Misplaced Intuitions in Interventions to Reduce Attractiveness-Based Discrimination

Individuals and organizations are increasing efforts to address discrimination. Nonexperts may lack awareness of, or are resistant to, scientifically informed strategies for reducing discrimination, instead relying on intuition. Five studies investigated the accuracy of nonexperts' intuitions about reducing discrimination concerning physical attractiveness. In Studies 1a to 1c (N = 902), participants predicted the effectiveness of six interventions to reduce attractiveness-based favoritism on a judgment task. Studies 2a and 2b (N = 6,292) investigated the effectiveness of these interventions. Although two interventions reduced discrimination, intuitions were poorly aligned with actual results; fewer than 1% of participants identified the combination of interventions that did, versus did not, impact judgment, and responses were more likely to be below than above chance when predicting each intervention's effectiveness. Although follow-up work should investigate the accuracy of intuition in other forms of discrimination, these results further stress the need for greater development and adoption of evidence-based strategies for combating discrimination.

Resumes vs. application forms: Why the stubborn reliance on resumes?

The focus of this Perspective article is on the comparison of two of the most popular initial applicant screening methods: Resumes and application forms. The viewpoint offered is that application forms are superior to resumes during the initial applicant screening stage of selection. This viewpoint is supported in part based on criterion-related validity evidence that favors application forms over resumes. For example, the biographical data (biodata) inventory, which can contain similar questions to those used in application forms, is one of the most valid predictors of job performance (if empirically keyed), whereas job experience and years of education, which are often inferred from resumes and cover letters, are two of the least valid predictors of job performance (among commonly used screening criteria). In addition to validity evidence, making decisions based on application forms as opposed to resumes is likely to help organizations defend against claims of discriminatory hiring while enhancing their ability to hire in a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive manner. For example, applicant names on resumes can lead to screening bias against members of identifiable subgroups, whereas an applicant’s name can be easily and automatically hidden from decision-makers when reviewing application forms (particularly digital application forms). Despite these convincing arguments focused on applicant quality and diversity, a substantial research–practice gap regarding the use of resumes and cover letters remains.

Intelligenz‍(tests) verstehen und missverstehen

Zusammenfassung. Die vorliegende Standortbestimmung zeigt die hohe wissenschaftliche Qualität der Intelligenzforschung und von Intelligenztests. Es werden aber auch mögliche Missverständnisse und Einseitigkeiten der Ergebnisrezeption und -interpretation thematisiert. Im Einzelnen werden (1) die hohe prognostische und kriterienbezogene Validität bei gleichzeitigen Vorbehalten wie teils niedriger Akzeptanz bzw. Augenscheinvalidität, (2) die Darstellung empirischer Befunde aus der Perspektive ausgewählter Theorien sowie (3) die Bedeutung von Umwelteinflüssen und hohen Erblichkeitskoeffizienten eingehender betrachtet. Für jeden dieser Bereiche wird verdeutlicht, dass vor allem Präzision bei der Rezeption und Darstellung von Forschungsergebnissen notwendig ist, um Einseitigkeiten, Missverständnisse und Instrumentalisierungen zu vermeiden. Der vorliegende Beitrag zeigt, dass einiges, was als Problem der Intelligenzforschung und von Intelligenztests kritisiert wird, letztendlich auf die dargestellten Missverständnisse zurückzuführen ist. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird der Unterschied zwischen der qualitativ hochwertigen Intelligenzforschung und Intelligenztestung einerseits sowie den Missverständnissen und Einseitigkeiten bei der Rezeption andererseits herausgearbeitet. Weiterhin werden berechtigte Kritikpunkte an der Intelligenzforschung und an Intelligenztests sowie Forschungsdesiderata benannt.

Exit interviews as a tool to reduce parting employees’ complaints about their former employer and to ensure residual commitment

Purpose

According to previous research, exit interviews do not fulfil the purpose of generating useful feedback from parting employees. According to signaling theory, they might, however, serve a different purpose: to leave one last good impression on parting employees, and the aim of this study was to test this.

Design/methodology/approach

A survey was administered to a sample of 164 German employees.

Findings

Consistent with arguments based on signaling theory, those who experienced an exit interview reported more residual affective commitment toward their former employer and less willingness to complain about it, and these effects were mediated by interpersonal fairness perceptions. In addition, the probability of having an exit interview was found to depend on the resignation style of employees.

Research limitations/implications

This new perspective on exit interviews can renew the interest in studying how organizations manage the offboarding process.

Practical implications

This study advises employers to conduct “exit conversations” (as two-way interactions rather than one-way interviews) and to carefully plan the exit phase.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that proposes a signaling theory perspective of exit interviews and that links exit interviews with the literature on resignation styles.