I have provided the guidelines of the paper. Please follow, and if there’s any questions please let support contact me so I can help. And PowerPoints from the course (Business Research), that could help with each step of the research paper
The questionnaire does not have to be filled buy you can indicate as if you did the survey. There should be 40 responses
I have also attached the survey questionnaire I provided in files. To let the writer know which question should be the survey as final.
BUSI301- Business Research
Spring 2021
RESEARCH PROJECT
As part of this course, you are required to write and present a paper on a relevant business research topic. The paper must capture the following elements:
1. Abstract
2. Table of Contents
3. Introduction
4. Purpose of the Study
5. Significance of the Study (contributions of the study)
6. Specific Literature Review
7. Research Hypotheses
8. Conceptual Model
9. Methodology
a.
Data
b.
Participants
c.
Measures
d.
Method for collecting data (interview, questionnaire, observation etc.)
e.
Development of questionnaire and/or interview questions
10. Analysis of Data
11. Discussion
a.
Summary of Major Findings
b.
Theoretical Implications
c.
Practical Implications
d.
Limitations of the Study
e.
Future Research
f.
Conclusion
12. References
13. Tables
14. Figures
15. Appendices
General Guideline
Prepare your individual research project by using the following general guideline (the instructor will provide more detail on these elements during the class time).
1. Abstract (an abstract is a brief summary of a research article)
2. Table of Contents
3. Introduction (Topic, Research Objectives, Context, and Rationale, some general literature review). In this section, you will present your research topic, rationale for choosing your research topic using academic references, the context for your research topic, some general/brief literature review of the topic, and the general objectives for conducting the research.
4. Here you provide all the purposes of your study
5. Here you provide information about the significance (contributions) of the study.
6. Please note that point # 6 and 7above (6- Specific literature review; 7 -development of Hypotheses) can be combined together or could have separate sections.
Your literature review should review at least 10 published, peer-reviewed scholarly literature relevant to your research topic and question(s). In your review, you should:
· Summarize and analyze the major findings, themes, perspectives, and types of prior research conducted on your topic.
· Connect your research question within the literature you reviewed. In other words, identify the gaps in the literature and determine how your research is related to the problems identified in the literature.
· Research hypotheses (make sure to formulate your hypotheses based on prior research findings and/or based on theoretical background)
7. Hypotheses (you develop your hypotheses here if you did not include them in part 6).
8. Development of a figure that captures your Conceptual Model.
9. Methodology
a.
Data
b.
Participants
c.
Measures
d.
Data and method(s) for collecting data (interview, questionnaire, observation etc.)
e.
Development of questionnaire and/or interview questions
Make sure to take the following issues in consideration while completing the methodology section (not necessarily in that order)
· Describe the participants and their characteristics.
· Describe the process of collecting the data.
· Discuss the types of data (i.e. qualitative, quantitative, or mixed) you intend to collect with your chosen methodology.
· Critically analyze the ethical implications of your research methodology and methods and explain how you will address any ethical challenges.
· Development of questionnaire and or interview questions
10. Analysis (Present the method of analysis for testing your hypotheses. (Descriptive statistics, correlations, ANOVA, MANOVA, Regression, etc.…)
Topic:The forced decline in focus of gas vehicles in the car industry.
Problem Statement:
Many Countries within the next decade are planning to remove and ban the usage and production of gas-powered vehicles, towards a shift in electric powered cars as most areas are still not prepared to accommodate the latter’s type of vehicle.
Background (literature review)
From an article written by Sam Abuelsamid on Automotiveworld, is the infrastructure ready for an electric vehicle future. Overall, the general answer based on data linked, is that it is both a yes and a no. To attempt to carry out a major change that will affect every person dependent on using transportation from getting from A to B, is a lot more effort and readiness that both the car industry and the environments themselves have to make. Many wonder that if it is too soon as countries start imposing coming bans of the gas-powered car, despite the advancing progress made towards the EV branch of the industry.
The purpose and relevance of the study
The car industry is a major part of every 1st world country, and most 3rd world countries. The average person at least uses some form of transportation to move them places, whether by privately owned or public service vehicles. It’s a part of their lives and the industry has been developed overtime for more than a hundred years. The EV (electric vehicle) branch is still fairly new within the last decade, with new surfacing car companies such as Tesla motors spearheading the branch. Imposing a sudden banning and restricting gas powered vehicles so soon will not allow many of the population to catch up and be prepared. Thus this study will show that there are better approaches to shifting the industry completely by expanding the time needed for that shift.
The scope of the study
The study will be focused within UAE, in car companies that are already having their models be replaced with electric ones.
Sample and data collection methods
Primary: Interviews with sales people of Chevrolet and Tesla. And interviews with mechanics of local garages with questions about their view on having to switch to fixing on electric cars.
Secondary: Online articles, data and graphs of vehicle uses throughout certain time periods between EV and gas powered cars globally.
The nature and prevalence of bullying at x School
Objectives:
The researcher has been approached by x School to undertake a school based survey, with the overarching aim of examining the well-being of pupils currently attending the school. In particular the survey aims to:
· Identify the nature and prevalence of bullying at x School
· Assess the level of school enjoyment among pupils
· Examine the use of technology among pupils and identify the prevalence of risky online behaviours
· Provide the school with an indication of the levels of psychological well being among pupils
· Identify whether bullying is related to school achievement
Please give a brief justification of your proposed research project:
Well-being in adolescence has attracted much research attention in recent years, with a number of studies highlighting the poorer psychological well-being of UK youth compared to youth from other nations, (UNICEF, 2007). As well as being studied as a topic in its own right, psychological well-being has also been examined as a correlate of other behaviours including; experiences of bullying in school (Hawker & Boulton, 2000); use of the internet and social networking sites (Gross et al, 2002) and worries and problems in adolescence (Weems et al 2000). Bullying has for many years been acknowledged as a serious problem in schools, (Smith & Brian, 2002), defined as a systematic abuse of power with the intention to harm and repeatedly experienced over time (Nansel et al 2001). It has been suggested that approximately 10 – 20% of adolescents experience some form of bullying in the previous 3 to 6 months (Smith et al 2004) and has been found to have a serious and sometimes long term negative impact on psychological well-being (Hawker & Boulton, 2000). Recently, research attention has moved towards incorporating cyberbullying; bullying perpetrated through media and communication devices (Campbell 2005; Patchin & Hinduja 2006), although to date research has focused predominantly on prevalence rates (i.e. Smith et al 2008) rather than the psychological impact of experiencing this form of bullying.
Technology has transformed the lives of many adolescents, with over 97% of adolescents aged 12 to 16 years owning a mobile phone (NCH 2005) and approximately that 98% of young people aged 5 to 18 have access to a computer (The Office for National Statistics 2002), technology has become an integral part of the lives of many teenagers. However, much media and research has tended to ignore the beneficial aspects of technology, focusing instead on the risks and dangers associated with the use of technology. The EUKids online project (Hasebrink et al 2007) categorise the risks associated with ICT use into four categories, commercial risks, aggressive risks, sexual risks and values risks. Due to the ethical and methodological difficulties associated with examining young people’s risky behaviours, in particular in relation to sexual risks, research into these risks is fairly limited. In terms of generic use, not focusing on risky use, research studies have highlighted rather inconsistent results, with some studies identifying how internet use is associated with depression and higher levels of social anxiety (Gross et al, 2002). Conversely other studies have identified many positive aspects to internet use, particularly in terms of the benefit to education (Valentine et al 2005).
In response to this research and recent government policy highlighting the need for schools to examine the experiences of their pupils, the head of x School has invited the researcher to undertake a survey of pupils with the principle aim of examining the psychological well-being of pupils.
Please outline the proposed sample group, including any specific criteria:
The head-teacher would like the project to be open to all pupils in the school from their first year (equivalent to year 7: ages 11 to 12) up to their Upper Sixth (equivalent to year 13; ages 17 to 18 years), a total school population of 700 pupils. Letters will be sent out to parents with the option to opt their child out of the project. Only pupils whose parents have not returned this letter will be invited to participate in the project.
Describe how the proposed sample group will be formulated:
As the head-teacher would like all pupils to complete the questionnaire, once permission from parents/ guardians has been gained all pupils in the school will be invited to participate in the project. Any pupil whose parent has refused permission will not be invited to participate in the study.
Indicate clearly what the involvement of the sample group will be in the research process:
The sample group will be requested to complete an online questionnaire consisting of approximately 100 questions which should take approximately 45 minutes to complete. The online questionnaire includes a number of sections/ scales addressing:
· Basic demographic information
· Enjoyment and engagement in school
· Prevalence of being a victim, perpetrator and bystander of bullying
· Use of the internet, including use of social networking sites and instant messenger programmes. This section of the questionnaire asks pupils about their experiences of cyberbullying and their perceptions of safety when using the internet.
· A battery of standardised scales including; The Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale; The Adolescent Well-Being Scale (Birleson, 1980); Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet & Farley, 1988) and the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (SAS-A) (La Greca & Lopez; 1998).
The participants will be requested to complete the questionnaire online in class in exam conditions. Following completion of the questionnaire participants will be asked to complete a safe space exercise. Participants will be provided with a map of the school and school grounds and asked to identify the spaces in school where they feel the least safe. Finally the school will provide the research team with the academic achievement of each pupil participating in the study.
Specify how the consent of subjects will be obtained. Please include within this a description of any information with which you intend to provide the subjects:
Letters will be sent out to all parents/ guardians of pupils currently attending Pocklington School, requesting their permission for their child to participate in the study. The letter will outline the scope and broad aim of the project and will outline that should parents not want their child to participate in the project they should return the form at the bottom of the letter to the school by the given date.
Indicate any potential risks to subjects and how you propose to minimise these:
The questionnaire does ask participants a number of questions which could in some circumstances cause them some degree of distress, for example the questions related to experiences of bullying, due to the potential for distress a number of support mechanisms have been set in place to reduce the risk of distress:
· When the project team introduces the study to potential participants the right to withdraw at any point while completing the questionnaire will be stressed. In addition participants will be informed of their right to simply miss out questions they do not feel comfortable in answering.
· The questionnaire will be completed in test conditions so pupils are assured of their privacy when completing the survey, members of the research team will be present to answer any questions participants may have about the survey.
· At the end of the questionnaire participants will be given a small pack of information, including an advice leaflet on bullying from the bullying.co.uk charity;
http://shop.bullying.co.uk/leaflet/default.aspx
; an advice leaflet from Childnet with information on how to stay safe when using the internet and a mobile phone;
http://www.childnet.com/downloads/zcards01
; and finally a leaflet written by the research team. This leaflet includes details of useful websites providing advice and information on the topics covered in the questionnaire; details of named school staff whom pupils can talk to about the survey as well as a special unique identification code and details of how to withdraw from the study should they decide they want to do so.
There is also the potential risk that participants may disclose information which could be viewed as a child protection issue. For this reason before commencing the study the research team will be provided with full class registers of pupils in order to assign unique identification codes for each pupil. This information will be kept completely confidential and will be accessed by the research team only. The reasons for providing the identification codes are twofold; first the project involves the collection of three pieces of data; the questionnaire data, safe space mapping exercise and school attainment score, therefore the codes will be used to collate all this information and store the data collectively in one data base. Secondly, should a child protection issue be identified the research team are legally bound to identify the young person at risk and inform the school, therefore the unique codes will be used to ensure speedy identification of participants. Once all the data have been collected, all pieces of information have been pieced together and the data have been screened for child protection issues, the registers detailing pupils’ names and codes will be destroyed. Furthermore, in terms of child protection, all members of the research team have Enhanced CRB clearance.
Describe the procedures you intend to follow in order to maintain the anonymity and confidentiality of the subjects:
Data collection for this project involves pupils completing an online survey, a paper based school map exercise and lastly gathering data on each pupil’s academic performance. Codes will be assigned to each pupils name on class registered which will be kept secure by the lead researcher, at no point will the school have access to this information. The registers will details of pupils and their assigned codes will be destroyed once all of the pieces of data and been collated and once the data have been screened for child protection issues.
RESEARCH CONSENT FORM
(COPY)
· Name of Researcher(s) (to be completed by the researcher)
· Title of study (to be completed by the researcher)
Please read and complete this form carefully. If you are willing to participate in this study, ring the appropriate responses and sign and date the declaration at the end. If you do not understand anything and would like more information, please ask.
· I have had the research satisfactorily explained to me in verbal and / or written form by the researcher.
YES / NO
· I understand that the research will involve: (insert a brief statement of the main features of the research e.g. interview, the conditions under which it will be undertaken, e.g. audiotape and the time involved e.g. 45 mins)
YES / NO
· I understand that I may withdraw from this study at any time without having to give an explanation. This will not affect my future care or treatment.
YES / NO
· I understand that all information about me will be treated in strict confidence and that I will not be named in any written work arising from this study.
YES / NO
· I understand that any audiotape material of me will be used solely for research purposes and will be destroyed on completion of your research.
YES / NO
· I understand that you will be discussing the progress of your research with others …………………………………………….. at York St John University
YES / NO
I freely give my consent to participate in this research study and have been given a copy of this form for my own information.
Signature: …………………………………………………………………………………….
Date: ……………………………………………………………………………………………
ASSESSMENTCATEGORIES***
Projects BUSI 301
Introduction (Topic, Research Objectives, Context, and Rationale, some general literature review) (4 Marks)
Guiding questions:
·
Has appropriate background information been provided with special terms and concepts defined?
· Is the research topic or problem clearly stated and shown to be worth investigating (rational for the chosen topic)?
· Are the research objectives/research questions clear, relevant, coherent and achievable?
· Are the research significance/contributions clearly stated?
Specific Literature Review (4 Marks)
Guiding questions:
· Has a comprehensive range of RELEVANT literature been used to discuss relevant concepts, models and theories?
· You must use at least 10 academic journal articles in your paper
· Are the sources used up to date and sufficient?
· Are the key themes and issues surrounding the research questions clearly drawn from the literature?
· Does the paper give evidence of a critical attitude towards source material?
· Have sources been acknowledged and referenced fairly and properly?
Development of a research model and hypotheses (4 Marks)
Guiding questions:
· Does the paper develop an accurate model based on the relevant literature review?
· Does the paper develop an accurate figure that captures the research model?
· Does the paper develop accurate hypotheses that captures the relationships in the research model?
· Does the paper provide theoretical background and prior research findings that support the paper hypotheses?
·
Research Design and Methodology (4 Marks)
Guiding questions:
· Is there a clear rationale for the research design and methodology?
· Are the research methods fully described and the advantages and disadvantages of chosen methods discussed?
· Are the relevant research instruments (e.g., blank questionnaire, interview questions etc.) included in the appendices?
· Are the research instruments well designed with all questions etc. relevant to research objectives?
· Are sampling methods described in detail? i.e. who the respondents are, how many there are and how they were selected?
· Are data analysis methods discussed?
· Is there evidence of care and accuracy in the data collection process? Are reliability and validity issues addressed?
Presentation, Structure, and Writing (4 Marks)
Guiding questions:
· Is the overall style and presentation of the paper appropriate and clear (titles, section headings, spacing, pagination, appropriate font, bolding, italics, etc.)
· Does the paper use Times New Roman 12 point font?
· Are all citations and references properly formatted in the appropriate referencing style (APA)?
· Is the title concise and appropriate?
· Is the abstract a concise (150 words) summary of the main aims, methodology, findings and conclusions?
· Is the contents page clear, concise and logically numbered?
· Are appendices, tables and figures numbered and listed in the contents page?
· Are all appendices referred to in the text?
***Other Important issues
· The due date for the individual paper is before 3:00pm April 7, 2021
· You must submit 15-20-page paper (12 point – double spaced – Times new Roman)
· Because we are using virtual class room, you must do a 10-15-minute virtual presentation or submit 10-15-minute video presentation of your paper.
· You must also submit an electronic copy of all the articles that you used in your paper
· You will be requested to submit your progress (e.g., proposal, hypothesis, proposed model) in writing the paper during the semester. Failure to do so will result in losing points from your grade on your final paper.
SURVEY ON CAR OWNERSHIP
1. What is your gender?
Male
Female
2. How old are you?
18-24 years old
25-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-54 years old
55-64 years old
65-74 years old
Above 75 years
3. Are you currently…?
Employed
Self-employed
Out of work
Currently looking for work
Student
Military
Retired
Unable to work
4. What is your level of income?
$0
$1-$100
$101-$1,000
$1,001-$10,000
$10,001-$100,000
Above 100000
5. What is your marital status?
Married
Single
Separated
Divorced
6. How involved are you in deciding which vehicle to buy?
I am not involved in the decision making at all
I make the decision jointly with others
I am the main decision-maker
7. How satisfied are you with the car you use regularly?
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Neither satisfied not dissatisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Satisfied
Very satisfied
8. I am familiar with electric vehicles
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
9. Would you prefer owning a gasoline car or an electric car?
Gasoline car
Electric Car
10. Electric cars can protect us from global warming
Personnel Review
The role of privacy invasion and fairness in understanding job
applicant reactions
to potentially inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions
Khaldoun I. Ababneh Mohammed A. Al-Waqfi
Article information:
To cite this document:
Khaldoun I. Ababneh Mohammed A. Al-Waqfi , (2016),”The role of privacy invasion and fairness in
understanding job applicant reactions to potentially inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 45 Iss 2 pp. 392 – 41
8
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2014-0264
Downloaded on: 05 July 2016, At: 03:25 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 105 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 347 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),”An employee who was not there: a study of job boredom in white-collar work”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 45 Iss 2 pp. 374-391 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2015-0125
(2016),”Work-family balance and cultural dimensions: from a developing nation perspective”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 45 Iss 2 pp. 315-333 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2014-0196
(2016),”Effectiveness of performance appraisal: Developing a conceptual framework using
competing values approach”, Personnel Review, Vol. 45 Iss 2 pp. 334-352 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
PR-07-2014-0164
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:460019 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2014-0264
The role of privacy invasion and
fairness in understanding job
applicant reactions to potentially
inappropriate/discriminatory
interview questions
Khaldoun I. Ababneh
School of Business Administration,
American University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and
Mohammed A. Al-Waqfi
College of Business and Economics,
United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
Abstract
Purpose – Building on organizational justice and privacy literatures, the purpose of this paper is to
test a model capturing the impacts of potentially inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions on
job applicant perceptions and behavioral intentions in a developing economy context with a
multicultural workforce.
Design/methodology/approach – An experimental design using senior undergraduate students
(n ¼ 221) seeking or about to seek jobs in the United Arab Emirates was used to examine interviewees’
reactions to inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions. A questionnaire was used to collect the
data. Structural equation modeling and bootstrapping were used for data analysis and hypothesis testing.
Findings – This study demonstrates that inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions influence
privacy invasion perceptions, which in turn influence job applicants’ fairness perceptions and
behavioral intentions. This study also demonstrates that privacy invasion perceptions fully mediate
the effect of inappropriate/discriminatory employment interview questions on fairness perceptions.
Moreover, the findings show that privacy invasion directly and indirectly, via fairness perceptions,
influence litigation intentions. On the other hand, findings of this study indicate that privacy invasion
influence organizational attractiveness and recommendation intentions only indirectly, via fairness
perceptions.
Originality/value – This is the first study to examine the impact of inappropriate/discriminatory
interview questions on applicant reactions in a developing economy context with social, cultural, and
legal environment that is different from those prevailing in developed Western societies. This study
demonstrates that privacy invasion is an important mechanism to understand job applicant reactions
to inappropriate interview questions.
Keywords Quantitative, Employment interview, UAE, Fairness perceptions,
Inappropriate interview questions, Job applicant reactions, Privacy invasion
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Though personnel selection represents a two-way process in which organizations select
their future employees and job applicants select their future employers (Dipboye et al.,
2012; Ryan and Ployhart, 2000; Smither et al., 1993), the vast majority of early research
examined the selection process from the employer’s perspective (Breaugh and Starke,
2000; Salgado et al., 2001; Schmidt and Hunter, 1998). Recently, more and more
researchers have examined the employment process from the applicant’s perspective.
Received 18 November 2014
Revised 26 May 2015
25 July 2015
Accepted 11 August 2015
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
392
PR
45,2
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
Specifically, researchers have examined cognitions, attitudes, affects, intentions, and
behaviors of job applicants toward the staffing process (Anderson et al., 2010; Gilliland,
1993; Hausknecht et al., 2004; Ryan and Ployhart, 2000). This relatively new stream of
research addresses various aspects of what has been generally labeled as applicant
reactions (Gilliland, 1993; Ryan and Ployhart, 2000). Applicant reactions are very
important for organizations because applicants who perceive an organization selection
process as unfair or inappropriate are more likely to form negative views of the
organization; be less attracted to the organization; be less motivated to do well during the
selection process; pursue job options or offers with other organizations; dissuade other
job applicants from pursuing employment with the organization; and pursue litigation
actions against the organization (Ababneh et al., 2014; Gilliland, 1993; Goldman, 2001;
Hausknecht et al., 2004; Ryan and Ployhart, 2000; Stoughton et al., 2015).
In light of the important consequences of applicant reactions, researchers have
examined applicant perceptions of and reactions to various selection methods, among
which is the employment interview (Anderson et al., 2010; Hausknecht et al., 2004;
Rynes and Connerley, 1993; Saks and McCarthy, 2006). Prior research has documented
various positive aspects of the employment interview. For example, researchers have
shown that the employment interview is the most widely used selection method
(Anderson et al., 2010) and one of the most favorably perceived selection methods
among practitioners (Topor et al., 2007) and job applicants (Anderson et al., 2010;
Anderson and Witvliet, 2008). Researchers have also reported that in comparison to
other selection tools, the employment interview is frequently weighted higher in the
hiring decision process (Kinicki et al., 1990).
Nevertheless, researchers continue to document that the employment interview in
Western countries is fraught with inappropriate and discriminatory practices
(Bennington, 2001; Gilliland, 1995; Hackett et al., 2004; Jablin and Tengler, 1982;
Macan, 2009; Madera and Hebl, 2012; Morgeson et al., 2008; Mullen et al., 2007; Saks and
McCarthy, 2006; Saunders et al., 1990). For example, researchers have reported that
interviewers often request interviewees to answer questions that might be considered
inappropriate[1], discriminatory, or illegal such as those related to age, race, family
status, nationality, disabilities, and religion (Bennington, 2001; Jablin and Tengler,
1982; Marshall, 2007; Mullen et al., 2007; Saks and McCarthy, 2006; Saunders et al., 1990;
Thurman et al., 2009). Researchers also showed that when applicants are screened
for the interview stage, interviewers exclude some applicants from the interview
process based on irrelevant factors such as gender and nationality (Blommaert et al.,
2014; Carlsson and Rooth, 2007; Dipboye et al., 2012; Marshall et al., 1998;
Peluchette and Karl, 2009). Moreover, the popular media and social network sites
provide anecdotal evidence regarding the prevalence of inappropriate/discriminatory
interview questions and offer job interviewees suggestions to tackle such questions
(Bloch, 2011; Clarke, 1999).
A number of researchers have highlighted the need for further research on job
applicant reactions to the employment interview in general (Chapman and Zweig, 2005;
Conway and Peneno, 1999; Goldberg, 2003) and reactions to inappropriate/
discriminatory employment interview questions and practices in particular (Mullen
et al., 2007; Posthuma et al., 2002; Saks and McCarthy, 2006; Woodzicka and LaFrance,
2005). Researchers have also called for more research into the role of privacy in
understanding applicant reactions (Bauer et al., 2006; Harris et al., 2003; Stone-Romero
et al., 2003; Stone and Kotch, 1989; Stoughton et al., 2015). However, despite the
negative consequences that are likely to be triggered by inappropriate/discriminatory
393
Role of
privacy
invasion
and fairness
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
interview questions, there has been little research on applicant reactions to such
questions. One exception is an experimental study conducted by Saks and McCarthy
(2006) to investigate the reactions of Canadian MBA students to discriminatory
interview questions.
In their study, Saks and McCarthy (2006) employed an experimental design with three
interview conditions: an interview with no discriminatory interview questions, an
interview with two discriminatory interview questions, and an interview with four
discriminatory interview questions. Saks and McCarthy (2006) found that compared to
participants in the control condition, participants in the interview with four
discriminatory interview questions reported lower ratings of the interview and lower
intentions to pursue employment and to recommend the organization to other job
applicants. Saks and McCarthy (2006) also showed that participants in the interview with
four discriminatory interview questions reported lower reaction to the interviewer and
the organization’s treatment compared to participants in both the control condition
and the interview with two discriminatory questions. Furthermore, participants in both
the two and the four discriminatory question conditions reported lower acceptance
intentions than participants in the control condition (Saks and McCarthy, 2006).
Saks and McCarthy (2006) also examined the effects of the interviewer and the
interviewee gender on applicant reactions. However, although they found a significant
main effect for interviewer gender and interviewee gender on some applicant reactions
(e.g. job acceptance) they did not find any two-way nor three-way interaction effect
(between discriminatory questions, interviewer gender, and interviewee gender). These
findings suggest that discriminatory interview questions have negative impacts on
applicant reactions regardless of the interviewee or the interviewer gender. A possible
explanation for the absence of two-way and three-way interaction effects in Saks and
McCarthy’s study is the relatively low-sample size (n ¼ 116).
In their study, Saks and McCarthy (2006) also tested a post-hoc sequential model
capturing the effect of discriminatory interview questions on applicant reactions.
The post-hoc analysis revealed that discriminatory interview questions negatively
impacted applicant reactions to both the interviewer and the interview, which influence
applicant perceptions (e.g. treatment of employees) and applicant perceptions in turn
influence applicant behavioral intentions (e.g. accept a job offer, recommend the
organization to other applicants). However, although Saks and McCarthy (2006) noted
the importance of privacy in understanding applicant reactions to the discriminatory
interview questions, they did not examine the role of privacy in their paper. Based on
prior relevant research, we argue in this paper that invasion of privacy is a vital factor
to understand how inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions impact applicant
perceptions and behavioral intentions. Therefore, one goal of this paper is to examine
empirically the role of privacy invasion in explaining how inappropriate interview
questions impact applicants’ perceptions and behavioral intentions.
Another area that is missing in the existing literature on applicant reactions is an
examination of the consequences of inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions
in contexts characterized by social, cultural, and legal environments that are different
from those prevailing in developed Western societies (Huffcutt et al., 2011; Macan, 2009;
Posthuma et al., 2014). Reviewing prior research on reactions to inappropriate/
discriminatory interview questions, we found only two studies, both of them were
conducted in a Western context (Mullen et al., 2007; Saks and McCarthy, 2006). While
the notion that certain interview questions (e.g. race, gender disabilities) are
inappropriate or discriminatory is relatively well established in Western contexts,
394
PR
45,2
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
whether these questions will be perceived similarly in other socio-cultural contexts
has not yet been verified. Therefore, another goal of this study is to address the gap
in the existing research on applicant reactions to inappropriate interview questions
within a developing economy context characterized by different social, cultural, and
legal environment.
In brief, the present paper has two main objectives. First, it seeks to examine the
influence of inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions on organizational
attractiveness, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions using
participants living and seeking employment in the UAE, a country characterized by
social, cultural, and legal environment that are different from those prevailing in
developed Western contexts. Second, and more importantly, this paper aims to shed
further light on the mechanism through which inappropriate/discriminatory interview
questions influence applicant organizational attractiveness, recommendation
intentions, and litigation intentions. Specifically, this paper seeks to understand the
role of privacy invasion and fairness perceptions in explaining how inappropriate/
discriminatory interview questions influence applicant organizational attractiveness
perceptions, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions.
Context of the present paper
This paper focusses on the UAE for a number of reasons. The UAE is a country located
in the Middle East, a region that we know little about its human resources practices and
job applicant reactions (Budhwar and Mellahi, 2007; Mashood et al., 2009). The UAE
has a unique labor force structure as well as business, cultural, and political
environment (Al-Waqfi and Forstenlechner, 2012). More than 80 percent of the UAE’s
labor force consists of expatriates coming from more than 100 nationalities that
represent different races, cultures, ethnicities, languages, and religions (Central
Intelligence Agency World Fact Book, 2014). The UAE is ranked as one of the top 30
most competitive countries in the world to do business in (Schwab et al., 2011).
According to the World Bank, the UAE’s gross domestic product per capita has more
than doubled over the last decade (World Bank, 2012). Because of the availability of
relatively inexpensive skilled labor force, open economy, free trade zones offering 100
percent foreign ownership and zero taxes, and sophisticated infrastructure (Al-Suwaidi,
2011), the UAE has attracted a number of well-known international organizations and
has become the regional corporate headquarters for a number of these organizations.
Like other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, the UAE suffers from a severe
shortage of labor and therefore relies largely on foreign workers to maintain its rapid
economic growth which is driven by increasing oil revenues over the past few decades
(Al-Waqfi and Forstenlechner, 2014). To strengthen its economy and to mitigate the
negative effects of oil price fluctuations, the UAE recently started to focus on
diversifying its economy by investing in other sectors such tourism, financial services,
and manufacturing. The labor policy regarding the foreign workers in the GCC
countries follows the “guest worker” or “contract worker” model where foreign workers
are hired on a temporary basis and are concentrated in jobs and economic sectors
where local skills and expertise are lacking (Abdalla et al., 2010). To be eligible to work
in the UAE, any foreign worker needs to be sponsored by his/her employer. The spouse
and children of a foreign worker in the UAE are also eligible to apply for work within
the country as long as they are sponsored by their spouse or a parent. Faced with
heavy reliance on foreign workers, the UAE Government has introduced a policy of
workforce localization (Al-Waqfi and Forstenlechner, 2014). The policy aims at
395
Role of
privacy
invasion
and fairness
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
reducing dependence on expatriate workers and creating job opportunities for the UAE
citizens, especially in the thriving private sector. The UAE recent employment
regulations also require employers to diversify their workforce so that no specific
nationality dominates in any given organization. In such context, it is common for
employers in the UAE to ask job applicants questions related to nationality and/or
marital status which is normally considered inappropriate or discriminatory in other
countries such as Canada and the USA.
Like many other countries in its region, the UAE does not have clear laws/guidelines
regarding what is acceptable and unacceptable question/practice in the employment
process. An exception to this is the case of gender discrimination which is prohibited by
existing laws. Labor laws in the UAE prohibit discrimination in wages and
employment conditions between males and females who are occupying the same job.
Also, the UAE has ratified the International Labor Organization’s Equal Remuneration
Convention in 1997 and the Discrimination Convention in 2001. However, recent
research (Al-Waqfi and Al-faki, 2015) in the UAE indicate that females are still
experiencing a clear disadvantage in the UAE labor market as they are on average less
paid and have lower access to managerial jobs compared to males. Moreover, the
participation rate of females in the UAE labor force is relatively low (22 percent).
As noted earlier, prior research (Mullen et al., 2007; Saks and McCarthy, 2006) on
inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions were conducted in Western countries
(e.g. Canada and USA) that have relatively well established and clear laws and guidelines
about what is an appropriate or legal question in the employee selection process.
However, it is not clear whether prior research findings are generalizable to other
countries with different social, cultural, and legal environments because what might be
considered illegal and/or inappropriate regarding employment interview questions in one
country might be considered legal and/or acceptable in another country. Previous
research showed that cultural factors such as cultural values and communication styles
are associated with differences in fairness and privacy perceptions (Harris et al., 2003;
Rustemli and Kokdemir, 1993). Moreover, a number of researchers have argued that HR
practices based on Western contexts may not be applicable to other parts of the world
(Caldas et al., 2011; Posthuma et al., 2014). Given that the legal and cultural contexts in the
UAE are different from those in a Western context, it is possible that job applicants in
the UAE might report different perceptions of and reactions to fairness and invasion of
privacy than those reported by Western applicants.
Hypothesis development
Effects of inappropriate interview questions on fairness and privacy invasion perceptions.
Gilliland’s (1993) justice model and the literature on organizational privacy (Bies, 1993;
Bies and Moag, 1986; Rosse et al., 1994; Stone and Stone, 1990) offer valuable theoretical
grounds to understand the effect of inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions
on applicant perceptions and behavioral reactions. Gilliland’s model is the dominant
framework in the area of applicant reactions (Bauer et al., 2001; Hausknecht et al., 2004;
Ryan and Ployhart, 2000). Gilliland (1993) utilized the broad organizational justice
literature to build his model on applicant fairness perceptions and their consequences
(Bies and Moag, 1986; Greenberg, 1986; Leventhal, 1980). In brief, Gilliland’s (1993)
model proposes that when employers fulfill procedural justice rules (e.g. propriety of
questions, job relatedness) and distributive justice rules (e.g. equity, equality) job
applicants will report high-fairness perceptions, which in turn impact applicant
396
PR
45,2
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
organizational perceptions and behavioral reactions such as recommending the
organization to others, accepting/rejecting a job offer, and pursuing litigation (Ababneh
and Chhinzer, 2014; Hausknecht et al., 2004; Ryan and Ployhart, 2000).
From Gilliland’s (1993) model, the present paper focusses mainly on the propriety of
question justice rule, which reflects the degree to which employers avoid inappropriate and
prejudicial questions/statements during the selection process (Gilliland, 1993; Wallace et al.,
2006). According to Gilliland, the propriety of question justice rule is an immediate
antecedent of process fairness perceptions. Specifically, Gilliland (1993) maintains that
procedures, statements, or questions that are inappropriate and prejudiced trigger negative
effect on fairness perceptions because such practices violate applicants’ expectation of
appropriate treatment and privacy rights. A number of empirical studies have supported
Gilliland’s (1993) model regarding the association between propriety of questions and
fairness perceptions (Anderson et al., 2010; Hausknecht et al., 2004; Ryan and Ployhart,
2000; Wallace et al., 2006).
Literature on organizational privacy also provides important insights for understanding
applicant reactions to inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions. Central to the
concept of privacy is that individuals seek to control the accessing to and sharing of their
personal information (Rosse et al., 1994; Stone and Stone, 1990). In their model of
organizational privacy, Stone and Stone (1990) suggest that individuals seek to guard their
privacy by refraining from sharing personal information about themselves, especially
information that is likely to result in negative consequences such as biased treatment (Stone
and Kotch, 1989). Therefore, Stone and Stone (1990) indicate that applicants who are
requested to disclose their personal information during an employment interview process are
more likely to perceive that their privacy is invaded because they are losing control over their
personal information. It is important to note here that even if job applicants share their
private information during a job interview, such sharing should not mean that they are
willingly do so (Stone-Romero et al., 2003).
While Gilliland’s (1993) model proposes that propriety of questions directly
influences process fairness perceptions, other research on organizational privacy
suggests that propriety of questions influences perceptions of privacy invasion (Bies,
1993; Rosenbaum, 1973; Stone and Stone, 1990), which in turn influence fairness
perceptions (Alge, 2001; Bies, 1993; Eddy et al., 1999). For example, Bies (1993)
integrated the literatures on justice and privacy and contended that certain questions
during the staffing process evoke invasion of privacy perceptions, which in turn impact
fairness perceptions. In other words, research on organizational privacy suggests that
invasion of privacy fully mediate the effect of justice rules (e.g. relevancy and propriety
of questions) on fairness perceptions (Eddy et al., 1999; McNall and Roch, 2007).
Prior empirical research has provided direct support for the theoretical suggestions
that inappropriate/discriminatory questions influence applicant perceived invasion of
privacy. Specifically, researchers who examined reactions to personality inventories
(Ni and Hauenstein, 1998; Rosse et al., 1994; Simmons, 1968), biodata inventories (Stone
and Jones, 1997), and drug tests (Stone and Kotch, 1989) demonstrated that when
questions and/or items of a selection method are inappropriate and/or non-job related,
applicants reported higher level of privacy invasion. For example, Rosenbaum (1973)
demonstrated that questions related to religious beliefs and racial/ethnic background
provoked perceptions of privacy invasion among job applicants.
Findings from empirical research also suggest that privacy perceptions mediate
the relationship between the propriety of questions and fairness perceptions. Seeking
397
Role of
privacy
invasion
and fairness
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
to understand the effects of electronic performance monitoring and control systems,
Alge (2001) integrated research on privacy and justice and demonstrated through
an experimental study that perceptions of privacy invasion fully mediated the
relationship between relevancy justice rule and process fairness perceptions.
However, perceptions of privacy invasion partially mediated the relationship between
participation justice rule and process fairness perceptions (Alge, 2001). In line with
the above theoretical propositions and empirical findings, this paper offers the
following hypothesis:
H1. Inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions will trigger invasion of
privacy perceptions, which in turn negatively impact fairness perceptions. In
other words, perceived invasiveness will fully mediate the relationship between
inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions and fairness perceptions.
Effects of fairness on organizational attractiveness, recommendation intentions, and
litigation intentions
In line with Gilliland’s model, this study also hypothesizes that perceived fairness is an
important predictor of organizational outcomes. Specifically, Gilliland’s (1993) model
proposes that favorable fairness perceptions of selection systems will result in
favorable applicant perceptions and behavioral reactions, and unfavorable fairness
perceptions will lead to unfavorable applicant perceptions and behavioral reactions.
This is expected because individuals who experience fair treatment and fulfillment of
justice rules are likely to reciprocate by exhibiting favorable reactions while those who
experience unfair treatment and violations of justice rules are likely to reciprocate by
engaging in unfavorable reactions (Hausknecht et al., 2004; Ryan and Ployhart, 2000).
Truxillo and Bauer (1999) reported that organizational attractiveness was positively
correlated with process fairness perceptions. Researchers also demonstrated that
fairness perceptions were positively associated with intentions to recommend the
organization to other job applicants (Ababneh et al., 2014; Bauer et al., 2001; Gilliland,
1994). Furthermore, researchers reported that perceptions of fairness are negatively
related to complaints and pursuing legal actions against the employers (Ababneh et al.,
2014; Goldman, 2001, 2003; Lind et al., 2000; Wallace et al., 2006). Accordingly, the
following hypotheses are offered:
H2. Perceptions of process fairness will have positive relationship with (a) organizational
attractiveness, (b) recommendation intentions, and negative relationship with (c)
litigation intentions.
Effects of privacy invasion on fairness, organizational attractiveness, recommendation
intentions, and litigation intentions
Researchers also proposed privacy invasion perceptions as predictor of important
organizational outcomes, including organizational attractiveness (Arvey and Sackett,
1993; Bauer et al., 2006; Kuhn and Nielsen, 2008; Stoughton et al., 2015), applying for a
job opening (Stone & Bowden, 1989), job acceptance/rejection (Bies, 1993), and
organizational citizenship behavior (Alge et al., 2006). Likewise, researchers
suggested that using appropriate staffing practices and avoiding invasive items/
questions could have stopped real legal problems (court cases) from taking place
( Jackson and Kovacheff, 1993; Sullivan and Arnold, 2000; Thibodeaux and Kudisch,
2003). Moreover, researchers also indicated that selection methods that are viewed
as invasive or non-job related are more likely to lead to litigation intentions
398
PR
45,2
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
(Ababneh and Chhinzer, 2011; Cascio, 1991; Ni and Hauenstein, 1998; Stoughton et al.,
2015; Wallace et al., 2006).
Seeking to understand applicant reactions to online screening procedures,
Bauer et al. (2006) showed that perceptions of privacy invasion correlate negatively
with organizational attraction, recommendation intentions, and test-taking
motivation. More importantly, Bauer et al. (2006) demonstrated through the use
of a laboratory design that the effect of concern for privacy on recommendation
intentions is direct and indirect through process fairness perceptions, while the
effect for privacy concern on test-taking motivation and organizational attraction is
only indirect, through process fairness perceptions. Through the use of a field
sample, Bauer et al. (2006) also demonstrated significant direct and indirect
effects for privacy concern on recommendation intentions, test-taking motivation,
and organizational attraction. Accordingly, this paper offers the following
hypotheses:
H3. Invasion of privacy will directly and indirectly, through process fairness
perceptions, influence (a) organizational attractiveness, (b) recommendation
intentions, and (c) litigation intentions.
In brief, based on Gilliland’s (1993) justice model, Stone and Stone’s (1990) privacy
model, and other related research, the current paper proposes and tests the model
presented in Figure 1. As shown, the proposed model suggests that inappropriate/
discriminatory interview questions influence perceptions of privacy invasion, which in
turn influence fairness perceptions and organizational outcomes, including
organizational attractiveness, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions.
The proposed model also suggests that fairness perceptions predict organizational
outcomes. Stated differently, the proposed model posits that perceptions of privacy
invasion will fully mediate the effect of inappropriate/discriminatory interview
questions on fairness perceptions, which in turns partially mediate the effect of
perceptions of privacy invasion on applicant organizational attractiveness and
behavioral intentions.
Effects of gender in the employment interview
A good number of studies have been conducted on the effects of the interviewer and
the interviewee gender in the employment interview (McCarthy et al., 2010).
Although some studies found some effects for the interviewer and interviewee
gender (Harris, 1989; Saks and McCarthy, 2006), most of the studies (Goldberg,
2005; McCarthy et al., 2010; Sacco et al., 2003) reported that the effects are very
small or non-significant. Because of the inconclusive results regarding the gender
effects in the employment interview, we decided to examine the effects of the
interviewer and interviewee gender in our study but without offering any
specific hypotheses.
Org. Attractiveness
Recommendation
Litigation
Perceptions of
Privacy Invasion
Inappropriate/Discriminatory
Interview Questions
Fairness
Perceptions
Figure 1.
Effects of privacy
and fairness on
applicant reactions
399
Role of
privacy
invasion
and fairness
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
Method
Participants
Senior undergraduate students (n ¼ 232) who were living and actively seeking or about
to seek jobs in the UAE participated in this study. Specifically, at the time of completing
the study, participants reported the following job search status: actively seeking jobs
(49 percent), planning to seek jobs within nine months (36 percent), and planning to
seek jobs in more than nine months (15 percent). All participants were recruited from
management classes at a midsize university in the UAE and completed the study as
part of an in class exercise. Due to incomplete data and/or not correctly answering the
manipulation questions, 11 participants were excluded from the final analyses. An
examination of the excluded cases did not reveal any systematic pattern in the
incomplete responses. The final sample (n ¼ 221) consisted of 64 percent males;
19 percent UAE nationals, 31 percent other Arabs (e.g. Egyptian, Jordanian, Lebanese,
Syrian), 15 percent Indian/Pakistani, 7 percent European or American, 6 percent
Iranian, with the remaining (21 percent) reporting other nationalities. The participants’
mean age was 20.83 years (SD ¼ 1.73).
Design
This study employed a methodology similar to the one used by Saks and
McCarthy (2006). Specifically, our study used a 2 (inappropriate/discriminatory
questions: interview with vs interview without inappropriate/discriminatory questions)
× 2 (gender of the interviewer: male vs female) between-subjects factorial design. With
respect to the interview discriminatory questions, half of the participants were
randomly assigned to an experimental condition that includes four inappropriate/
discriminatory interview questions (nationality, handicaps, plans for marriage and
children, and arrest record) and six non-discriminatory questions. The other half were
assigned to a control condition that has ten non-discriminatory interview questions
(Saks and McCarthy, 2006). The ten questions asked in each interview condition are
shown in the Appendix. The interviewer’s gender was manipulated by referring to the
human resource manager as either Mark Anderson or Mary Anderson (see detail in the
procedure section below).
It is important to note here that the current study design is different from Saks and
McCarthy’s study in two aspects. First, our study did not include the condition with
two discriminatory interview questions because this condition generated a negative
effect only on job applicant acceptance intentions, an outcome variable that is not
examined in our paper. Second, we decided to include nationality in our study because
employers in the UAE often asked questions related to the nationality of the job
applicants (Ababneh and Chhinzer, 2014). We did not include age as inappropriate
interview question because it is less likely to be perceived as inappropriate or
discriminatory by young participants (our target sample consists of young
undergraduate students whose age is under 25 years).
Procedures
Oral presentations and a cover letter were used to explain the purpose of this study and
to guarantee the anonymity of responses (no names or code numbers were used in the
survey). Upon agreeing to participate, individuals randomly received a package that
represents one of the two conditions of the current study. Each package has the
following components: the cover letter/consent form; a written page describing a
400
PR
45,2
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
hypothetical employer (XYZ Organization) operating in the UAE; written manipulated
interview questions; study measures; and demographic and work-related questions.
After completing the consent form, participants were instructed to read a written
page describing a hypothetical organization, named XYZ Organization. The written
page described XYZ Organization as a successful and growing organization which was
looking for senior undergraduate students for various positions in all areas including
accounting, marketing, finance, human resource management, manufacturing, and so
on. Participants then were asked to imagine that they have just applied for a position
that they are interested in with XYZ Organization and to imagine that after a
reasonable amount of time from submitting their application at XYZ, they were invited
for a job interview. Upon arrival for XYZ Organization interview, the participants were
asked by the receptionist to take a seat. A few minutes later, XYZ’s human resources
manager Mark Anderson (Mary Anderson) approached each candidate individually
and introduced himself (herself) to the candidate. Once in his (her) office, the human
resource manager thanked the candidate for coming and explained that XYZ
Organization is growing and currently recruiting people for a number of positions.
Once the participants read the above description and instructions, they were asked
to act as if they were actually being interviewed for a real job at XYZ Organization and
to answer in writing the ten assigned interview questions on the following pages as if
they were in an actual job interview. After answering the questions, the participants
read a text in which XYZ’s human resource manager thanked the job candidates for
coming to the interview and their interest in XYZ Organization. Next, participants
completed the rest of the study measures and the questions regarding their
demographic and work-related experiences.
Measures
All the measures used in this study came from previous relevant research. Participants
answered each item using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from, (1) strongly disagree
to (7) strongly agree. Total scores were derived by averaging the sum of the items
relevant for each scale. Higher values indicated greater levels of the measured construct.
Propriety of the interview questions. Two items adapted from Bauer et al. (2001)
were used to assess the appropriateness of the intervew questions: “The content of
the interview seemed appropriate” and “The content of the interview did not appear
to be prejudiced.”
Invasion of privacy. Three items adapted from Kuhn and Nielsen (2008) were used to
measure invasion of privacy: “Some of XYZ Organization’s interview questions
invaded my privacy,” “I would feel personally invaded by XYZ Organization’s
interview questions,” and “XYZ Organization’s interview questions respect applicants’
privacy rights” (reverse scored).
Interview fairness. Four items adapted from Bauer et al. (2001) and Gilliland (1994)
were used to measure interview fairness, including: “I feel the use of the interview by
XYZ was fair,” and “Overall, I believe that the use of the interview was fair.”
Organizational attractiveness. Two items adapted from Saks and McCarthy (2006)
were used to measure organizational attractiveness: “I would be very pleased to have a
job at an organization like XYZ,” and “XYZ is not the kind of organization that I would
like to work for” (reverse scored).
Intention to recommend the organization. Two items adapted from Saks and
McCarthy (2006) were used to measure recommendation intentions: “I would
401
Role of
privacy
invasion
and fairness
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
recommend XYZ to a friend who is looking for a job,” and “I would not suggest XYZ to
my friends as an organization to work for” (reverse scored).
Litigation intentions. Three items adapted from Seitz et al. (2001) were used to
measure litigation intentions: “I think applicants might sue an organization that uses
interview questions like the ones used by XYZ Organization,” and “I would be more
likely to sue an organization that uses interview questions like the ones XYZ
Organization uses than one that does not.”
Results
Preliminary analysis
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and χ2 tests were first performed to ensure equivalence
of participants in the two study conditions in terms of age, gender, nationality, and
education major. The analyses revealed no significant differences among participants
across the two conditions on these variables. Also, our preliminary analyses revealed
no significant effects for gender, nationality, and education on the dependent variables
of this study. Hence, these variables were not included in the final analyses. However,
ANOVA analysis revealed that age has significant effects on organizational
attractiveness and recommendation intentions. Compared with younger applicants,
older applicants were less likely to recommend the organization for other applicants
and were also less likely to view the organization as attractive. Therefore, we controlled
for age in our final analyses. Table I provides the descriptive statistics of the main
variables of this study.
To confirm our manipulation of the appropriateness of the interview questions, we
conducted ANOVA. The analysis confirmed that the interview that included the four
inappropriate interview questions (M ¼ 5.07) was rated less appropriate than the
interview that did not include the inappropriate interview questions (M ¼ 5.81;
F (1,219) ¼ 20.48, po0.001). However, despite the significant effect of this study
appropriateness manipulation, both groups reported relatively high means. A potential
explanation for the high mean in the experimental group is the fact that some of the
inappropriate questions (e.g. nationality, marital status) used in our experimental group
are relatively common in the UAE. Steiner and Gilliland (1996) indicated that job
applicants in a specific country are less likely to react negatively to inappropriate
selection practices if such practices are widely used in that country.
We conducted multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to examine whether the
interviewer gender, interviewee gender, and inappropriate/discriminatory interview
question conditions (independent variables) interact to predict the dependent variables
of our study. The results of MANOVA did not reveal any main effects for the
interviewer nor the interview gender. The results of MANOVA also did not reveal any
significant two-way effects (between interviewee/interviewer gender and
discriminatory questions) nor any three-way effects (between discriminatory
questions, interviewer gender, and interviewee gender). The only significant effect
found was for the inappropriate/discriminatory questions manipulation ( po0.001).
Similar to Saks and McCarthy’s finding, our results indicate that the inappropriate/
discriminatory interview questions influence applicant reactions regardless of the
interviewer or the interviewee gender.
Following Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step approach, confirmatory factor
analyses (CFA) were first conducted for the main study variables. Next, the structures
of the proposed and alternative models were evaluated. To assess all the tested models,
402
PR
45,2
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
V
ar
ia
bl
es
M
ea
n
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.
In
va
si
on
of
pr
iv
ac
y
3.
17
1.
77
(0
.8
0)
2.
P
ro
ce
ss
fa
ir
ne
ss
5.
33
1.
27
–
0.
62
**
(0
.9
3)
3.
O
rg
an
iz
at
io
na
l
at
tr
ac
ti
ve
ne
ss
5.
47
1.
39
–
0.
31
**
0.
49
**
(0
.8
4)
4.
R
ec
om
m
en
da
ti
on
in
te
nt
io
ns
5.
51
1.
06
–
0.
23
**
0.
36
**
0.
50
**
(0
.6
0)
5.
L
it
ig
at
io
n
in
te
nt
io
ns
2.
48
1.
45
0.
64
**
–
0.
60
**
–
0.
34
**
–
0.
36
**
(0
.7
9)
6.
In
ap
pr
op
ri
at
e/
di
sc
ri
m
in
at
or
y
in
te
rv
ie
w
qu
es
ti
on
sa
0.
49
0.
50
0.
49
**
–
0.
33
**
–
0.
12
–
0.
12
0.
39
**
–
7.
In
te
rv
ie
w
er
ge
nd
er
b
0.
53
0.
50
–
0.
03
–
0.
05
0.
04
–
0.
03
–
0.
02
0.
02
–
8.
In
te
rv
ie
w
ee
ag
e
20
.8
3
1.
73
0.
06
0.
03
–
0.
16
–
0.
15
0.
03
–
0.
01
–
0.
07
–
N
o
te
s:
n
¼
22
1.
R
el
ia
bi
lit
ie
s
ar
e
in
pa
re
nt
he
se
s
al
on
g
th
e
di
ag
on
al
.
a
In
ap
pr
op
ri
at
e/
di
sc
ri
m
in
at
or
y
in
te
rv
ie
w
qu
es
ti
on
s:
1
¼
in
ap
pr
op
ri
at
e/
di
sc
ri
m
in
at
or
y
in
te
rv
ie
w
qu
es
ti
on
s,
0
¼
ap
pr
op
ri
at
e
in
te
rv
ie
w
qu
es
ti
on
s;
b
in
te
rv
ie
w
er
ge
nd
er
:1
¼
m
al
e,
0
¼
fe
m
al
e.
*p
o
0.
05
;*
*p
o
0.
01
Table I.
Means, standard
deviations,
reliabilities, and
correlations for the
major variables
403
Role of
privacy
invasion
and fairness
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
this paper used the χ2 and change in χ2 statistic, the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA), the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR), the
comparative fit index (CFI), and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012; Hu
and Bentler, 1999; McDonald and Ho, 2002). Following Hu and Bentler’s (1999)
recommendations, this paper uses a RMSEA cut-off value of 0.06 or less, CFI and TLI
values of 0.95 or higher, and a SRMR cut-off value of 0.08 or less.
Results of CFA
To confirm the distinctiveness of the variables, a series of CFAs using AMOS 20
(Arbuckle, 2011) were conducted. Specifically, a five-factor oblique baseline model was
compared to three alterative models. The baseline model consists of five distinct
constructs: fairness perceptions, privacy invasion perceptions, organizational
attractiveness, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions. As shown in
Table II, relative to the three alternative measurement models, the baseline model
produced the best fit indices ( χ2 (67) ¼ 114.72, po0.001; RMSEA ¼ 0.06, SRMR ¼ 0.04,
CFI ¼ 0.97, TLI ¼ 0.97). Moreover, each item in the baseline model loaded significantly
( po0.001, from 0.57 to 0.93) onto its own latent factor.
Results of structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses
To evaluate the proposed model (Figure 1), SEM and bootstrapping via AMOS 20
(Arbuckle, 2011) were used. Given an acceptable ratio of sample size to parameter
estimates, latent variables (each construct was represented by all of its indicators) were
used to evaluate all the tested models in this study. Because of the moderate correlation
between organizational attractiveness and recommendation intentions (r ¼ 0.50), the
residual errors of these two constructs were allowed to correlate in all the tested models
(Bauer et al., 2006). Since our preliminary analysis revealed that age has significant
effects on organizational attractiveness and recommendation intentions, we controlled
for age in all the models that we tested in this paper.
As shown in Table III, the proposed model results provide a very good fit for the
data ( χ2 (92) ¼ 135.70, po0.001; RMSEA ¼ 0.05, SRMR ¼ 0.04, CFI ¼ 0.98, TLI ¼ 0.97).
To determine whether the proposed model (see Figure 2) presents the best fit for the
data, and to evaluate the hypothesized mediation effects, the proposed model was
compared to three alternative models that either deleted paths from the proposed model
or added paths to the proposed model. Alternative Model 1 is identical to the proposed
model (Figure 2), except for the addition of a direct path from the inappropriate/
discriminatory interview questions to fairness perceptions. By including this direct
path, Alternative Model 1 suggests that privacy perceptions partially mediate (rather
than fully mediate as suggested in the proposed model) the relationship between
inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions and fairness perceptions.
Alternative Model 2 is identical to the proposed model (see Figure 2), except for the
addition of three direct paths from the inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions
to organizational attractiveness; recommendation intentions; and litigation intentions. By
adding these three direct paths, Alternative Model 2 suggests that privacy perceptions
partially mediate (rather than fully mediated as suggested in the proposed model) the
relationship between inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions and
organizational outcome. The SEM results (see Table III) demonstrated that none of the
paths added in Alternative Model 1 or in Alternative Model 2 was significant. Moreover,
neither Alternative Model 1 nor Alternative Model 2 significantly improved the fit indices
over those of the proposed model.
404
PR
45,2
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
M
od
el
F
ac
to
r
χ2
Δ
χ2
a
df
Δ
df
a
R
M
SE
A
SR
M
R
C
F
I
T
L
I
B
as
el
in
e
m
od
el
F
iv
e
ob
liq
ue
fa
ct
or
m
od
el
:f
ai
rn
es
s,
pr
iv
ac
y,
or
ga
ni
za
ti
on
at
tr
ac
ti
ve
ne
ss
,
re
co
m
m
en
da
ti
on
s,
an
d
lit
ig
at
io
ns
11
4.
72
–
67
–
0.
06
0.
04
0.
97
0.
97
M
od
el
1
F
ou
r
ob
liq
ue
fa
ct
or
m
od
el
:t
he
co
m
bi
na
ti
on
of
fa
ir
ne
ss
an
d
pr
iv
ac
y;
or
ga
ni
za
ti
on
at
tr
ac
ti
ve
ne
ss
,r
ec
om
m
en
da
ti
on
s,
an
d
lit
ig
at
io
ns
24
5.
93
13
1.
21
**
*
71
4
0.
11
0.
07
0.
91
0.
88
M
od
el
2
T
w
o
or
th
og
on
al
fa
ct
or
m
od
el
:t
he
co
m
bi
na
ti
on
of
fa
ir
ne
ss
an
d
pr
iv
ac
y;
th
e
co
m
bi
na
ti
on
of
or
ga
ni
za
ti
on
al
at
tr
ac
ti
ve
ne
ss
,r
ec
om
m
en
da
ti
on
s,
an
d
lit
ig
at
io
ns
45
2.
05
33
7.
33
**
*
76
9
0.
15
0.
09
0.
80
0.
76
M
od
el
3
O
ne
fa
ct
or
m
od
el
:a
ll
it
em
s
gr
ou
pe
d
un
de
r
a
si
ng
le
fa
ct
or
52
4.
87
41
0.
15
**
*
77
10
0.
16
0.
10
0.
76
0.
71
N
o
te
s:
a T
he
se
va
lu
es
re
pr
es
en
t
th
e
di
ff
er
en
ce
in
χ2
an
d
df
be
tw
ee
n
th
e
ne
st
ed
m
od
el
an
d
th
e
fi
ve
-f
ac
to
r
ob
liq
ue
m
od
el
(b
as
el
in
e
m
od
el
).
Si
gn
if
ic
an
t
Δ
χ2
in
di
ca
te
s
th
at
th
e
fi
ve
ob
liq
ue
fa
ct
or
m
od
el
(b
as
el
in
e
m
od
el
)
pr
ov
id
es
a
be
tt
er
fi
t
th
an
th
e
al
te
rn
at
iv
e
m
od
el
s.
**
*p
o
0.
00
1
Table II.
Comparison of
measurement
models for the
study variables
405
Role of
privacy
invasion
and fairness
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
M
od
el
F
ac
to
r
χ2
Δ
χ2
df
Δ
df
a
R
M
SE
A
SR
M
R
C
F
I
T
L
I
P
ro
po
se
d
m
od
el
P
ro
po
se
d
m
od
el
(F
ig
ur
e
1)
13
5.
70
–
92
–
0.
05
0.
04
0.
98
0.
97
A
lt
er
na
ti
ve
M
od
el
1
Id
en
ti
ca
l
to
th
e
pr
op
os
ed
m
od
el
,b
ut
an
ad
di
ti
on
al
di
re
ct
pa
th
fr
om
in
ap
pr
op
ri
at
e/
di
sc
ri
m
in
at
or
y
in
te
rv
ie
w
qu
es
ti
on
s
to
fa
ir
ne
ss
pe
rc
ep
ti
on
s
w
as
ad
de
d
13
4.
26
−
1.
44
a
91
1
0.
05
0.
04
0.
98
0.
97
A
lt
er
na
ti
ve
M
od
el
2
Id
en
ti
ca
l
to
th
e
pr
op
os
ed
m
od
el
,b
ut
th
re
e
ad
di
ti
on
al
di
re
ct
pa
th
s
fr
om
in
ap
pr
op
ri
at
e/
di
sc
ri
m
in
at
or
y
in
te
rv
ie
w
qu
es
ti
on
s
to
or
ga
ni
za
ti
on
at
tr
ac
ti
ve
ne
ss
,r
ec
om
m
en
da
ti
on
s,
an
d
lit
ig
at
io
ns
w
er
e
ad
de
d
13
5.
32
−
0.
38
a
89
3
0.
05
0.
04
0.
98
0.
96
A
lt
er
na
ti
ve
M
od
el
3
Sa
m
e
as
th
e
pr
op
os
ed
m
od
el
,b
ut
th
e
di
re
ct
pa
th
s
fr
om
pr
iv
ac
y
in
va
si
on
to
or
ga
ni
za
ti
on
at
tr
ac
ti
ve
ne
ss
,r
ec
om
m
en
da
ti
on
s,
an
d
lit
ig
at
io
ns
w
er
e
de
le
te
d
18
1.
02
45
.3
2a
95
3
0.
06
0.
06
0.
96
0.
94
A
lt
er
na
ti
ve
M
od
el
4
Sa
m
e
as
th
e
pr
op
os
ed
m
od
el
,b
ut
pr
iv
ac
y
in
va
si
on
is
no
t
in
cl
ud
ed
.A
n
ad
di
ti
on
al
di
re
ct
pa
th
fr
om
in
ap
pr
op
ri
at
e/
di
sc
ri
m
in
at
or
y
in
te
rv
ie
w
qu
es
ti
on
s
to
fa
ir
ne
ss
pe
rc
ep
ti
on
s
w
as
ad
de
d
91
.8
2
43
.8
8a
58
34
0.
08
0.
05
0.
95
0.
91
N
o
te
:
a
T
he
se
va
lu
es
re
pr
es
en
t
th
e
di
ff
er
en
ce
in
χ2
an
d
df
be
tw
ee
n
th
e
pr
op
os
ed
m
od
el
an
d
th
e
al
te
rn
at
iv
e
m
od
el
s
Table III.
Results of structural
equation analyses for
the hypothesized
model (Figure 1) and
the four alternatives
(Models 1, 2, 3, and 4)
406
PR
45,2
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
To determine whether the proposed model (Figure 2) presents the most parsimonious
representation of the data, the proposed model was compared to Alternative Model 3,
which is identical to the proposed model except for the deletion of the three direct paths
from privacy invasion to organizational attractiveness; recommendation intentions;
and litigation intentions. As shown in Table III, deleting the direct paths from privacy
invasion to organizational outcomes, as suggested in Alternative Model 3, significantly
worsen the model fit indices relative to the proposed model. In brief, the results of the
above three alternative models suggest that the proposed model as reflected in Figure 2
presents the best representation for the data.
To strengthen our findings, we also tested a fourth alternative model that
completely deletes the privacy invasion factor from our proposed model. As shown in
Table III, Alternative Model 4 has inferior fit indices in comparison to our proposed
model. More importantly, when we did not include the privacy invasion factor, the
explained variance in fairness perceptions dropped significantly from 0.53 to 0.12.
Similarly, the explained variance in litigation intentions dropped from 0.66 to 0.49. The
explained variance in both organizational attractiveness and recommendation
intentions also dropped but in very small magnitude (less than 0.02).
Hypothesis testing
To test the significance of the indirect effect predicted in H1, AMOS procedures were
used to produce the point estimate for the standardized indirect effect and its 95 percent
bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). The AMOS
results revealed that the point estimate for the indirect effect for the inappropriate/
discriminatory questions on process fairness via privacy invasion is −0.384, with a
95 percent bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval of −0.495- −0.314. The
bootstrapping results, together with the non-significant path found in Alternative Model
1 between inappropriate/discriminatory questions and process fairness, suggest that
privacy invasion fully mediated the relationship between the inappropriate interview
questions and process fairness. Accordingly, these results provide support for H1.
As reflected in Figure 2, the standardized coefficients of the proposed model show
that participants’ fairness perceptions have significant direct effects on organizational
Inappropriate/
Discriminatory
Interview Questions
Privacy
Invasion
Process Fairness
Perceptions
Organizational
Attractiveness
Recommendation
Intentions
Litigation
Intentions
–0.73***
(0.28)
0.05
–0.25***
0.61***
0.70***
19
0.56***
(0.53) (0.37)
(0.31)
(0.66)
0.53***
Notes: Significant paths indicated with a solid line and non-significant paths indicated with
a dashed line; explained variance are reported in brackets. *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
Figure 2.
Standardized
coefficients for
the proposed
model results
407
Role of
privacy
invasion
and fairness
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
attractiveness ( β ¼ 0.70, po0.001), recommendation intentions ( β ¼ 0.56, po0.001),
and litigation intentions ( β ¼ −0.25, po0.01). Hence, these findings support H2a-2c.
To test the mediation predicted in H3a-3c, AMOS procedures were used to
produce the point estimates for the standardized indirect effects and their 95 percent
bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals. The AMOS results for the proposed model
reveal that the point estimate for the indirect effect for privacy invasion on organizational
attractiveness via process fairness is –0.514, with a 95 percent bias-corrected bootstrap
confidence interval of −0.747- −0.390; the point estimate for the indirect effect for privacy
invasion on recommendation intentions via process fairness is −0.406, with a 95 percent
bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval of −0.621- −0.196; the point estimate for the
indirect effect for privacy invasion on litigation intentions via process fairness is 0.184,
with a 95 percent bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval of 0.048-0.308. As the
above confidence intervals do not include zero, the bootstrapping results suggest that
process fairness perceptions mediate the effect of privacy invasion on organizational
attractiveness, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions. Based on these
bootstrapping results and the significant direct effect (see Figure 2) for privacy invasion
on litigation intentions, it can be concluded that process fairness partially mediate the
effect of privacy invasion on litigation intentions. Accordingly, these results
provide support for H3c. Similarly, based on the above bootstrapping results and the
non-significant direct effects (see Figure 2) for privacy on organizational attractiveness
and recommendation intentions, it can be concluded that process fairness fully mediate
(rather than partially mediate as predicted in the proposed model) the effects of privacy
invasion on organizational attractiveness and recommendation intentions. Accordingly,
H3a and 3b are not supported.
Discussion
This paper contributes to the literature on employment interview and job applicant
reactions in a number of ways. First, results of this paper support Saks and McCarthy’s
(2006) findings by demonstrating the negative effects of inappropriate interview questions
on fairness perceptions, organizational perceptions, and recommendation intentions in a
non-Western context. Second, results of this study extends Saks and McCarthy’s (2006)
findings by showing the negative effects of inappropriate interview questions on privacy
invasion perceptions and litigation intentions. Since the UAE does not have clear
legislation or guidelines on what would be considered legal or illegal interview questions,
this paper indicates that applicant negative reactions toward inappropriate interview
questions take place regardless of the presence or absence of clear laws that forbid asking
such questions. This is a very important finding because one might expect that the
negative effects of inappropriate/discriminatory questions would not take place in absence
of clear legislation that makes it illegal for employers to ask such questions.
Third, and most importantly, this study further highlights the mechanism through
which inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions influence applicants’
organizational attractiveness, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions.
Particularly, our findings show that inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions
trigger privacy invasion perceptions, which in turn influence fairness perceptions.
Fairness perceptions, in turn, influence applicant organizational attractiveness,
recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions. Our findings also show that
privacy invasion perceptions directly and indirectly, via fairness perceptions, influence
litigation intentions. However, instead of the predicted partial mediation, the results of
this study demonstrate that fairness perceptions fully mediate the effect of privacy on
408
PR
45,2
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
organizational attractiveness and recommendation intentions. These findings suggest
that privacy invasion and fairness perceptions are very important constructs to
understand the process in which inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions
influence applicants’ organizational perceptions and behavioral intentions.
Theoretical implications
While prior studies focussed on the role of fairness in understanding applicant
reactions to inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions (Saks and McCarthy,
2006), our study is the first to demonstrate the role of privacy invasion in
understanding applicant reactions to inappropriate/discriminatory interview
questions. In particular, the results of this paper show that privacy and fairness
perceptions are different constructs and should be treated accordingly. This result is in
line with researchers who argue that although privacy and fairness are related they are
different constructs (e.g. Stone-Romero et al., 2003). Our findings also show that privacy
invasion precedes and influences process fairness perceptions. Moreover, results of our
model demonstrate that by including privacy invasion the explained variance in
fairness perceptions and litigation intentions was enhanced significantly compared to
an alternative model that excluded privacy invasion.
Although it might be argued that inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions
will trigger negative applicant reactions only when there are specific rules and
regulations that clearly forbid and penalize asking such questions, findings of our study
demonstrate that even in a context where rules or guidelines that forbid inappropriate/
discriminatory interview questions are unclear or lacking, as it is the case in the UAE,
asking inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions elicit less favorable perceptions,
attitudes, and behavioral intentions among job applicants. However, it is worth noting
that although the findings of our study show that inappropriate/discriminatory interview
questions significantly increased applicants’ intentions to pursue legal complaints, the
participants in our study reported relatively low intentions to pursue litigations. This
low-litigation intentions might be explained by the potential lack of utility from pursuing
litigation within the UAE context. Specifically, legislations in the UAE and other
countries in the GCC region compensate victims of discrimination/unlawful treatment for
actual damages only but do not recognize compensation for punitive damages
(compensation that goes beyond the actual damages and intend to deter defendants from
engaging in discriminatory behavior) like the case of the USA and some other Western
countries. In addition, the litigation process in the UAE and other countries in the GCC
region is relatively lengthy. Moreover, individuals who engage in litigation might face
difficulties in securing new jobs with other employers.
Therefore, a potential explanation for the low-litigation intentions among our
participants is the lack of perceived instrumentality of litigation and the low-expected value
of the outcome that would be gained from engaging in litigation within the UAE context.
The expectancy theory informs us that “the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way
depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome
and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual” (Lawler, 1973, p. 45).
Accordingly, one would expect high-litigation intentions among victims of discrimination
in contexts where strict laws against discrimination are applied and where relatively high
compensation for victims can also be expected as is the case in the US context.
Another potential explanation for finding low-litigation intentions in our study is the
collectivist and tribal cultural norms of Emiratis that make them more prone toward
conciliatory measures and avoidance of conflict ( Jones, 2008). In the case of non-Emiratis,
409
Role of
privacy
invasion
and fairness
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
the low-litigation intentions might be caused by the transitory nature of their status in the
country and lack of perceived utility from pursuing legal action as discussed above.
Practical implications
Removing the inappropriate/discriminatory questions from the employment interview is
necessary to eliminate the negative consequences of asking such questions on applicants’
perceptions, recommendation intentions, and litigation intentions (Saks and McCarthy,
2006). Although this study did not examine why inappropriate/discriminatory interview
questions might be asked in the UAE context, the findings of this study suggest that
applicant negative reactions toward inappropriate interview questions take place
regardless of the presence or absence of clear regulations that outlaw asking such
questions. Thus, this study recommends that organizations educate and train their
interviewers to avoid asking any question that is likely to be perceived by job applicants
as invasive, illegal, inappropriate, and/or discriminatory (Saks and McCarthy, 2006). It is
worth noting here that prior research has reported that less than 35 percent of
interviewers were trained to conduct a job interview (Chapman and Zweig, 2005).
Though it might be practically important for employers in the UAE context to ask
questions related to nationality, marital status, and so on to obtain visas for foreign
workers or to fulfill a recent UAE “cultural diversity” policy, we recommend that
managers and HR practitioners ask such questions in separate step in the selection
process. For example, in North America, information on race, disabilities, gender, or
marital status of applicants are often collected after the hiring decision is made or collected
in a way that does not impact the hiring decision. More importantly, when data are
collected on race, gender, disabilities, marital status, and nationalities of applicants, the
data must not be available to any person who is involved in making the hiring decision.
We also recommend that managers and HR practitioners provide job applicants with
clear justification/explanations for why the employer is asking such potentially
inappropriate questions. Research in North America has demonstrated that providing job
applicants with explanation/justification for why inappropriate selection procedures
have been used mitigates applicants’ negative reactions (Truxillo et al., 2009).
Limitations
Although the present paper enhances our understanding of applicant reactions to
inappropriate interview questions and the role of privacy invasion and fairness in
explaining these reactions, a number of limitations should be noted. First, the
generalizability of our findings could be limited because of using scenario-based staffing
situations. However, scenario-based approach was employed in this paper for several
reasons. First, the study aimed to determine whether the effects hypothesized would be
established under controlled settings. Second, our study responded to researchers who
call for more experimental studies on privacy and applicant reactions (Chan et al., 1998;
Ryan and Ployhart, 2000; Stone-Romero et al., 2003). Third, the scenario approach was
used because ethical considerations inhibit manipulating the interview selection
procedures with a “real-world” organization and “real-world” applicants as done in this
study. Fourth, organizations are unwilling to participate in experimental studies as the
one conducted in this study because they are afraid of legal consequences (Gilliland,
1993). To minimize the limitation of using scenario approach, we recruited senior
undergraduate students who were seeking employment or about to seek employment
and asked them through written and oral presentations to complete all of the relevant
materials as if they were experiencing an actual organizational staffing process.
410
PR
45,2
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
Second, the results of this study may be limited in that it measured job applicant
intentions rather than their actual behaviors. Thus, it can be potentially argued that
there might be differences between what applicants intend to do and what they actually
do. However, the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) proposes
behavioral intention as the best predictor of individuals’ behavior. Research from
different context provide results that support TRA proposition (Armitage and Conner,
2001; Vinokur and Caplan, 1987).
Future research
In addition to the research ideas noted above, future research need to address why
interviewers ask inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions. Finding why these
questions are asked in the first place will surely help organizations eliminating
the negative consequences of the inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions.
In our paper, we examined the effects of four inappropriate/discriminatory interview
questions together. However, the effect could be generated from one question or a
combination of two questions. Therefore, future research should examine the effect of
each inappropriate question separately and the effects of combing two or three
questions (Saks and McCarthy, 2006). While our paper focussed on understanding the
effects of inappropriate interview question on applicants’ attitudes, perceptions, and
behavioral intentions, future research should also focus on understanding applicants’
actual behavior.
Finally, there is little research on how the employment interview is conducted in
different parts of the world. We believe that studies on cross-national comparisons are
needed to highlight how national culture and legal systems influence the employment
interview practices and job applicant reactions (Posthuma et al., 2014).
Note
1. Although many researchers and legislative bodies in Western countries label questions
related to age, nationality, marital status, arrest records, and disabilities as discriminatory or
illegal questions, this paper labels these questions as inappropriate because there are no clear
laws/guidelines in many developing economies including the UAE regarding which of these
questions are illegal/discriminatory.
References
Ababneh, K.I. and Chhinzer, N. (2011), “The antecedents and consequences of fairness reactions
to personal selections methods: a Canadian study”, paper presented at the Administrative
Sciences Association of Canada Annual Conference, Montreal, July 2-5.
Ababneh, K.I. and Chhinzer, N. (2014), “Job applicant reactions to selection methods in the
United Arab Emirates (UAE)”, International Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 32-48.
Ababneh, K.I., Hackett, R.D. and Schat, A.C. (2014), “The role of attributions and fairness in
understanding job applicant reactions to selection procedures and decisions”, Journal of
Business and Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 111-129.
Abdalla, I.M., Al‐Waqfi, M.A, Harb, N., Hijazi, R.H. and Zoubeidi, T. (2010), “Labour policy and
determinants of employment and wages in a developing economy with labour shortage”,
Labour, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 163-177.
Alge, B.J. (2001), “Effects of computer surveillance on perceptions of privacy and procedural
justice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 797-804.
411
Role of
privacy
invasion
and fairness
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
Alge, B.J., Ballinger, G.A., Tangirala, S. and Oakley, J.L. (2006), “Information privacy in
organizations: empowering creative and extrarole performance”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 221-232.
Al-Suwaidi, A. (2011), “The United Arab Emirates at 40: a balance sheet”, Middle East Policy,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 44-58.
Al-Waqfi, M.A. and Al-faki, A. (2015), “Gender-based differences in employment conditions of
local and expatriate workers in the GCC context: empirical evidence from the United Arab
Emirates”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 397-415.
Al-Waqfi, M.A. and Forstenlechner, I. (2012), “Of private sector fear and prejudice: the case of
young citizens in an oil-rich Arabian Gulf economy”, Personnel Review, Vol. 41 No. 5,
pp. 609-629.
Al-Waqfi, M.A. and Forstenlechner, I. (2014), “Barriers to Emiratization: the role of policy design
and institutional environment in determining the effectiveness of emiratization”,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 167-189.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Anderson, N. and Witvliet, C. (2008), “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, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 1-13.
Anderson, N., Salgado, J.F. and Hulsheger, U.R. (2010), “Applicant reactions in selection:
comprehensive meta-analysis into reaction generalization versus situational specificity”,
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 291-304.
Armitage, C.J. and Conner, M. (2001), “Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour:
a meta-analytic review”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 471-499.
Arvey, R.D. and Sackett, P.R. (1993), “Fairness in selection: current developments and
perspectives”, in Schmitt, N. and Borman, W. (Eds), Personnel Selection, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 171-202.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (2012), “Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural
equation models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 8-34.
Bauer, T.N., Truxillo, D.M., Sanchez, R.J., Craig, J.M., Ferrara, P. and Campion, M.A. (2001),
“Applicant reactions to selection: development of the selection procedural justice scale
(SPJS)”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 387-419.
Bauer, T.N., Truxillo, D.M., Tucker, J.S., Weathers, V., Bertolino, M., Erdogan, B. and
Campion, M.A. (2006), “Selection in the information age: the impact of privacy concerns
and computer experience on applicant reactions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 5,
pp. 601-621.
Bennington, L. (2001), “Age discrimination: converging evidence from four Australian studies”,
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 125-134.
Bies, R.J. (1993), “Privacy and procedural justice in organizations”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 69-86.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”, in
Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (Eds), Research on Negotiations in
Organizations, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55.
Bloch, J. (2011), “Teaching job interviewing skills with the help of television shows”, Business
Communication Quarterly, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 7-21.
412
PR
45,2
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
Blommaert, L., Coenders, M. and van Tubergen, F. (2014), “Ethnic discrimination in recruitment
and decision makers’ features: evidence from laboratory experiment and survey data using
a student sample”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 116 No. 3, pp. 731-754.
Breaugh, J.A. and Starke, M. (2000), “Research on employee recruitments so many studies, so
many remaining questions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 405-434.
Budhwar, P. and Mellahi, K. (2007), “Introduction: human resource management in the Middle
East”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 2-10.
Caldas, M.P., Tonelli, M.J. and Lacombe, B.M.B. (2011), “IHRM in developing countries: does the
functionalist vs critical debate make sense South of the Equator?”, BAR-Brazilian
Administration Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 433-453.
Carlsson, M. and Rooth, D.O. (2007), “Evidence of ethnic discrimination in the Swedish labor
market using experimental data”, Labour Economics, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 716-729.
Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook (2014), “United Arab Emirate”, available at: www.
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ae.html (accessed April 15, 2015).
Chan, D., Schmitt, N., Sacco, J.M. and DeShon, R.P. (1998), “Understanding pretest and posttest
reactions to cognitive ability and personality tests”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83
No. 3, pp. 471-485.
Chapman, D.S. and Zweig, D.I. (2005), “Developing a nomological network for interview structure:
antecedents and consequences of the structured selection interview”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 673-702.
Clarke, R. (1999), “None of their business – questions that should not be asked in job interviews”,
Black Enterprise, Vol. 30 No. 2, p. 65.
Conway, J.M. and Peneno, G.M. (1999), “Comparing structured interview question types:
construct validity and applicant reactions”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 485-506.
Dipboye, R.L., Macan, T. and Shahani-Denning, C. (2012), “The selection interview from the
interviewer and applicants perspective: can’t have one without the other”, in Schmitt, N.
(Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Selection and Assessment, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY, pp. 323-352.
Eddy, E.R., Stone, D.L. and Stone-Romero, E.E. (1999), “The effects of information management
policies on reactions to human resource information systems: an integration of privacy and
procedural justice perspectives”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 335-358.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Gilliland, S.W. (1993), “The perceived fairness of selection systems – an organizational justice
perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 694-734.
Gilliland, S.W. (1994), “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection
system”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 5, pp. 691-701.
Gilliland, S.W. (1995), “Fairness from the applicants perspective – reactions to employee selection
procedures”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 11-19.
Goldberg, C.B. (2003), “Applicant reactions to the employment interview: a look at demographic
similarity and social identity theory”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 8,
pp. 561-571.
413
Role of
privacy
invasion
and fairness
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
Goldberg, C.B. (2005), “Relational demography and similarity-attraction in interview assessments
and subsequent offer decisions are we missing something?”, Group & Organization
Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 597-624.
Goldman, B.M. (2001), “Toward an understanding of employment discrimination claiming: an
integration of organizational justice and social information processing theories”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 361-386.
Goldman, B.M. (2003), “The application of referent cognitions theory to legal-claiming by
terminated workers: the role of organizational justice and anger”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 705-728.
Greenberg, J. (1986), “Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 340-342.
Hackett, R.D., Lapierre, L.M. and Gardiner, H.P. (2004), “A review of Canadian human rights cases
involving the employment interview”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue
Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 215-228.
Harris, M.M. (1989), “Reconsidering the employment interview: a review of recent literature and
suggestions for future research”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 691-726.
Harris, M.M., Hoye, G.V. and Lievens, F. (2003), “Privacy and attitudes towards internet-based
selection systems: a cross-cultural comparison”, International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, Vol. 11 Nos 2-3, pp. 230-236.
Hausknecht, J.P., Day, D.V. and Thomas, S.C. (2004), “Applicant reactions to selection procedures:
an updated model and meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 639-683.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Huffcutt, A.I., Van Iddekinge, C.H. and Roth, P.L. (2011), “Understanding applicant behavior in
employment interviews: a theoretical model of interviewee performance”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 353-367.
Jablin, F.M. and Tengler, C.D. (1982), “Facing discrimination in on-campus interviews”, Journal of
College Placement, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 57-61.
Jackson, D. and Kovacheff, J. (1993), “Personality questionnaires in selection: privacy issues and
the Soroka case”, The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 45-51.
Jones, S. (2008), “Training and cultural context in the Arab Emirates: fighting a losing battle?”,
Employee Relations, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 48-62.
Kinicki, A.J., Lockwood, C.A., Hom, P.W. and Griffeth, R.W. (1990), “Interviewer predictions of
applicant qualifications and interviewer validity: aggregate and individual analyses”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 5, pp. 477-486.
Kuhn, K.M. and Nielsen, M.L. (2008), “Understanding applicant reactions to credit checks:
uncertainty, information effects and individual differences”, International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 307-320.
Lawler, E.E III (1973), Motivation in Work Organizations, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA.
Leventhal, G.S. (1980), “What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of
fairness in social relationship”, in Gergen, M.S.G.K.J. and Willis, R.H. (Eds), Social Exchange:
Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum, New York, NY, pp. 27-55.
Lind, E.A., Greenberg, J., Scott, K.S. and Welchans, T.D. (2000), “The winding road from employee
to complainant: situational and psychological determinants of wrongful-termination
claims”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 557-590.
414
PR
45,2
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
McCarthy, J.M., Van Iddekinge, C.H. and Campion, M.A. (2010), “Are highly structured job
interviews resistant to demographic similarity effects?”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 63
No. 2, pp. 325-359.
McDonald, R.P. and Ho, M.H.R. (2002), “Principles and practice in reporting structural equation
analyses”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 64-82.
McNall, L.A. and Roch, S.G. (2007), “Effects of electronic monitoring types on perceptions of
procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and privacy1”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 658-682.
Macan, T. (2009), “The employment interview: a review of current studies and directions for
future research”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 203-218.
Madera, J.M. and Hebl, M.R. (2012), “Discrimination against facially stigmatized applicants in
interviews: an eye-tracking and face-to-face investigation”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 317-330.
Marshall, D. (2007), “Discrimination in interviews”, Human Resource Management International
Digest, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 3-4.
Marshall, G.W., Stamps, M.B. and Moore, J.N. (1998), “Preinterview biases: the impact of race,
physical attractiveness, and sales job type on preinterview impressions of sales job
applicants”, The Journal of Personal Selling and Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 21-38.
Mashood, N., Verhoeven, H. and Chansarkar, B. (2009), “Emiratisation, omanisation and
saudisation-common causes: common solutions”, 10th International Business Research
Conference, Dubai, April 16-17.
Morgeson, F.P., Reider, M.H., Campion, M.A. and Bull, R.A. (2008), “Review of research on age
discrimination in the employment interview”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 22
No. 3, pp. 223-232.
Mullen, L.G., Thakur, R. and Hensel, K. (2007), “Illegal questioning: a study of marketing
students’ recent interview experiences during their career searches”, Journal for the
Advancement of Marketing Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 27-39.
Ni, Y. and Hauenstein, N.M.A. (1998), “Applicant reactions to personality tests: effects of item
invasiveness and face validity”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 391-406.
Peluchette, J. and Karl, K. (2009), “Examining students’ intended image on Facebook: ‘what were
they thinking?!’ ”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 30-37.
Posthuma, R.A., Morgeson, F.P. and Campion, M.A. (2002), “Beyond employment interview
validity: a comprehensive narrative review of recent research and trends over time”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 1-81.
Posthuma, R.A., Levashina, J., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., Tsai, W., Wagstaff, M. and Campion, M.A.
(2014), “Comparing employment interviews in Latin America with other countries”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 943-951.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods,
Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Rosenbaum, B.L. (1973), “Attitude toward invasion of privacy in the personnel selection process
and job applicant demographic and personality correlates”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 333-338.
Rosse, J.G., Miller, J.L. and Stecher, M.D. (1994), “A field-study of job applicants reactions to
personality and cognitive-ability testing”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 6,
pp. 987-992.
Rustemli, A. and Kokdemir, D. (1993), “Privacy dimensions and preferences among Turkish
students”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 133 No. 6, pp. 807-814.
415
Role of
privacy
invasion
and fairness
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
Ryan, A.M. and Ployhart, R.E. (2000), “Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and
decisions: a critical review and agenda for the future”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26
No. 3, pp. 565-606.
Rynes, S.L. and Connerley, M.L. (1993), “Applicant reactions to alternative selection procedures”,
Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 261-277.
Sacco, J.M., Scheu, C.R., Ryan, A.M. and Schmitt, N. (2003), “An investigation of race and sex
similarity effects in interviews: a multilevel approach to relational demography”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 852-865.
Saks, A.M. and McCarthy, J.M. (2006), “Effects of discriminatory interview questions and
gender on applicant reactions”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 175-191.
Salgado, J.F., Viswesvaran, C. and Ones, D.S. (2001), “Predictors used for personnel selection:
an overview of constructs, methods and techniques”, in Anderson, N., Ones, D.S.,
Simangil, H.K. and Viswesvaran (Eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 1, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 165-199.
Saunders, D.M., Leck, J.D. and Vitins, G. (1990), “Pre-employment enquiries in Canada: the law
and society are dancing to different music”, The Annual Meeting of the Law and Society
Association, Berkeley, CA, pp. 165-199.
Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E. (1998), “The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel
psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 262-274.
Schwab, K., Sala-i-Martin, X. and Greenhill, R. (2011), “The Global Competitiveness Report
2011-2012”, available at: www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_Report_2011-12
(accessed April 15, 2015).
Seitz, R., Truxillo, D.M. and Bauer, T.N. (2001), “Test familiarization: effects on reactions to
written and video tests”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA, April.
Simmons, D.D. (1968), “Invasion of privacy and judged benefit of personality-test inquiry”, The
Journal of General Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 177-181.
Smither, J.W., Reilly, R.R., Millsap, R.E., Pearlman, K. and Stoffey, R.W. (1993), “Applicant
reactions to selection procedures”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 49-76.
Steiner, D.D. and Gilliland, S.W. (1996), “Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques
in France and the United States”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 2,
pp. 134-141.
Stone, D.L. and Bowden, C. (1989), “Effects of job applicant drug testing practices on reactions to
drug testing”, Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management,
pp. 290-294.
Stone, D.L. and Jones, G.E. (1997), “Perceived fairness of biodata as a function of the purpose of
the request for information and gender of the applicant”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 313-323.
Stone, D.L. and Kotch, D.A. (1989), “Individuals’ attitudes toward organizational drug testing
policies and practices”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 518-521.
Stone, E.F. and Stone, D.L. (1990), “Privacy in organizations: theoretical issues, research findings,
and protection mechanisms”, in Ferris, G.A. and Rowland, K.M. (Eds), Research in Personnel
and Human Resources Management, Vol. 8, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 349-411.
Stone-Romero, E.F., Stone, D.L. and Hyatt, D. (2003), “Personnel selection procedures and
invasion of privacy”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 343-368.
416
PR
45,2
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
Stoughton, J.W., Thompson, L. and Meade, A. (2015), “Examining applicant reactions to the use of
social networking websites in pre-employment screening”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 73-88.
Sullivan, L. and Arnold, D.W. (2000), “Invasive questions lead to legal challenge, settlement
and use of different test”, Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 142-143.
Thibodeaux, H.F. and Kudisch, J.D. (2003), “The relationship between applicant reactions, the
likelihood of complaints, and organization attractiveness”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 247-257.
Thurman, R.J., Katz, E., Carter, W., Han, J., Kayala, E., McCoin, N. and Storrow, A.B. (2009),
“Emergency medicine residency applicant perceptions of unethical recruiting practices
and illegal questioning in the match”, Academic Emergency Medicine, Vol. 16 No. 6,
pp. 550-557.
Topor, D.J., Colarelli, S.M. and Han, K. (2007), “Influences of traits and assessment methods on
human resource practitioners’ evaluations of job applicants”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 361-376.
Truxillo, D.M. and Bauer, T.N. (1999), “Applicant reactions to test score banding in
entry-level and promotional contexts”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1,
pp. 322-339.
Truxillo, D.M., Bodner, T.E., Bertolino, M., Bauer, T.N. and Yonce, C.A. (2009), “Effects of
explanations on applicant reactions: a meta‐analytic review”, International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 346-361.
Vinokur, A. and Caplan, R.D. (1987), “Attitudes and social support – determinants of job-seeking
behavior and well-being among the unemployed”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 17 No. 12, pp. 1007-1024.
Wallace, J.C., Page, E.E. and Lippstreu, M. (2006), “Applicant reactions to pre-employment
application blanks: a legal and procedural justice perspective”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 467-488.
Woodzicka, J.A. and LaFrance, M. (2005), “The effects of subtle sexual harassment on women’s
performance in a job interview”, Sex Roles, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 67-77.
World Bank (2012), “World Data Bank”, available at: http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.
do (accessed October 15, 2012).
Appendix. Questions used in each condition
Control group questions
What is the nature of your previous work experience?
Have you had any work experience in XYZ business?
What kinds of things do you look for in a job?
What types of interests or hobbies are you involved in?
What do you consider to be your greatest strengths?
What do you consider to be your greatest weaknesses?
What university subjects do you like the most?
What qualities should a successful manager possess?
What are your long-range career objectives?
What do you think you have to offer a company like XYZ Organization?
Experimental group questions – four discriminatory questions (in bold text)
What is your nationality?
What is the nature of your previous work experience?
What kinds of things do you look for in a job?
417
Role of
privacy
invasion
and fairness
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
Have you ever been arrested for a crime?
What do you consider to be your greatest strengths?
Do you have any handicaps?
What university subjects do you like the most?
What qualities should a successful manager possess?
Do you have any future plans for marriage and children?
What do you think you have to offer a company like XYZ?
Corresponding author
Associate Professor Mohammed A. Al-Waqfi can be contacted at: mwaqfi@uaeu.ac.ae
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
418
PR
45,2
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
A
M
E
R
IC
A
N
U
N
IV
E
R
S
IT
Y
I
N
D
U
B
A
I
A
t
03
:2
5
05
J
ul
y
20
16
(
P
T
)
mailto:mwaqfi@uaeu.ac.ae
Outline placeholder
Appendix.Questions used in each condition
Chapter 1
Introduction to Research
Definition Research
Research is an organized, systematic, data-based, critical, objective inquiry into a specific problem that needs a solution.
Business research: an organized and systematic inquiry or investigation into a specific problem within an organization context with the purpose of finding answers or solutions to it.
Slide 1-3
Theory and Information
Data, information, and theory play an important role in research.
Data
Raw facts and observations
Information
Data made useful and meaningful for decision making
Characteristics of useful information:
Slide 1-4
Characteristics of useful information:
Timely
Relevant
Complete
High quality (Accurate. & Reliable)
Understandable
Slide 1-4
Theory and Information
What is theory?
The term ‘theory’ can mean a lot of things, depending on whom you ask:
an idea or hunch that someone has;
any concept, instrument, model, or framework that helps one to think about or solve a problem, describe a phenomenon, or understand a topic of interest.
To a scientist, a theory explains a certain phenomenon.
Slide 1-4
Effort
Performance
Outcome 3
+ or –
Outcome 2
+ or –
Expectancy Theory of Motivation
8-6
6
Basic versus Applied Research
Basic research: is designed to make a contribution to general knowledge and theoretical understanding, rather than solve a specific problem
What is the effect of caffeine consumption on human body?
How can business travellers be encouraged to reduce their carbon footprints?
Applied research: solves a current problem faced by a manager/organization in the work setting, demanding a timely solution.
E.g.,
How bullying can be prevented at ABC Organization?
How can energy be saved in a particular workplace (AUD)?
Basic versus Applied Research
Purpose
Expand our understanding knowledge regarding a process/phenomenon
Results in universal principles relating to the processes and its relationship to outcomes
Findings of significant and value to society in general
Context
Undertaken by people based in universities
Choice of topic and objectives determined by the researcher
Flexible timescale
Purpose
Improve understanding of specific business or management problem in a specific organization/industry
Results in solution to a problem
New knowledge limited to a problem
Findings of practical relevance and value to manager(s) in organization(s)
Context
Undertaken by people based in a variety of settings, including organizations and universities
Objective negotiated with originator universities
tight timescale
Example 2
A research scientist wants to investigate the question: What is the most effective way for an organization to recover from a service failure? Her objective is to provide guidelines for establishing the proper “fit” between service failure and service recovery that will generalize across a variety of service industries.
A service failure, simply defined, is service performance that fails to meet a customer s expectation. Typically, when a service failure occurs, a customer will expect to be compensated for the inconvenience in the form of any combination of refunds, credits, discounts or apologies,
9
Example 3
A university professor wanted to analyze in depth the reasons for absenteeism of employees in organizations. Fortunately, ABC company within 20 miles of the campus employed her as a consultant to study that very same issue.
10
More Examples of Research Areas in Business
Absenteeism
Communication
Motivation
Consumer decision making
Customer satisfaction
Budget allocations
Slide 1-11
Why should a manager know about research when the job entails managing people, products, events, environments and the like?
Slide 1-12
Why Managers Should Know About Research
Being knowledgeable about research and research methods helps professional managers to:
Identify and effectively solve problems in the work setting.
Know how to discriminate good from bad research.
Appreciate the multiple influences and effects of factors impinging on a situation.
Take calculated risks in decision making.
Prevent possible vested interests from exercising their influence in a situation.
Relate to hired researchers and consultants more effectively.
Combine experience with scientific knowledge while making decisions.
Slide 1-13
The Manager–Researcher Relationship
Each should know his/her role
Trust levels
Acceptance of findings and implementation
Issues of inside versus outside researchers/consultants
Slide 1-14
Internal Researchers
Advantages:
Better acceptance from staff
Knowledge about organization
Would be an integral part of implementation and evaluation of the research recommendations.
Disadvantages
Less fresh ideas
Power politics could prevail
Possibly not valued as “expert” by staff
Slide 1-15
External Researchers
Advantages
Divergent and convergent thinking
Experience from several situations in different organizations
Better technical training, usually
Disadvantages
Takes time to know and understand the organization
Rapport and cooperation from staff not easy
Not available for evaluation and implementation
Costs
Slide 1-16
The Critical Literature Review
Chapter 4
Important issues regarding our online classes
Dear Students,
I hope you are doing fine. I would like to remind you with important issues regarding our online classes that I mentioned before but unfortunately some students are still not taken them in consideration.
You must know that it is your responsibility to have a reliable Internet and devices every time you come to the class. So, you must select the right place and the right device when you come to the class.
You should be ready to take the quizzes and to complete the in-class exercises at any point during our class. If you cannot take your quiz or submit your exercise on time to Turnitin, do not e-mail it to me because I cannot consider it.
If I call your name in the class and you do not answer my call, I will consider you absent and I will deduct points from you.
If you do not know how to use the class Blackboard, Zoom, Turnitin, etc. please let me know in our next class and I will glad to do my best to help you.
If there is any other issue not clear for you regarding our class, please ask me in our next class and I will be glad to address your issue.
Best wishes
2/10/2021 9:29 AM
Critical Literature Review
A literature review is “the selection of available documents (both published and unpublished) on the topic, which contain information, ideas, data and evidence written from a particular standpoint to fulfill certain aims or express certain views on the nature of the topic and how it is to be investigated, and the effective evaluation of these documents in relation to the research being proposed” (Hart, 1998, p. 13).
Literature review introduces
Summarizes and criticizes work done so far on specific phenomenon
Identify gaps in the literature
Highlights the chosen problem/Subject study
Slide 4-5
Functions of Literature Review
In general, a literature review ensures that:
The research effort is positioned relative to existing knowledge and builds on this knowledge.
You can look at a problem from a specific angle.
You do not run the risk of “reinventing the wheel”;
You are able to introduce relevant terminology and to define key terms used in your writing.
You obtain useful insights of the research methods others have used to provide an answer to similar research questions.
The research effort can be contextualized in a wider academic debate.
Slide 4-6
Data Sources
Textbooks
Academic journals
professional journals
Theses
Conference proceedings
Unpublished manuscripts
Reports of government departments and corporations
Newspapers
The Internet
Slide 4-7
Common Forms of Plagiarism
Sources not cited
“The Ghost Writer” The writer turns in another’s work, word-for-word, as his or her own.
“The Photocopy” The writer copies significant portions of text straight from a single source, without alteration.
“The Potluck Paper” The writer tries to disguise plagiarism by copying from several different sources, tweaking the sentences to make them fit together while retaining most of the original phrasing.
“The Poor Disguise” Although the writer has retained the essential content of the source, he or she has altered the paper’s appearance slightly by changing key words and phrases.
“The Labor of Laziness” The writer takes the time to paraphrase most of the paper from other sources and make it all fit together, instead of spending the same effort on original work.
“The Self-Stealer” The writer “borrows” generously from his or her previous work, violating policies concerning the expectation of originality adopted by most academic institutions.
Slide 4-8
Common Forms of Plagiarism
Sources cited (but still plagiarized)
“The Forgotten Footnote” The writer mentions an author’s name for a source, but neglects to include specific information on the location of the material referenced. This often masks other forms of plagiarism by obscuring source locations.
“The Misinformer” The writer provides inaccurate information regarding the sources, making it impossible to find them.
“The Too-Perfect Paraphrase” The writer properly cites a source, but neglects to put in quotation marks text that has been copied word-for-word, or close to it. Although attributing the basic ideas to the source, the writer is falsely claiming original presentation and interpretation of the information.
“The Resourceful Citer” The writer properly cites all sources, paraphrasing and using quotations appropriately. The catch? The paper contains almost no original work! It is sometimes difficult to spot this form of plagiarism because it looks like any other well-researched document.
“The Perfect Crime” Well, we all know it doesn’t exist. In this case, the writer properly quotes and cites sources in some places, but goes on to paraphrase other arguments from those sources without citation. This way, the writer tries to pass off the paraphrased material as his or her own analysis of the cited material.
.
Slide 4-9
Research ethics
Ethics refers to the moral values or principles that form the basis of a code of conduct and research ethics focus on the way in which research is conducted and how the results or findings are reported
Research must not harm the participants (physical harm, harm to self-development, self-esteem, career or employment prospects) and they must not be encouraged to perform reprehensible acts
What other ethical principles should researchers take in consideration?
10
Research ethics
Participants must be informed of
The purpose of the research
Voluntary participation and the right to withdraw
The right to confidentiality (data) and anonymity (people, firms)
Researchers do not have the right to invade a person’s privacy or to abandon respect for other people’s values
What about deception or representing your research as something other than it is (eg disguised or covert observation)?
Do participants have the right to know what observation techniques are being used?
Do participants have the right to request destruction of recorded data under the Data Protection Act?
11
11
Research Types/Research Questions
12
12
1- Exploratory research questions
Exploratory research questions are typically developed when:
a) not much is known about a particular phenomenon;
b) existing research results are unclear or suffer from serious limitations;
c) the topic is highly complex; or
d) there is not enough theory to guide the development of a theoretical framework.
Exploratory research often relies on qualitative approaches to data gathering such as informal discussions (with consumers, employees, managers), interviews, focus groups, and/or case studies. As a rule, exploratory research is flexible in nature.
E.g., Is there a faculty turnover problem in the UAE?
E.g., A manager of a multinational corporation is curious to know if the work ethic values of employees working in its subsidiary in Dubai city are different from those of Americans.
Slide 4-13
2-Descriptive research questions
The objective of a descriptive study is to obtain data that describes the topic of interest.
Descriptive studies are often designed to collect data that describe characteristics of objects (such as persons, organizations, products, or brands), events, or situations. Descriptive research is either quantitative or qualitative in nature.
E.g., What are the characteristics of faculty members who are quitting their jobs in the UAE?
E.g., What are the characteristics of students who cheat in their written exams?
Correlational studies describe relationships between variables. While correlational studies can suggest that there is a relationship between two variables, finding a correlation does not mean that one variable causes a change in another variable.
Slide 4-14
2-Descriptive research questions
Descriptive studies may help the researcher to:
Understand the characteristics of a group in a given situation (for instance the profile of a specific segment in a market).
Think systematically about aspects in a given situation (for instance, describe the factors related to job satisfaction).
Offer ideas for further probing and research.
Help make certain (simple) decisions (such as decisions related to the use of specific communication channels depending on the customer profile, opening hours, cost reductions, staff employment, and the like).
Slide 4-15
3-Causal research questions
Causal studies test whether or not one variable causes another variable to change. In a causal study, the researcher is interested in delineating one or more factors that are causing a problem.
E.g., “What is the effect of a reward system on productivity?”
E.g., “How does perceived value affect consumer purchase intentions?”
The intention of the researcher conducting a causal study is to be able to state that variable X causes variable Y. So, when variable X is removed (e.g., drinking) or altered in some way, problem Y is solved (note that quite often, however, it is not just one variable that causes a problem in organizations).
In order to establish a causal relationship, all four of the following conditions should be met:
The independent and the dependent variable should covary.
The independent variable (the presumed causal factor) should precede the dependent variable.
No other factor should be a possible cause of the change in the dependent variable.
A logical explanation (a theory) is needed and it must explain why the independent variable affects the dependent variable.
Slide 4-16
Theoretical Framework
A theoretical framework represents your beliefs on how certain phenomena (or variables or concepts) are related to each other (a model) and an explanation on why you believe that these variables are associated to each other (a theory).
Identify and label the variables of the study
State the relationships among the variables: formulate hypotheses
Explain how or why you expect these relationships
Slide 5-17
Theory of planned behaviour
(Taylor & Todd, 1995)
18
Variable
Variable: any concept or construct that varies or changes in value. The attributes of a variable should be mutually exclusive, no respondent should be able to have two attributes simultaneously
Main types of variables:
Dependent variable
Independent variable
Moderating variable
Mediating variable
Slide 5-19
(In)dependent Variables
Dependent variable (DV)
Is of primary interest to the researcher. The goal of the research project is to understand, predict or explain the variability of this variable.
Independent variable (IV)
Influences the DV in either positive or negative way. The variance in the DV is accounted for by the IV.
Slide 5-20
Example of IV and DV
Slide 5-21
Depression
Stress
Moderators
Moderating variable
Moderator is qualitative (e.g., gender, race, class) or quantitative (e.g., level of reward) variable that affects the direction and/or strength of relation between independent and dependent variable.
Example 1
Slide 5-22
Moderator variable
Example 2
Hypotheses: 1. the number of driving lessons has a positive effect on the person’s ability to park a car.
2.Women learn to park a car more quickly than men
Number of driving lessons
Ability to park a car
Gender
Mediating variable
Mediating (intervening) variable
surfaces between the time the independent variables start operating to influence the dependent variable and the time their impact is felt on it.
Helps explain why the independent variable affects the dependent variable. Understand the process.
Hypothesis
It is an empirical statement concerned with the relationship among variables. It tests what the researcher expected to find
Good hypothesis:
Must be adequate for its purpose
Must be testable
Must be better than its rivals/alternates
The expected relationships/hypotheses are an integration of:
Exploratory research
Common sense and logical reasoning
Theory
Slide 5-25
1- Null Hypothesis: a statement of no difference/no relationship
There is NO significant difference between work ethic values of American and Asian employees.
There is no relationship between age and job satisfaction.
2- Alternate : a statement of difference/relationship
A – Alternate Non-directional:
There is a significant difference between the work ethic values of American and Asian employees.
There is a relationship between age and job satisfaction.
B- Alternate Directional:- One increases the other increases or decreases – One decreases the other decreases or increases H: Positive study habits are related positively to GPA.
H: Positive study habits are related negatively to cheating.
Types of Hypotheses
Source: Baregheh, A., Hemsworth D., Rowley, J., Davies, D. (2012) The role of organizational characteristics on position and paradigm innovation, The 5th ISPIM Innovation Symposium, Seoul, Korea.
.
0.77
0.78
0.87
0.90
0.88
0.74
0.80
Size
Age
Marketing Innovation
MI2
MI3
MI4
MI5
MI6
MI6
MI1
0.25
-0.16
Hypothesis: There is a negative relationship between age of an organization and marketing innovation.
Example
27
Exercise
1- Identify what variables are reflected in the following framework:
2- Give the hypotheses for the following framework:
Service quality
Customer switching
Switching cost
Slide 5-28
Exercise
1- Identify what variables are reflected in the following framework:
2- Give the hypotheses for the following framework:
Customer satisfaction
Service quality
Customer switching
Slide 5-29
In a group, identify the factors influencing university criteria selection for students, and then try to develop a conceptual model on the basis of your discussions. Develop also 3 hypotheses.
Exercise
30
A researcher develops hypotheses which suggest that consumers like ads better when they (1) are truthful, (2) creative, and (3) present relevant information.
Picture the conceptual model that would show these relationships.
Which variables are the independent and dependent variables?
Develop the hypotheses related to these relationships.
Exercise
31
Conceptual Model
Perceived Intelligence
Physical Attractiveness
Communality of Interests
Likelihood
to Date
Gender
Perceived Fit
+
+
+
+
+
Slide 15-32
Exercise
33
Research Design & Strategies
Ch. 6
Research Design & Strategies
Research design: a blueprint or plan for the collection, measurement, and analysis of data, created to answer your research questions.
A research strategy is a plan for achieving a your research goal (s). It helps you to meet your research objective(s) and to answer the research questions of your study.
The choice for a particular research strategy depends on the research objective(s) and (the type of) research questions of your study, but also on your viewpoint on what makes good research.
Slide 14-2
Research Strategies
Major Research Strategies
Experiments
Survey Research
Ethnography
Case studies
Slide 14-3
Case studies
Experiments
Experiments are usually associated with a hypothetico-deductive approach to research. The purpose of an experiment is to study causal relationships between variables. Experimental designs are less useful or appropriate for answering exploratory and descriptive research questions.
In an experiment, the researcher manipulates the independent variable to study the effect of this manipulation on the dependent variable. In other words, the researcher deliberately changes a certain variable (or certain variables),
Slide 14-4
for instance “reward system”, to establish whether (and to what extent) this change will produce a change in another variable, in this example “productivity”. The simplest experimental design is a two-group, post-test-only, randomized experiment, where one group gets a treatment, for instance “piece wages”. The other group (the comparison group, in this example the “hourly wages” group) does not get the treatment. Subjects (workers) are randomly assigned to the groups and hence the researcher is able to determine whether the productivity of the two groups is different after the treatment. Later on in this chapter, we will have more to say about the extent of researcher interference with the study and the study setting. This will help us to make a distinction among field experiments and lab experiments. Chapter 10 discusses lab experiments and field experiments, manipulation, controlling “nuisance” variables, factors affecting the validity of experiments, and various types of experiments in considerable detail.
4
Survey research
A survey is a system for collecting information from or about people to describe, compare, or explain their knowledge, attitudes, and behavior (Fink, 2003).
The survey strategy is very popular in business research, because it allows the researcher to collect quantitative and qualitative data on many types of research questions. Indeed, surveys are commonly used in exploratory and descriptive research to collect data about people, events, or situations.
The questions in survey instruments are typically arranged into self-administered questionnaires that a respondent completes on his or her own, either on paper or via the computer.
Other survey instruments are interviews and structured observation.
Slide 14-5
(
5
Ethnography
Ethnography is a research strategy that has its roots in anthropology. It is a strategy in which the researcher “closely observes, records, and engages in the daily life of another culture […] and then writes accounts of this culture, emphasizing descriptive detail” (Markus & Fischer, 1986, p. 18).
Ethnography involves immersion in the particular culture of the social group that is being studied (such as, for instance, bankers in the City of London), observing behavior, listening to what is said in conversations, and asking questions. It thus aims to generate an understanding of the culture and behavior of a social group from an “insider’s point of view.”(Sekaran 97-98)
Slide 14-6
(
6
Case studies
Case study focuses on collecting information about a specific object, event or activity, such as a particular business unit or organization. In case studies, the case is the individual, the group, the organization, the event, or the situation the researcher is interested in. The idea behind a case study is that in order to obtain a clear picture of a problem one must examine the real-life situation from various angles and perspectives using multiple methods of data collection.
a case study can be defined as a research strategy that involves an empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context using multiple methods of data collection (Yin, 2009).
It should be noted that case studies may provide both qualitative and quantitative data for analysis and interpretation.
Slide 14-7
(
7
Population to be Studied
See the book for detail p 105-106
Unit of analysis:
Individuals
Dyads
Groups
Organizations
Cultures
Study Setting
Contrived: artificial setting
Non-contrived: the natural environment where work proceeds normally
Slide 6-8
8
Time Horizon of Studies
Cross-sectional studies
Snapshot of constructs at a single point in time
Use of one sample at one point in time
Multiple cross-sectional studies
Constructs measured at multiple points in time
Use of different sample at multiple points in time
Longitudinal studies
Constructs measured at multiple points in time
Use of the same sample at multiple points in time = a true panel
Slide 6-9
9
Data Collection Methods: Introduction and Interviews
Primary data collection methods: ways in which data collected from original sources for the specific purpose of the study can be gathered.
Business is largely a social phenomenon. Much of the information needed to make decisions in the work setting has to come from people. That is why the survey strategy is very popular in business research.
The three main data collection methods in survey research are interviews, observation, and questionnaires.
A thorough knowledge of these methods will help you to evaluate alternative approaches to primary data collection. Problems researched with the use of appropriate methods greatly enhance the value of the study.
Slide 7-10
Interviews
An interview is a guided, purposeful conversation between two or more people.
Unstructured interviews:
the interviewer does not enter the interview setting with a planned sequence of questions to be asked of the respondent.
Structured interviews:
Conducted when it is known at the outset what information is needed.
The interviewer has a list of predetermined questions to be asked of the respondents either personally, through the telephone, or via the computer.
Semi structured interviews:
Slide 7-11
11
Personal Interview
Face to Face
Advantages
Can clarify doubts about questionnaire
Can pick up non-verbal cues
Relatively high response/cooperation
Special visual aids and scoring devises can be used
Disadvantages
High costs and time intensive
Geographical limitations
Response bias / Confidentiality difficult to be assured
Some respondents are unwilling to talk to strangers
Trained interviewers
Slide 7-12
Telephone Interview
Advantages
Discomfort of face to face is avoided
Faster / Number of calls per day could be high
Lower cost
Disadvantages
Interview length must be limited
Low response rate
No facial expressions
Slide 7-13
Group Interviews
Focus groups consist typically of eight to ten members with a moderator leading the discussions on a particular topic, concept, or product.
Focus group research is a generic term for any research that studies how groups of people talk about a clearly defined issue. An expert panel is a group of people specifically convened by the researcher to elicit expert knowledge and opinion about a certain issue.
Slide 7-14
Observation
Observation involves going into ‘the field’, – the factory, the supermarket, the waiting room, the office, or the trading room – watching what workers, consumers, or day traders do, and describing, analyzing, and interpreting what one has seen.
The observation aspect
Finding a ‘sponsor’
Obtaining permission
Establishing rapport
Slide 8-15
15
Examples
Shadowing a Wall Street broker engaged in his daily routine.
Observing in-store shopping behavior of consumers via a camera.
Sitting in the corner of an office to observe how a merchant bank trader operates.
Working in a plant to study factory life.
Studying the approach skills of sales people disguised as a shopper.
Slide 8-16
Questionnaire Design
Definition
A questionnaire is a pre-formulated, written set of questions to which the respondent records his/her answers
Steps
Determine the content of the questionnaire
Determine the form of response
Determine the wording of the questions
Determine the question sequence
Write cover letter
Slide 9-17
Table 9.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Questionnaires
Mode of data collection Advantages Disadvantages
Personally administered questionnaire
is a self-administered (paper and pencil) questionnaire that is distributed by the researchers or his/her assistant to participants.
Can establish rapport and motivate respondent.
Doubts can be clarified.
Less expensive when administered to groups of respondents.
Almost 100% response rate ensured.
Anonymity of respondent is high. Explanations may introduce a bias.
Take time and effort.
Mail questionnaires
are self-administered (paper and pencil) questionnaires that are sent to respondents via the mail. Anonymity is high.
Wide geographic regions can be reached.
Token gifts can be enclosed to seek compliance.
Old-fashioned and obsolete.
Respondent can take more time to respond at convenience. Can be administered electronically, if desired. Response rate is almost always low. A 30% rate is quite acceptable.
Cannot clarify questions.
Follow-up procedures for nonresponses are necessary.
Electronic questionnaires
online questionnaires are posted on the Internet (e.g., social networks) or sent via email or mobile phones
Easy to administer.
Can reach globally.
Easy to access specific target groups.
Very inexpensive.
Fast delivery.
Respondents can answer at their convenience like the mail questionnaire.
Automatic processing of answers. Computer literacy is a must.
Sampling issues.
High non-response.
Not always possible to generalize findings.
Respondent must be willing to complete the survey.
People find invitations via e-mail rude and offensive; mails are deleted or people complain.
Questionnaires
Slide 9-18
2. Response Format
Closed vs. Open-ended questions
Closed questions
Helps respondents to make quick decisions
Helps researchers to code
Open-ended question
First: unbiased point of view
Final: additional insights
Complementary to closed question: for interpretation purpose
Slide 9-19
3. Question wording
book page 146
Avoid double-barreled questions
“do you think that students should have more classes about history and culture?“
Do you think there is a good market for the product and that it will sell well?”
Avoid ambiguous questions and words
“To what extent would you say you are happy?”
Use of ordinary words
Avoid leading or biasing questions
Social desirability
Avoid recall depended questions
Slide 9-20
We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.
Premium Quality
Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.
Experienced Writers
Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.
On-Time Delivery
Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.
24/7 Customer Support
Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.
Complete Confidentiality
Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.
Authentic Sources
We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.
Moneyback Guarantee
Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.
Order Tracking
You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.
From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.
Preferred Writer
Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.
Grammar Check Report
Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.
One Page Summary
You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.
Plagiarism Report
You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.
Free Features $66FREE
Most Qualified Writer
$10FREE
Plagiarism Scan Report
$10FREE
Unlimited Revisions
$08FREE
Paper Formatting
$05FREE
Cover Page
$05FREE
Referencing & Bibliography
$10FREE
Dedicated User Area
$08FREE
24/7 Order Tracking
$05FREE
Periodic Email Alerts
$05FREE
Our Services
Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.
On-time Delivery
24/7 Order Tracking
Access to Authentic Sources
Academic Writing
We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.
Professional Editing
We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.
Thorough Proofreading
We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.
Thorough Proofreading
We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.
Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals
Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!
We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing
We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.
Clear elicitation of your requirements.
Customized writing as per your needs.
We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services
We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.
Proactive analysis of your writing.
Active communication to understand requirements.
We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades
We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.
Thorough research and analysis for every order.
Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.
