Content uploaded by Frank J. Bernieri
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Frank J. Bernieri on Feb 22, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
First Impressions in job interviews
Running Head: FIRST IMPRESSIONS IN JOB INTERVIEWS
The Importance of First Impressions in a Job Interview
Tricia J. Prickett
University of Toledo
Neha Gada-Jain Frank J. Bernieri
University of Toledo
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL,
May, 2000.
First Impressions in job interviews
Abstract
In the present study, naive observers evaluated the initial greeting that took place within
59 employment interviews. Two trained interviewers conducted each employment interview,
which was videotaped. After each twenty-minute interview, the two interviewers completed a
post-interview questionnaire evaluating the candidates on their interview performance, behavior,
rapport, and professional skills. These evaluations constituted the interview outcome criteria that
we attempted to predict. Brief video clips were extracted from the recordings such that each
began when the interviewee knocked on the door and ended five seconds after the interviewee
sat down. Only the interviewee could be seen on the video. The video clips were shown to naïve
observers who rated the interviewees on 12 interpersonal attributes, among these were hirable,
competence, and warmth. These judgements were used to predict the outcome of the interview,
operationalized as the mean of the two interviewers’ assessments. Naïve observer judgments
based on the initial 20-seconds significantly predicted interviewers’ assessments who questioned
the applicants for over 20 minutes. The present study showed that a personnel director’s
assessment of an applicant’s skill, knowledge and ability might be fixed as early as the initial
greeting of the formal interview.
First Impressions in job interviews
The Importance of First Impressions in a Job Interview
The employment interview remains the most widely accepted method for employee
selection. Although the validity of the interview has been questioned (Ulrich & Trumbo, 1965;
Schmitt, 1976; Wright, 1969), the employment interview today is considered to be valid and
reliable (Harris, 1989; Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994; Wright, Lichtenfels, & Pursell, 1989). Recent
studies suggest that interviews can be valid if they are structured and follow certain guidelines
that can improve the standardization and diagnosticity of the interview (McDaniel, Whetzel,
Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994; Williamson, Campion, Malos, Roehling, Campion, 1997; Campion,
Plamer, & Campion, 1998).
Although structured interviews are the most reliable and valid form of interviewing, there
are errors that need to be avoided (Berman, 1997). A common problem in interview evaluations
involves the potential over reliance of first impressions (Berman, 1997; Lee, & Gura 1997).
Current theories of interpersonal perception and social judgment describe our day-to-day
impression formation process as one that is normally characterized by fast, automatic, heuristic-
based perception processes that persevere because of a lack of effortful cognitive analysis and
biased information processing (Gilbert, 1995).
We know, for example that the more an applicant is similar to the interviewer, the more
highly the applicant will be rated higher on likable (Dabbs, 1969), competence (Gifford, &
Wilkinson 1985), and confidence (Liden, Martin, & Parsons, 1993). Other biases can result from
unconsciously applied stereotypes and prejudices (Blair & Banaji, 1996), not least of which is
the ubiquitous “what is beautiful is good” halo effect where evaluations of others are determined
by mere physical attractiveness (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972).
Furthermore, once an impression of another is formed it necessarily will influence our
behavior toward that individual (Jones, 1990). In fact, our behavior may be affected in such a
way that we may unwittingly cause that individual to behave, act, or appear in a manner that is
consistent with out expectations (e.g., Rosenthal, 1991; Snyder, 1984). In other words, our first
impressions can often lead to self-fulfilling prophecies (e.g., Jussim, 1986).
It has been argued that the pre-interview impressions of job candidates can influence an
interviewer’s post-interview evaluation by influencing how the interviewer conducts the
interview (Dougherty, Turban & Callender, 1994) or by causing the interviewer to interpret the
information collected during the interview in a manner that is consistent with their initial
impression (Phillips & Dipboye, 1989; Merton, 1948; Dipboye, 1982).
Taken together, these biases in person perception and their subsequent effects on
interaction behavior lead to the conclusion that the most obvious threat to the validity of an
evaluation based on a structured interview is the immediate snap judgment that is often made
very early on in the interview process, or perhaps even prior to it’s onset (Berman, 1997). It is
not only possible, it is likely that the final evaluations made by interviewers will be determined
in large part, or at least anchored, by the first impression, which may have been formed at the
initial handshake and introduction.
Although prevailing social psychological theory and data strongly predict that
professional interviewers are likely to be guilty of “judging a book by its cover,” there exists no
direct empirical documentation of how important the first impression is in determining an
interview outcome. The purpose of this study was to quantify the impact of the first impression
on final applicant evaluations based on their interview performance. A sample of naïve
First Impressions in job interviews
4
observers watched a video recording of 59 different interviewees as they were greeted by two
interviewers and were escorted to a seat. The video clip ended before the first prepared interview
question was asked. We hypothesized that the impressions formed by these naïve observers who
viewed only this “thin slice” of behavior (for a review and discussion of the “thin slice”
literature, see Ambady, Bernieri, & Richeson, 2000) would significantly predict the final
assessments made by trained interviewers following their 15 – 25 minute structured interview.
Method
Overview
Naïve observers watched the first few seconds of 59 job interviews and rated each
applicant on various attributes including hirability, competence, and warmth. These impressions
were compared to final assessments made by two trained interviewers following a 20 minute
structured interview and by one trained evaluator who observed the entire interview on
videotape.
The Interview
Interviewees. Undergraduates (11 males and 95 females) received extra credit for their
participation. Roughly 20% of the sample were students enrolled in the business school, 20%
were psychology majors, and the remaining 60% were students enrolled in an introductory
psychology class.
Interviewers and evaluators. Each interview was conducted by a team of three assessors,
two of whom actually conducted the interviewer while a third (whom we refer to as the
evaluator) observed it later on videotape. Assessors rotated in and out of the roles of interviewer
and evaluator across the set of interviews conducted. Advanced undergraduate psychology
students ranging in age from 20 to 28 years served as assessors. Six female interviewers were
chosen from fifteen applicants. The selection of each was based on their: (a) prior work
experience, (b) plans to further their studies in Industrial or Organizational Psychology, (c)
ability to pose questions confidently, and (d) successful completion of an interview training
procedure. Four were Caucasian, one was Hispanic and one was Asian.
Interviewers completed four to five training sessions, each lasting about an hour.
Interviewers memorized and rehearsed an interview protocol (Appendix A). The interviewers
role-played with one another during the first session. The second session consisted of mock
interviews with a confederate portraying three types of interviewee: an overly confident, an
arrogant, and an uninterested applicant. Interviewers then conducted a literature review on
“Interviewing Techniques – The screening Interview” and participated in at least three pilot
interviews.
Procedure. Participants were informed over the phone that the purpose of the
experiment was to find the best method of conducting a screening interview. It was explained
that the interviews would simulate interviews conducted by firms screening candidates for larger
client companies where the purpose is to decide whether an applicant will be selected for a
second interview and what category of job an applicant seems most to suitable for. Participants
were advised to dress appropriately.
The interviewee knocked on the door when reaching the interview room. The two
interviewers greeted the applicant and seated them. The interviewers began by asking a neutral
question such as “How are you doing today?” The interview protocol consisted of approximately
18 questions that assessed the interviewee’s skills, knowledge and attitudes. The two
interviewers alternated asking the questions, but either could ask a follow up question
First Impressions in job interviews
5
appropriate to an interviewee’s response. The interview concluded after all the prepared
questions were addressed. Interviews ranged in length from 15 – 25 minutes.1
Two cameras recorded the interview. One focused on the entire group of three and was
not used in the present study. The other camera was focused exclusively on the interviewee. It
was from this camera that the videotapes of the interviewee were made and shown to both the
evaluators and naïve observers.
Interviewer Evaluation of Applicants
The assessors (i.e., the two interviewers and the evaluator) independently completed an
extensive evaluation of the applicant following each interview. First, each wrote a detailed open-
ended report on the candidate. This was followed by a post interview questionnaire that consisted
of 56 items. These ratings generally were made on 9-point scales. Items covered such things as:
(a) the likelihood of choosing the interviewee for the final selection interview, (b) the job
interview category in which the candidate would be placed, (c) the level of rapport experienced
between interviewer and applicant, (d) how likable the interviewee was, and (e) the candidate’s
level of involvement, attentiveness and responsiveness during the interview. The interviewers
also remarked on the candidate’s physical appearance by assessing how well dressed the
applicant appeared. Finally, interviewers assessed the level of motivation expressed by all
interview participants as well as their interpersonal skills, professional competence, ability to
learn job-related skills and ability to convey knowledge. The interviewers also rated how
successful the candidates would be if hired. A more detailed description of this 56-item
assessment is found in Gada-Jain (1999).
From this extensive assessment 13 variables were examined in the present study.
Specifically, these were evaluations of the applicant’s: interpersonal warmth, politeness,
likeability, nervousness, expressivity, introversion, confidence, trustworthiness, competence,
ambitiousness, hirability, and how well-dressed they believed the applicant to have been.
Thin Slice Judgments
Thin slices. Only the initial greeting was shown to naïve observers. The beginning of
each clip was defined as the onset of interviewee’s knock on the door. The termination point
was defined as 10 seconds following the point at which the interviewee sat down. The 59 clips
sampled ranged in length from 20 to 32 seconds. The clips were assembled and counterbalanced
such that the order of clips on the stimulus tape was not identical to the order in which the
interviews were performed. The thin slice video clips were numbered sequentially and were
spaced on the stimulus tape to allow sufficient time for observers to make their judgments.
Naïve Observers. Most observers were students from psychology classes participating
for class credit. A few individuals came from a convenience sample who volunteered their time.
Of the forty-seven observers, 15 indicated they were male and 22 indicated that they were
females. Forty-one participants indicated that English was their primary spoken language. The
13 variables selected from the interview assessments were assessed on an 8-point unipolar scale.
Procedure. Observers were informed that the purpose of the experiment was to study first
impressions in a job interview. The observers were assured that there were no right or wrong
responses and that they could follow their gut feelings. Observers were instructed to refrain from
making any comments and to work independently. The video, played with sound, was stopped
after the first clip so that any confusion about the observer’s role could be cleared. The tape
lasted approximately 35 minutes. Three groups of observers were needed to collect judgments
for the 12 attributes plus physical attractiveness. The judgment of well-dressed was made only
by the interviewers.
First Impressions in job interviews
6
Results
Data Reduction and Reliability
A principal component analysis was performed on the observer data and the interviewer
data separately as a guide to help reduce the number of variables for analysis. On the basis of
this analysis, an inspection of the raw zero-order intercorrelations, and the constructs suggested
by the variable names themselves, the 12 assessment variables (but not dress or attractiveness)
were collapsed to create 3 composite variables we named: (a) likable, (b) self-assuredness, and
(c) competence. Variances were standardized before composite variables were formed. Table 1
presents the intra cluster correlations of the 12 variables assessed by the interviewers and
indicates the composite variable to which they contributed. The results in Table 1 are based on
interviewer data only. Results from observer data and evaluator data were comparable.
The ratings of the two interviewers were significantly correlated and appear in Table 2.
The degree of consensus between the two interviewers was highest on the composite variable
self-assured (r=.56, p<.0001) and lowest on likable (r=.50, p<.0001). The evaluations of the two
interviewers were combined.
Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients were computed to assess the consensus among our
sample of naïve observers. The Cronbach Alphas were all above .77 (see Table 2). The
evaluations of naïve observers were collapsed to form a single naïve observer judgment. To
compare the consensus among observers with that of among the interviewers, mean inter-rater
reliability (r) was estimated using the Spearman-Brown formula, relates overall effective
reliability and mean inter-rater reliability given the number of raters used (Rosnow, & Rosenthal,
1991). The estimated correlation between any two observers chosen at random thus ranged from
.18 - .38. Median level of consensus was slightly higher for interviewers (Median r = .35) than
among naïve observers (Median r = .27). However, this difference is not nearly as large as one
might expect given the extreme discrepancy in the amount of information each set of evaluators
had to work with.
Predicting Interview Outcomes from Naïve Observer Judgments
We sought to determine whether naïve observers who watched just the first few seconds
of a job interview could predict an interviewer’s assessments following the 20-minute interview.
Table 3 displays the correlations between the mean observer judgment and the mean interviewer
evaluation for each of the three composite variables. The naïve observer and interviewers
assessments correlated significantly on all three composite attributes. As might be expected, the
three composite variables were highly correlated with each other suggesting the presence of a
general evaluative factor within this evaluation paradigm. Therefore, we further collapsed the
data to form a global super composite variable that represents the evaluative halo that exists
throughout the entire assessment protocol. This global judgment variable appears at the bottom
of Table 3.
Table 3 also displays the correlations between the mean observer judgments and the
evaluations of the evaluator who like observers watched the applicant on videotape but like
interviewers experienced the complete interview. Assessments made by the trained interviewer
also were predicted from naïve observer judgments based on a 20 s thin slice of behavior.
Finally, the agreement between interviewers and the evaluator also appears in Table 3.
The assessments made by those who witnessed the entire structured interview showed more
agreement between each other than with the assessments made by naïve observers who viewed
only the initial greeting.
First Impressions in job interviews
7
The Mediating Effects of Appearance
Re do.
The present study wanted to determine if an applicant’s appearance effected an
interviewer’s hiring decision. The dress and attractiveness of the candidate was correlated with
the global decisions of the interviewers, evaluator, and naïve observers. As shown in Table 4,
the physical appearance of dress did influence the hiring decisions of the observers (r=.44,
p<.0005), interviewers (r=.24, p<.01), and evaluator (r=.36 p<.005); however, the physical
attractiveness of the applicant did not influence the interviewer (r=.14) or evaluator’s (r=.14)
assessments. Discussion
The assessments trained interviewers made after a 20-minute structured interview
designed to assess specific job skills and past experiences were predicted from the naïve
assessments of observers who based their judgments on only the first 20 seconds; the initial
greeting. The data suggest that the final impressions of the interviewers may not have changed
significantly from first impressions.
Schemas, “cognitive structures that represent knowledge about a concept or type of
stimulus, including its attributes and the relations among those attributes” (Fiske & Taylor, 1991,
p.98) may explain why the naïve observers were able to predict the final impressions of the
interviewers. By influencing behavior, schemas can (a) direct attention and guide information by
influencing what people notice and how they will interpret what they notice (Devine, 1989;
Linville, 1982b; Darley & Gross, 1983). Schemas can also (b) steer memory when people have
developed memories, they remember those things that are both consistent with their schema
(Owens, Bower, & Black, 1979; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Higgins & Bargh, 1987) and
inconsistent with their schema (Hastie & Kumar, 1979; Stull, 1981; Srull & Wyer, 1989).
Finally, schemas can influence unanticipated judgments (Hastie & Parke, 1986).
The remaining question is what factors caused the first impressions in the interviews.
Past research would think that attractiveness and physical appearance would have an effect on
the first impressions being made. “The first message we send to anyone with whom we come in
contact is generated by our physical appearance” (Richmond, McCroskey & Payne, 1991).
Physical appearance is a factor of body size, body shape, facial features and clothing and
accessories (Richmond et al, 1991). After seeing a strong correlation between the naïve
observers and the trained interviewers, the present study sought out to answer the question of
why the strong correlation had occurred. The trained interviewers had originally rated the
applicants on how well they were dressed. A scale for attractiveness was added to the naïve
observations to determine whether the attractiveness of an applicant predicted the interview
outcome.
The attractiveness ratings of the naïve observers were correlated to the global assessment
of the observers, interviewers, and evaluator. The physical attractiveness of the applicant
significantly correlated with the observers’ global ratings (r=.41, p<.001). However,
attractiveness did not predict either the interviewers, or evaluator’s global assessments.
Therefore it was not a significant determinant of the interview outcome. The dress2 of the
applicants did however show significant predictions of the interview outcome.
An applicant’s dress and physical attractiveness did not predict the interviewers’
assessments, so what was driving the hiring decisions? Aristotle would suggest that the
interviewers were able to read the applicants’ personality traits from their face. This ancient
Greek art called physiognomy (Brandit, 1980; Zebrowitz, 1997) suggest that a person’s
personality can be inferred from the face. The belief in physiognomy has surprisingly carried
First Impressions in job interviews
8
into the beginning of the 20th century. In fact, many companies practiced physiognomy as their
main tool for assessing candidates (Brandit, 1980; Zebrowitz, 1997). Even today, many still
believe in physiognomy. In one survey a sample of Israelis were asked if they believed it were
possible to know a person’s personality from looking at his or her face. Surprisingly, out of 535
respondents, 75% believed in physiognomy (Hassin & Trope, 2000).
Another noteworthy finding was that the naïve observers showed as much consensus as
the interviewers. In fact when examining the individual assessments, the naïve observers were as
reliable if not more than those of the skilled interviewers on seven of the twelve attributes. This
phenomenon is very striking. One would think that because the interviewers were trained and
that because they were exposed to move relevant interview information, they should have agreed
more closely with each other than 2 untrained observers watching a 20 second clip (Huffcutt,
1999). Training interviewers would establish constancy and increases the likelihood of
candidates being evaluated equally. Training also teaches interviewers to gather and use
information correctly. Unlike the naïve observers, the interviewers were also taking notes on the
applicants. Note taking has been found to reduce the pre-interview expectations in interviewer
final evaluations (Judice & Smith, 1999; Biesanz, 1999).
The role of the Evaluator is very important and should be noted. This person represents
the link between the naïve observers and interviewers. The Evaluator, like the interviewers, was
trained and had interviewing experience. The Evaluator was representative of the naïve
observers because they were all bystanders looking onto the interview, but unlike the observers,
the Evaluator viewed the entire interview, and not just the first impressions.
Limitations.
There are some limitations of the present study that should be addressed. The first
involves the realism of the interviews. The interviewees in the study were students participating
for a psychology experiment, not applicants applying for a job. However, studies have shown
that ratings collected for administrative purposes as apposed to research purposes for structured
interviews show more of the halo effect and are less valid (McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, &
Maurer, 1994; Sharon & Barlett, 1969; Veres, Field, & Boyles, 1983; Warmke & Billings,
1979). The realism of the study is also challenged a second time. The goal of a typical job
search would be to eliminate all candidates not evaluate their qualities. The interviewers and
naïve observers in the present study were not given the responsibility to choose only one or two
candidates from a group of applicants, they merely evaluated their qualifications. Therefore,
when examining the individual interviewee evaluation scores from both the interviewers and
observers, the data showed that the naïve observers were not able to predict the top three
candidates chosen to be hired from the interviewers, they could only predict the overall
impression of a candidate Conclusion
It is important to emphasize that the present study does not discredit the interview
process. The employment interview is an effective means of establishing rapport between a
potential employee and an organization. But after reviewing the results of the present study, one
would have to question the limits to the validity of an employment interview used as a selection
device. If the goal of an interviewer is to find an individual who will have rapport and fit into an
organization’s culture, then it is apparent that an employment interview serves its purpose for
selection.
Although past research has criticized the interview process because interviewer
evaluations do not predict supervisor ratings, promotion, training success or tenure (Hunter &
First Impressions in job interviews
9
Hunter, 1984; Reilly & Chao, 1982), it is important to remember that the interview can not
reflect how successful or unsuccessful the rejected candidates would have performed the job if
hired. We can not criticize the interview, because can not determine how well individuals not
hired would perform in the job.
The results support the current theories of interpersonal perception in social cognition
that state initial expectations, in this case when based on first impressions, are resistant to
change. The present study applied this theoretical work to the business world, and demonstrated
that interviewers may unwittingly decide how the interview will be evaluated within the first few
seconds of the initial greeting. Although the results in the present study are theoretically
consistent with those found within social psychology (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Ambady, Bernieri,
& Richeson, 2000), they may be eye opening to those in the business sector.
First Impressions in job interviews
References
Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., & Richeson, J. (2000). Towards a Histology of Social
Behavior: Judgmental Accuracy form Thin Slice of the Behavioral Stream. In M. Snyder (Ed.)
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, (201-271).
Berman, J. A. (1997). Competence-Based Employment Interviewing. Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.
Biesanz, J. C., Neuberg, S. L., Judice, T. N., & Smith, Dylan M. (1999). When
interviewers desire accurate impressions: The effects of note taking on the influence of
expectations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2529-2549.
Blair, I. V., & Banaji, M. R. (1996). Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype
priming. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology.,70, 1142-1163.
Brandit, A. (1980). Face reading: The persistence of physiognomy. Psychologist Today,
90, 90-96.
Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1998) Structuring Employment
Interviews to Improve Reliability, Validity, and Users’ Reactions. Current directions in
psychological science: a journal of the American Psychological Society, 7, 79-80.
Dabbs, J. M., Jr., (1969). Similarity of gestures and interpersonal influence. Proceedings
of the 77th Annual Convention, APA, (337-338).
Darley, J. M., & Gross, P. H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 20-33.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled
components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
Dipboye, R. L. (1982). Self-fulfilling prophecies in the selection/ recruitment interview.
Academy of Management Review, 7, 579-587.
Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Callender, J. C. (1994). Confirming first impressions
in the employment interview: A field study of interviewer behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 659-665.
Fiske, S. T., Neuberg, S. L., (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from
category-based to interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 23, 1-74.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gada-Jain, N., (1999). Intentional synchrony effects on job interview evaluation.
Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Toledo.
Gifford, R., Ng, C., & Wilkinson, M. (1985). Nonverbal cues in the employment
interview: Links between qualities and interviewer judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology,
70, 4,729-736.
Gilbert, D. T. (1995). Attribution and Interpersonal Perception. J. Vanicunas, L. Lynch,
& S. Amerman (Eds.), Advanced Social Psychology (pp. 99-147). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Harris, M. M. (1989). Reconsidering the employment interview: A review of recent
literature and suggestions for future research. Personnel Psychology. 42, 691-726.
Haskie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends
on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258-268.
Hassin, R., & Trope, Y. (2000). Facing faces: Studies on the cognitive aspects of
physuignomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 837-852.
Hastie, R., & Kumar, P. A. (1979). Person memory: Personality traits as organizing
principles in memory for behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 25-88.
First Impressions in job interviews
11
Higgins, E. T., Bargh, J. A. (1987). Social cognition and social perception. In M. R.
Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter Eds.), Annual review of psychology, 38, 369-425.
Huffcutt, A., & Arthur, W., Jr. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview
validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 184-190.
Huffcutt, A. I., & Woehr, David (1999). Further analysis of employment interview
validity: a quantitative evaluation of interviewer-related structuring methods. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 20, 549-560.
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.
Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal Perception. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Judice, T. N., & Smith, D. M. (1999). When interviewers desire accurate impressions:
The effects of notetaking on the influence of expectations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
29, 2529-2549.
Jussim, L. (1986). Self-fulfilling prophecies: A theoretical and integrative review.
Psychological Review, 93, 429-445.
Lee, C., & Gura, T. (1997). Oral Interpretation (9th ed.) Boston: Haughton Mifflin Co.
Liden, R. C., Martin, C. L., & Parsons, C. K. (1993). Interviewer and applicant behaviors
in employment interviews. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 372-386.
Linville, P. W. (1982b). The complexity-extremity effect and age-based stereotyping.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 193-211.
McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D., (1994). The Validity
of Employment Interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
psychology, 79, 599-616.
Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193-210.
Owens, J., Bower, G. H., & Black, J. B. (1979). The “soap-opera” effect in story recall.
Memory and Cognition, 7, 185-191.
Phillips, A. P., & Dipboye, R. L. (1989). Correlational tests of predictions from a process
model of the interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 41-52.
Reilly, R. R., & Chao, G. R. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative employee
selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 35, 1-62.
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Payne, S. K. (1991). Nonverbal Behavior in
Interpersonal Relations (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Rosnow, R. L., Rosenthal, R. (1991). If you're looking at the cell means, you're not
looking at only the interaction (unless all main effects are zero). Psychological Bulletin, 110,
574-576.
Schmitt, N. (1976). Social and situational determinants of interview decisions:
Implications for the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 29, 79-101.
Sharon, A. T., & Bartlett, C. J. (1969). Effect of instructional conditions in producing
leniency on two types of rating scales. Personnel Psychology, 22, 251-263
Srull, T. K. (1981). Person memory: Some tests of associative storage and retrieval
models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 440-462.
Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (1980). Person memory and judgment. Psychological
Review, 96, 58-83.
Ulrich, L., & Trumbo, D. (1965). The selection interview since 1949. Psychological
Bullentin, 63, 100-116.
Veres, J. G., Field, H. S, & Boyles, W. R. (1983). Administrative versus research
performance ratings: An empirical test of rating data quality. Public Personnel Management, 12,
290-298.
First Impressions in job interviews
12
Warmke, D. L., & Billings, R. S. (1979). Comparison of training methods for improving
the psychometric quality of experimental and administrative performance ratings. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 64, 124-131.
Williamson, L. G., Campion, J. E., Malos, S. B., Roehling, M. V., & Campion, M. A.
(1997). Employment interview on trial: Linking interview structure with litigation outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 900-912.
Wright, O. R., Jr. (1969). Summary of research on the selection interviews since 1964.
Personnel Psychology, 22, 391-413.
Wright, P. M., Lichtenfels, P. A., & Pursell, E. D. (1989). The structured interview:
Additional studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology 62, 191-199.
Zebrowitz, L.A. (1997). Reading faces: Window to the soul? Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
First Impressions in job interviews
Table 1
Intercorrelations of Related Attributes From Interviewer Assessments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Likable
1. Warm
-
.77***
.55***
.66***
2. Likable
.74***
.77***
3. Trustworthy
.57***
4. Polite
-
Self-assuredness
5. Confident
-
.76 *
.57***
.72***
-.55***
6. Expressive
.68***
.73***
-.49***
7. Extroverted
.57***
-.30**
8. Ambitious
.28*
9. Nervous
-
Competence
10. Hirable
-
.81***
.66***
11. Intelligent
.66***
12. Professional Competence
-
Note: N=59 interviews
First Impressions in job interviews
14
Table 2
Assessment Reliabilities of Interviewers and Observers
Interviewers Observers
Attributes Agreement Cronbach Estimated Number Cronbach
Correlation alpha mean level Observers alpha
of agreementa
Likable .50 .78 b b b
Likable .55 .71 .28 15 .85
Polite .28 .44 .30 17 .88
Warm .26 .41 .27 17 .86
Trustworthy .23 .37 .18 17 .79
Self-assuredness .56 .57 b b b
Nervous .23 .36 .23 15 .82
Confident .49 .66 .27 17 .86
Expressive .45 61 .38 15 .90
Ambitious .42 .58 .25 17 .85
Extroverted .18 .31 .36 13 .88
Competence .53 .69 b b b
Hirable .57 .73 .25 17 .85
Intelligent .41 .58 .38 15 .90
Professional .19 .32 .18 15 .77
Competence
Median .35 .27
Note: 59 Interviews
aThe estimated correlation between any two observers chosen at random.
bNot determined because different observers rated the different variable constituting the
composite variable
First Impressions in job interviews
15
Table 3
Correlations between Evaluators across 59 Interviews.
Agreement between:
Composite 20 s Observers 20 s Observers Interviewers
attribute and and and
evaluated Interviewers Evaluators Evaluators
Likeabilitya .46*** .35** .44***
Self-assurednessb .43*** .43*** .65****
Competencec .39** .34* .41****
Globald .45*** .41*** .53****
*p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 ****p<.0001
amean of likable, polite, warm, and trustworthy.
bmean of nervous, confident, expressive, ambitious, and extroverted.
cmean of hirable, intelligent, and professional competence.
dmean of the composite attributes of Likability, Self-assuredness, and Competence.
First Impressions in Job Interviews
16
16
Table 4
Effects of Attractiveness
Interviewer and Evaluator Naïve observer
assessments of dress assessments of attractiveness
Observer Global .51*** .41**
Assessments
Interviewer Global .30* .14
Assessments
Evaluator Global .38* .14
Assessments
*p<.01 **p<.001 ***p<.0001
First Impressions in Job Interviews
17
17
Footnotes
1 The original purpose of this interview study was to examine whether manipulations of
nonverbal behavior can positively increase interview success (Gada-Jain, 1999). Half of
the interviewees from this larger study were instructed to mimic subtly the behaviors of a
targeted interviewer. The present study used all of the 48 control interviews and 11 of the
latter experimental interviews. The data for both the control and experimental interviews
were conducted separately and showed no significance difference. Therefore, the data
reported here were collapsed across all 59 applicants.
2 There were two assessments of dress, the interviewers and the evaluators. When
computing the correlation of dress to the naïve observers and interviewers’ global
assessments, the interviewer ratings of dress were used. The evaluator’s assessments
were when correlating the global assessments.
First Impressions in Job Interviews
18
18
Appendix A. Interview protocol of the active interviewers.
Interview Greeting
Interviewer 1: Hi! I am ____ (interviewee introduces themselves) – Handshake. I guess
you are here for the screening interview. I am one of the interviewers on the panel today.
[pointing to Interviewer 2] This is my colleague.
Interviewer 2: Hi! I am ___. How are you doing today?
(interviewee answers)
Interviewer 2: Good! Did you have any trouble finding your way here?
(Interviewee answers)
Interviewer 2: (respond to interviewee)
Interviewer 1: (respond to interviewee too and then…) Now, for the next 15 minutes we
will conduct the interview (CHECK TIME). This interview is of a general type. The aim
here is to screen candidates for a final selection interview. So, we have a few questions
for you.
Let’s begin by telling us who you are.
First Impressions in Job Interviews
19
19
Interview Questions
1) Tell us a little about yourself…
a. about who you are
b. where did you go for high school?
c. What hobbies do you have, are you part of any organizations on campus
2) Have you been living in Toledo for sometime? What are your feelings about living
in Toledo?
3) What is your major here?
a. status in school
b. plan to continue
4) Tell us something about your general career interests.
5) Are you working at present? (if yes) What is your job? [ (if no) Have you worked in
the past? (if yes) What was your job?]
a. What are your duties there?
6) What would you call your potentials or assets?
a. Your personal characteristics at work.
b. Why do you consider these as assets?
c. Have these qualities helped you in the past?
In the past have you ever had any differences in opinion with your superiors?
a. How did you handle that?
7) What do you think matters most in being successful – luck, abilities, experience or
hard work?
a. Why do you think so?
8) What kind of people do you like being around?
a. as friends
b. In the work environment?
What if a co-worker is highly critical of you in front of others, how would you handle
that?
9) What is your most unique quality?
a. How does your unique quality, your skills, give you a cutting-edge over other
applicants?
10) Why should we choose you among all the other applicants?
11) What are your future goals regarding your career?
12) How do you picture yourself 10 years from now?
13) What is your biggest weakness?
a. How will that hinder your performance?
14) What will be the ideal job for you?
15) If you are offered the job of your choice, what are your expectations from this job?
a. What does your ideal job mean for you?
b. In terms of values, salary, advancement opportunity?
In the past has your superior ever given you a mark lower than you expected or deserved?
a. What did you do?
16) How do you think you can benefit the organization, if you are offered a job? Why
should we hire you?
17) Finally, if we offer you a job, when can you start?
First Impressions in Job Interviews
20
20
a. We have full-time and part-time positions available. Depending on your
schedule, when can you start?
18) OK before we end, do you have any questions for us?
