objects, and is- sues" (p. 127). According to the ELM, the manner in which an individual forms his or her evaluation is determined by the individual's motivation and ability to process information. Most importantly, the ELM can be used to predict when variables which are unrelated to job performance will influence an interviewer's attitude, based upon the interviewer's level of motivation and ability. As the selection interview is an evaluation-forming process, the application of the ELM to the interview appears particularly appropriate. The ELM underscores the importance of explicitly considering an interviewer's motivation and ability when eval- uat ing an applicant. The purpose of this article, then, is to provide an overview of the Elaboration Likelihood Model and to apply the model to the selection interview context.

This article is divided into three sections. First, we will begin with a brief description of the Elaboration Likelihood Model, how the model can be utilized in the selection interview, and what implications the model has for ascertaining the validity of interviewer selection decisions. Second, a number of variables will be proposed that may influence an interviewer's motivation and ability to process information about applicants, and consequently, how the interviewer's evaluation will develop. Finally, the effects of an applicant's physical attractiveness, nonverbal skills, and perceived similarity on the interviewer's evaluation will be discussed within the ELM framework. These three variables were selected for discussion since prior research has shown tha t they tend to influence interviewers' ratings, even though they may be unrelated to job performance.

OVERVIEW OF ELM

The Elaboration Likelihood Model is a theory of how att i tudes de- • velop. The ELM proposes that there is a continuum along which individ-

uals process persuasive communications, although typically this continuum is described by referring to its ends. In general, recipients of

MONICA L. FORRET AND DANIEL B. TURBAN 417

messages can either engage in a great deal of elaboration of the message argtunents (i.e., the contents of the message) or engage in very little elaboration of the message arguments. When engaging in a great deal of elaboration the individual (e.g., the interviewer) is said to be processing the message contents through the central route, and when engaging in a low Amount of elaboration the individual is said to be processing the message contents through the peripheral route. Processing information through the central route is considered to be a very "~J~oughtfi~ ~ process that occurs when a recipients motivation and ability to process the message arg~,ments are high. When processing information through the central route (referred to as central processing), the recipients at t i tude is influenced by the strength of the message arg~lments ra ther than by peripheral cues present in the environment.

On the other hand, processing information through the peripheral route is considered to be a very ~thoughtless ~ process that occurs when the recipients motivation and/or ability to process the message arguments is low. When processing information through the peripheral route (referred to as peripheral processing), the recipients atti tude is influenced more by peripheral cues than by the quality of the message argu- meats. Many variables can act as peripheral cues, although they are typically classified into two categories: source factors, such as attractiveness, similarity, or purported expertise; and message factors, such as the number of arguments contained in the message, or length of the message.

Petty and Cacioppo (1986) state that a variable can influence the amount and direction of attitude change either by (a) serving as a persuasive argument, (b) serving as a peripheral cue, or (c) influencing the recipients elaboration likelihood, i.e., the extent to which the recipient actively processes message arguments. Variables influence the elaboration likelihood by influencing a recipients motivation or ab'flity to process information. When motivation and ability are high, the individual is at the high end of the elaboration likelihood continuum where central processing occurs, but when motivation and/or ability is low, the individual is at the low end of the elaboration ]~kelihood continuum where peripheral processing occurs.

What effects do message arguments, peripheral cues, and elaboration likelihood have on a recipients attitude? Within the att i tude change literature, studies testing the ELM (see Petty & Cacioppo, 1986 for a SUmmary) generally show main effects for argument quality and for the peripheral cue. Most importantly, however, an interaction occurs as a result of engaging in either high or low elaboration. A recipient engaged in high elaboration will distinguish between strong and weak message arg~ments, such tha t strong arguments will be evaluated more favorably and weak arguments will be evaluated less favorably. Conversely, a


recipient engaged in low elaboration will develop an evaluation based on the peripheral cue (e.g., source attractiveness) such that a more favorable att i tude will develop in the presence of a positive peripheral cue and a less favorable attitude will develop in the presence of a negative peripheral cue.

In applying the ELM to the selection interview context, the interviewer is forming an evaluation of the applicant with the applicant's qualifications for the position serving as the message arguments. The interviewer's responsibility in this situation is to assess the qualifications of the applicant for the position~ To the extent that the interviewer carefully scrutinizes the applicant's qualifications on job-relevant variables, the interviewer is engaging in high elaboration. To the extent that the interviewer does not carefully process the applicant's qualifications, but ra ther is influenced by peripheral cues in the development of his or her att i tude about the applicant, the interviewer is engaging in low elaboration. Where an interviewer falls on the elaboration likelihood continuum is determined by the interviewer's motivation and ability to cognitively process the applicant's qualifications. When motivation and ability are high, the interviewer will exert a high level of elaboration, but when motivation and/or ability is low, the interviewer will engage in a low level of elaboration and be more influenced by peripheral cues.

The ELM is important to consider in the selection interview pre- cisely because interviewers do not always have the ability and motivation to process applicants' qualifications. Regarding ability factors, studies suggest that most recruiters receive little or no training (Posner, 1981; Rynes & Boudreau, 1986). Furthermore, little evidence exists on how accountable actual interviewers are for their selection decisions. Laboratory studies examining interviewer selection decisions have not manipulated the motivation levels of the subjects, therefore many of our research findings are derived from subjects whose motivation levels were unknown. It might be expected that subjects would have low motivation to process information in studies where the quality of their decisions had no consequences for either themselves or for the applicant (in the case of "paper people s studies). The ELM provides a useful framework for making predictions as to how motivation and ability factors influence interviewers' evaluations of applicants.

What are the implications of the degree of elaboration employed? According to Petty and Cacioppo (1986), evaluations resulting from high elaboration tend to last longer, to be more resistant to counterpersua- sion, and to be better predictors of behavior than evaluations resulting from low elaboration. In the context of the selection interview, it is suggested tha t interviewers who elaborate more on the applicant's qualifications should select more qualified applicants than interviewers who elaborate less, and hence make more valid selection decisions.

Arvey and Csmpion (1982) proposed that some interviewers make


more valid selection decisions than others. This proposition has received some empirical support. Dougherty, Ebert, and Callender (1986) performed a field study in which three interviewers conducted 120 interviews (40 interviews per interviewer), and recorded their predictions for success. Results showed that one interviewer's selection decisions were far more valid than those of the other two interviewers. However, what remains unknown is what distinguishes interviewers who make highly valid decisions from those who make less valid decisions (Dougherty et al., 1986; Dreher & Maurer, 1989; Harris, 1989). Harris (1989) suggests that interviewers who make more valid decisions obtRin more or different information from applicants, and may be better at processing and integrating information than interviewers who make less valid decisions. Both of these explanations fit quite well within the ELM. An interviewer engaged in high elaboration would be likely to gather more or different information in order to determine the applicant's qualifications for the job, and to carefully scrutinize the information received, l ead ing to more valid judgments regarding the applicant's ability to perform the job. Conversely, an interviewer engaged in low elaboration will be less influenced by the quality of the applicant's qualifications and more influenced by the peripheral cues in the environment. This should lead to less processing of the applicant's quA|ifications for the position, and con- sequentiy, less valid judgments of the applicant's future job performance.

Proposition 1: There is a positive relationship between interviewer elaboration and the validity of interviewer selection decisions.

At this point, we have described the Elaboration Likelihood Model, shown why it is relevant to the selection interview, and discussed implications of the model for the validity of interviewer selection decisions. Next, we will discuss a number of variables hypothesized to influence an interviewer's motivation and ability to process an applicant's quAlificao tions, which in turn should influence the interviewer's degree of elaboration. First, we will discuss the potential influences of (a) personal accountability, and (b) Rmount of future interaction with the job applicant on the interviewer's motivation. ARerward, variables hypothesized to influence an interviewer's ability to process information will be considered.

MOTIVATION INFLUENCES

One variable proposed to influence an interviewer's motivation to carefully scrutinize an applicant's qualifications is accountability. Tet-


lock (1983) defines accountability as ~pressures to justify one's opinions to others ~ (p. 74). It is argued that if the interviewer has low accountability to the firm for the job performance of the applicant subsequently hired, the interviewer will be less likely to thoroughly exRmine the applicant's qualifications and more likely to be influenced by peripheral cues. Conversely, if the interviewer has high accountability to the firm for the job performance of the applicant, the interviewer would be more likely to scrutinize the applicanfs qualifications to ensure tha t t he most qvRHfied applicant receives a job offer. Therefore, the interviewer would tend to elaborate more thoroughly when under high accountability.

In three separate experiments (two using managers in an MBA pro- gram and one using undergraduates), McAllister, Mitchell, and Beach (1979) presented subjects with cases and asked them to choose a decision strategy. In all three studies, McAllister et al. (1979) found that subjects in the high accountability condition chose more analytic decision strategies than subjects in the low accountability condition. Addi- tionally, Rozelle and Baxter (1981) performed a study in which undergraduates serving as interviewers viewed videotapes of applicants interviewing for admission to graduate school. Their results showed that subjects in the high accountability condition produced descriptions that more accurately reflected characteristics of the applicant than subjects in the low accountability condition. In sum, it appears that increasing accountability leads to more thorough elaboration.

Proposition 2: Interviewers under high accountability will engage in greater elaboration than interviewers under low accountability.

A second variable proposed to influence interviewer motivation to engage in greater elaboration is whether the interviewer expects future work interactions with the applicant. According to Eder (1989), the personal decision risk of the interviewer increases if the interviewer will be the job applicant's supervisor or coworker. Furthermore, Eder (1989) proposed that as perceived decision risk increases, the judgment of the interviewer would be more affected by applicant qualifications, due to the increase in interviewer motivation to process information. Similarly, it is proposed that an interviewer who expects to work directly wi th the job applicant will more carefully scrutinize the applicant's qualifications to avoid the adverse consequences associated with a poor selection decision. But if the interviewer does not expect future work interactions with the applicant, it is argued that the interviewer will be less moti-

• vated to thoroughly ex~mlne the applicant's qualifications and will be more susceptible to peripheral cues in the development of his or her evaluation.


Proposition 3: Interviewers who expect future work interactions with applicants wiU engage in greater elaboration than interviewers without such expectations.

ABILITY INFLUENCES

Three factors are proposed to influence an interviewer's ability to process an applicant's qualifications: (a) interview structure, (b) interviewer training, and (c) job information. It is expected that these factors will affect the interviewer's ability to process an applicant's qualifications by focusing the interviewer's attention on job-relevant information. Theoretically, structured interviews should enable the interviewer to focus on the qualifications of the applicant and make peripheral cues in the situation less salient. On the other hand, using an unstructured interview format will enhance the likelihood that the interviewer will ask questions which are not job-related and will ask different questions to each applicant reducing the comparability of answers. As a result, interviewers using unstructured interview formats will probably be more susceptible to peripheral cues (i.e., information which does not predict job success).

A recent meta-analysis has shown that structured interviews are more valid than unstructured interviews (Wiesner & Cronshaw, 1988). This finding was also replicated by Campion, Pursell, and Brown (1988) who attributed the effectiveness of the structured interview to develop- ing the questions based on job analysis, asking applicants the same questions, standardizing the process, anchoring the rating scales, and using an interview panel. These explanations offered by Campion et al. (1988) appear to increase an interviewer's ability to process message arguments, consequently, it seems more likely that an interviewer will elaborate more when utilizing a structured rather than an unstructured interview format.

Propos i t ion 4: Interviewers using a structured interview f o r m a t will engage in greater elaboration than interviewers using an unstructured interview format.

The second variable proposed to influence ability is interviewer training. Research on interviewer training, however, has produced inconsistent results regarding the effectiveness of interviewer trslning on the accuracy of interviewers' judgments (Arvey & Campion, 1982; Dip- boye, 1992; Harris, 1989). The mixed findings have been attributed to a variety of factors including the different types of training received, the length of the training, and the types of subjects involved. Nonetheless,


Eder (1989) suggested that interviewer training should improve task clarity, which is a function of both the array of demands placed on the interviewer and the extent of interviewer preparation. Eder (1989) hy- pothesizes that a lack of task clarity results in quicker, more extreme judgments, unwillingness to quantify candidate performance, higher short-term memory loss, and decisions that are based on nonspecific and irrelevant criteria. Thus, it appears that untr~i_n_ed interviewers will rely on peripheral cues to a greater extent than trained interviewers. The task clarity developed from training should result in interviewers focusing on the quality of the applicant for the position, and paying less attention to peripheral cues in the environment.

Proposition 5: Trained interviewers are more likely to engage in greater elaboration than untrained interviewers.

The final variable proposed to influence ability to process an applicants quMiAcations is the degree to which the interviewer has adequate job information. Langdale and Weitz (1973) found that interviewers who received only a job title tended to give higher ratings with less discrimination among the job candidates than interviewers given exact job information. Interviewers deprived of job information tended to assign less importance to the applicant's responses, which suggests that interviewers may have been more influenced by peripheral cues. Similar results were obtained by Osburn, Tirnmreck, and Bigby (1981) who found that interviewers using a rating form composed of job dimensions highly relevant to the critical job behaviors were able to accurately discrlml- hate between the more and less qualified applicants, whereas interviewers who used a rating form composed of general job dimensions were not able to accurately discriminate between applicants on the basis of qualifications. Moreover, Wiener and Schneiderman's (1974) results indicated that when job information was provided, the effect of relevant information on the hiring decision increased, and the effect of irrelevant information decreased. Taken as a whole, the results of the above studies suggest that the use of job information enables interviewers to process applicants' qualifications more thoroughly, resulting in greater discrimination between more and less quAH~ied applicants. However, when necessary job information is lacking, the interviewers' ability to discriminate between applicants on the basis of qu~l~lqcations is re- duced, and interviewers will tend to rely more on peripheral cues.

Proposition 6: Interviewers provided with job information will be more likely to engage in greater elaboration than interviewers not provided with such information.


To s ~ m a r i z e , an interviewer's motivation and ability influences the extent to which the interviewer engages in elaboration of message arguments (i.e., applicant qualifications). We proposed that greater e!ab- oration will lead to more valid interviewer selection decisions and discussed a few variables proposed to influence interviewers' motivation and ability in the context of the interview. Specifically, we proposed that interviewers will be more motivated to examine applicant qualifications when interviewers (a) have high accountability for their decisions, and (b) expect future work interactions with the applicant. Furthermore, we proposed that (a) structuring interviews, (b) training interviewers, and (c) providing interviewers with critical job information will increase the ability of interviewers to evaluate applicant qualifications. The ELM suggests that when interviewers engage in less elaboration they will be more influenced by factors irrelevant for predicting job performance (i.e., peripheral cues) than when they engage in greater elaboration. Using the ELM framework, we will now discuss the effects of three variables irrelevant for predicting job performance but found to influence interviewer ratings.

PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS, NONVERBAL SKILLS, AND PERCEIVED SIMILARITY

The Elaboration Likelihood Model will be used to explore the effects of an applicant's physical attractiveness, nonverbal skills, and perceived similarity on an interviewer's evaluation. To the extent that these variables are unrelated to job performance, they are considered to be peripheral cues. Although many types of peripheral cues exist, applicant attractiveness, nonverbal skills, and perceived similarity have been shown to influence interviewer ratings in prior interviewing research (Griffitt & Jackson, 1970; Harris, 1989; Morrow, 1990). In his review article, Harris (1989) concluded that it has been difficult to predict the effects of applicant characteristics on an interviewer's evaluation due to the lack of a theoretical framework. The ELM provides a framework for predicting when applicant characteristics which are not useful for predicting successful job performance will influence an interviewer's judgments. Specifically, peripheral cues will have a greater effect on interviewer ratings when elaboration is low. One implication of the ELM for re- searchers is the need to explicitly consider motivation and ability factors in our research designs in order to more fully interpret our results.

No studies were located that concurrently manipulated an interviewer's motivation or ability to process an applicant's qualifications and either the applicant's physical attractiveness, nonverbal skills, or perceived similarity to the interviewer. Hence, no direct comparisons


can be made with predictions based on the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Nonetheless, we will discuss some prior research findings in the context of the ELM and make additional predictions based upon this model.

A recent review of the role of applicant physical attractiveness in employment selection by Morrow (1990) concluded that, in general, physically attractive applicants are perceived to be more qualified for employment and are recommended for higher starting salaries than physically unattractive applicants. Two studies were located which si- multaneously manipulated applicant physical attractiveness and qualifications. Both Dipboye, Fromkln, and Wiback (1975) and Dipboye, Ar- vey, and Terpstra (1977) manipulated applicant sex, physical attractiveness, and qualifications to investigate their effects on wi11ing- ness to hire an applicant for the position of furniture department man- ager and sales management trainee, respectively. Both studies found main effects for attractiveness and qualifications, which is consistent with results from ELM studies in the attitude change literature that find main effects for the peripheral cue and argument quality. But, since physical attractiveness does not appear to be related to successful job performance for either of these positions, using the ELM we would have predicted an interaction such that interviewers low in motivation and/or ability would be more influenced by an applicant's physical attractiveness than interviewers high in motivation and ability.

Proposition 7: Interviewers lower in elaboration will be more influenced by the physical attractiveness of an applicant than interviewers higher in elaboration.

In general, research on nonverbal behavior has shown that high levels of nonverbal behavior exhibited by an applicant such as sm~llng, maintRiniug eye contact, and head nodding has a positive effect on interviewers' evaluations (Arvey & Campion, 1982; Dipboye, 1992; Harris, 1989). However, since many job applicants find interviewing an intim- idating process and therefore appear nervous in the interview, nonverbal behaviors may have little relationship to their performance on the job. Also, for jobs in which employees have m~n~mal interactions with others, nonverbal behaviors may have no relationship with job success. To illustrate, Wexley, Fugita, and Malone (1975) manipulated applicant qualifications and nonverbal behaviors in an interview situation where the interviewer was evaluating the applicant's suitability for a loan. In this situation, the interviewer had a great deal of objective information about the applicant in terms of the applicant's economic circumstances and ability to repay the loan. Even so, Wexley et al. (1975) found a main effect for qu~|ifications as well as for level of nonverbal behavior on the


applicant's suitability to receive a loan. Again, it should be noted that the interviewer's degree of elaboration was not manipulated. Based on the ELM, we would predict that interviewers high in motivation and ability would be less influenced by nonverbal skills than interviewers low in motivation and/or ability.

Proposition 8: Interviewers lower in elaboration will be more influenced by an applicant's use of nonverbal skills than interviewers higher in elaboration.

Finally, numerous studies have shown that perceived attitude similarity between interviewers and applicants influences the evaluations of interviewers (Baskett, 1973; Byrne, 1961; Dalessio & Imada, 1984; Frank & Hackman, 1975; Griffitt & Jackson, 1970; Orpen, 1984; Syd- iaha, 1962). However, as noted by Griffitt and Jackson (1970) as well as by Rand and Wexley (1975), attitude similarity is unlikely to be a valid predictor of future job success. Furthermore, the similarity effect appears to differ among interviewers, in that perceived simi]arity influences some interviewers' evaluations but not others (Dalessio & Imada, 1984; Frank & Hackman, 1975; Sydiaha, 1962). One explanation for the inconsistent effects of perceived similarity across interviewers is that the interviewers differed in their amount of motivation and ability, such that perceived similarity had a greater effect on interviewers low rather than high in elaboration. As a further example, Griffitt and Jackson (1970) tested the influence of applicant qualifications and perceived similarity on interviewers' degree of hiring recommendation. Their results showed a main effect for both perceived sjml]arity and qualifications. Using the ELM, we would have expected an interaction to occur, such that interviewers low in motivation and/or ability would have been more influenced by perceived similarity than interviewers high in motivation and ability.

Proposition 9: Interviewers lower in elaboration will be more influenced by the perceived similarity of an applicant than interviewers higher in elaboration.

To S11rnrnfArize, the EI.~I can be used to predict when variables that are unrelated to successful job performance will be more likely to influence an interviewer's evaluation. Applying the ELM to the interview, we propose that peripheral cues (i.e., factors not related to job performance) will influence interviewer decisions more when elaboration is lower. Therefore, factors such as an applicant's physical attractiveness, use of nonverbal skills, and perceived similarity will have a greater influence


on interviewer decisions when motivation and/or ability is low than when motivation and ability is high.

IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Research is needed to explicitly test the applicability of the ELM to the selection interview. Because much of the research testing the ELM has been experimental studies (see Petty & Cacioppo, 1986, for a review), we will discuss a typical experimental design. Studies examining interviewer decision processes should explicitly consider the inter, viewer's motivation and ability. In experimental studies testing the ELM, three variables must be manipulated: (1) argument quality (i.e., applicant qualifications), (2) peripheral cue (e.g., physical attractiveness), and (3) elaboration (manipulate motivation and/or ability, e.g., presence of job information). For example, subjects may be given a com- pleted application form which indicates that the applicant has either strong or weak qualifications for the position. To manipulate ability, one half of the subjects may receive a thorough job description whereas the other half of the subjects know only the job title. The peripheral cue could be manipulated by having subjects actually interview confederates who have been previously rated either high or low in attractiveness. Applying the ELM, we would predict a main effect for qualifications, a main effect for attractiveness, and two interactions. One, interviewer ratings in the low ability condition would be more influenced by the applicant's attractiveness than interviewer ratings in the high ability condition, and two, interviewer ratings in the high ability condition would be more influenced by the applicant's qualifications than interviewer ratings in the low ability condition.

The Elaboration Likelihood Model offers many practical implications for organizations interested in improving their interviewing process, although research is needed to demonstrate the applicability of the ELM to the selection interview. Nonetheless, an increase in interviewer elaboration should result in greater validity of selection decisions. To increase elaboration, organizations need to consider factors which increase interviewers' motivation and ability. One method organizations can use to increase interviewer motivation is to increase interviewer accountability for selection decisions. Organizations may need to reex- amine how their interviewers are evaluated on their performance. Also, when selecting interviewers, organizations may find it beneficial to select employees who have a vested interest in the candidate's job performance. To increase interviewer ability, organizations might consider using structured interview formats, providing interviewer training, and


ensuring that interviewers have adequate job information. The greater elaboration resulting from increases in interviewer motivation and ability should make interviewers less susceptible to peripheral cues in their evaluations of applicants, and enhance the validity of their selection decisions. In turn, applicants who believe that selection decisions are based on qualifications, rather than on peripheral cues such as attractiveness, are more likely to perceive the organization's selection process as fair.

In conclusion, the Elaboration Likelihood Model appears to hold much promise for use in interviewing research, which has often been criticized as being atheoretical. The ELM is useful for predicting when applicant characteristics that appear unrelated to performance on the job will influence an interviewer's evaluation and the relative strength of such effects. Furthermore, this model brings to the forefront the importance of motivation and ability factors in determining how carefully an interviewer will process an applicant's qualifications. Although the interviewing literature has given much consideration to the effects of interviewer ability on applicant evaluations, far less attention has been given to the importance of interviewer motivation. As noted by Eder (1989), the concept of interviewer motivation should not be overlooked.

REFERENCES

Arvey, R. D., & Campion, J. E. (1982). The employment interview: A snmmary and review of recent research. Personnel Psychology, 35, 281-322.

Baskett, G. D. (1973). Interview decisions as determined by competency and attitude sim- ila~ty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 343-345.

Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude sim4larity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 713-715.

Campion, M. A., Pursell, E. D., & Brown, B. K. (1988). Structured interviewing: Raising the psychometric properties of the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 41, 25-42.

Dalessio, A., & Imads, A. S. (1984). Relationship between interview selection decisions and perceptions of applicant s'tmilarity to an ideal employment and self: A field study. Human Relations, 37, 67-80.

Dipboye, R. L. (1992). Selection interviews: Process perspectives. Cin "cmnati, OH: South- Western.

Dipbeye, R. L., Arvey, R. D., & Terpstra, D. E. (1977). Sex and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as determinants of resume evaluations. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 62, 288-294.

Dipbeye, R. L., Fromkiu, H. L., & WibaclL If. (1975). Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, 1, 39-43.

Dougherty, T. W., Ebert, R. J., & CaUender, J. C. (1986). Policy capturing in the employment interview. Journal of.Applied Psychology, 71, 9-15.

Dreher, G. F., & Maurer, S. D. (1989). Assessing the employment interview~. Deficiencies associated with the existing domain of validity coefficients. In R. W. Eder & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 249-269). Beverly Hills. Sage.


Eder, R. W. (1989). Contextual effects on interview decisions. In R. W. Eder & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 113-126). Bev- erly Hills: Sage.

Frank, L. L., & HaelrmAn, J. R. (1975). Effects of interviewar-interviewee similarity on interviewer objectivity in college admissions interviews. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 60, 356-360.

Griffitt, W., & Jackson, T. (1970). Influence of information about ability and non-ability on personnel selection decisions. Psychological Reports, 27, 959-962.

Harris, M. M. (1989). Reconsidering the employment interview: A review of recent literature and suggestions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 42, 691-726.

Johnson, 1~ A., & Greening, D. W. Relationships between corporate social performance, financial performance, and firm governance. Academy of Management Best Paper Pro- ceedings (in press).

Langdale, J. A., & Weits, J. (1973). Estimating the influence of job information on interviewer agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 23-27.

McAllister, D. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Beach, L. R. (1979). The contingency model for the selection of decision strategies: An empirical test of the effects of significance, acceunt- ability, and reversibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 228- 244.

Morrow, P. C. (1990). Physical attractiveness and selection decision ms]clng. Journal of Management, 16, 45-60.

Orpen, C. (1984). Attitude slm~lnrity, attraction, and decision-ma~ng in the employment interview. The Journal of Psychology, 117, 111-120.

Osburn, H. G., ~mmrick, C., & Bigby, D. (1981). Effect of dimensional relevance and accuracy of simulated hiring decisions by employment interviewers. Journal of Ap- plied Psychology, 66, 159-165.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaberation likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Posner, B. Z. (1981). Comparing recruiter, student, and faculty perceptions of important applicant and job characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 34, 329-339.

Rand, T. M., & Wexley, K. N. (1975). Demonstration of the effect, "slmilar to me," in simulated employment interviews. Psychological Reports, 36, 535-544.

Rezelle, R. M., & Baxter, J. C. (1981). The influence of role pressure on the perceiver. Judgments of videotaped interviewers varying judge accountability and responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 457-441.

Rynes, S. L., & Boudreau, J. W. (1986). College recruiting in large organizations: Practice, evaluation, and research implications. Personnel Psychology, 39, 729-757.

Sharfman, M. (1993). A construct validity study of the KLD social performance ratings data. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Association for Business and Society, San Diego, CA.

Sydiaha, D. (1962). Interviewer consistency in the use of empathic models in personnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 344-349.

Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74-83.

Wexley, K. N., Fugita, S. S., & Malone, M. P. (1975). An applicant's nonverbal behavior and student-evaluators' judgments in a structured interview setting. Psychological Reports, 36, 391-394.

Wiener, Y, & Sehneiderman, M. L. (1974). Use of job information as a criterion in employment decisions of interviewers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 699-704.

Wiesner, W. H., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1988). A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 275-290.

implications of the elaboration likelihood model for interviewer decision processes

Documents