Moralization in Personnel Selection Leonie Krumbholz
Abstract
This thesis examines the relationship between moralization and decision-making of hiring managers and the moderating effect of formalization. Decision-making in general is highly influenced by biases such as heuristics. Thus, decisions in personnel selection are often prone to be influenced by misleading factors, which can lead to discrimination in the selection procedure. To remove these biases and offer equal treatment to all applicants, the concept of formalization was introduced. Formalization is the standardization of internal work process and the prescription of actions to provide equal opportunities for all candidates. It is therefore crucial to examine the relationship between moralization and decision-making in personnel selection to reveal a possible bias on decision-making. This study will be conducted based on data retrieved through the website Mechanical Turk and moralization will be measured using the moralization scale. Six hundred-one subjects (N = 601) filled in an online survey and were asked to evaluate the presented resume. Logistic and multiple regressions were used to
estimate the effect and prediction of formalization and moralization on decision making in personnel selection. The results showed that moralization did not influence the hiring selection in a negative way as hypothesized and formalization did not have an impact on the relationship of moralization and personnel selection.
Moralization in Personnel Selection
Oftentimes, people prematurely judge a person based on their appearance or other factors. For example, when seeing an obese person one might associate this person’s appearance with their lifestyle or character. This process was termed by Jordan and her colleagues (2014) as moralization. Moralization is defined as “the extent to which mundane behaviors are seen as indicative of the morality of the actor“(Jordan, 2014). Simply put, it is the process of judging the mundane behavior or characteristics of a person and based on this observation making a conclusion about this person’s morality. Furthermore, judging and making a decision can occur unconsciously (Coppin, 2014; Brooks & Stein, 2014, Skandrani-Marzouki, & Skandrani-Marzouki, 2010). Many daily decisions are influenced by moralization but also many important decisions are influenced by this unrecognized bias. An area where crucial decisions are made is the field of personnel selection. One method to lessen the impact of biases onto hiring decisions is the concept of formalization. Formalization is defined as
executive orders of internal processes (Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, & Turner, 1968). Furthermore formalization is characterized by prescribed actions, constraints to action and sequencing of actions (Noon, 2012; Konrad & Linnehan, 1995). In this study formalization will refer to specified procedures instructions of hiring processes and decisions.
This regulation of internal processes should provide control and standardization of processes and should lead to equality of opportunity for each candidate (Noon, Healy, Forson, & Oikelome, 2013; Konrad, & Linnehan, 1995, Vinson, & Holloway, 1977). The proposed problem is that a hiring manager might be unaware about their unethical decision making in personnel selection, which in turn might be influenced by their level of moralization.
Moreover these incorrect decisions could lead to litigation or a loss of economic value for the organization. In specific, when the decision is not based on an elaborate judgment by
automatically moralized judgment this can be seen as discriminating. Therefore, the proposed research question of this study is the following: “Does formalization decrease the impact of moralization on fairness in decision-making in the personnel selection processes?”
It is highly relevant to examine the relationship of moralization and personnel
selection so that hiring managers are less influenced by potentially moralizing characteristics and can look behind these attributes in order to focus on important skills, knowledge and abilities of an applicant. Additionally this could help to lower the impact of moralization on hiring decisions through formalized processes and to provide equal opportunities for all candidates. This is why the proposed conceptual model tries to examine the impact of moralization on personnel selection and the moderating effect of formalization.
Figure 1.Coneptual Model
Figure 1.Conceptual model about the used composition of concepts in this study
It is expected that the results show that the resume without potentially moralizing content is significantly more preferred, hence that resumes with possibly moralizing content are more often rejected. Furthermore it is anticipated that formalization lessens the impact of moralization on decision-making. The overall structure of the paper takes the form of five sections, including this introductory section. In the second section of this paper the theoretical framework of this study is presented. Here, research findings and literature of personnel selection, moralization and formalization are elaborated and the hypotheses are developed. The third section of this paper is concerned with the methodology used for this study. In the fourth section the statistical analyses are described and research findings of this study are demonstrated. The final section contains the discussion of these research results; additionally, limitations and implications of the findings for future research into this area and a final conclusion are given.
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development Decision Making and Personnel Selection
Decision-making is defined as a process that involves internal processes by which a course of action is chosen or not, from a set of many alternatives (Reese, & Rodeheaver, 1985). Numerous studies have been conducted in order to examine and understand how people are making decisions. Furthermore, it has been analyzed what kind of factors and
Formalization
Moralization Personnel
biases are influencing the process of decision-making. However, the concept of decision making is still not fully understood and explored. The reason for this is that decision-making is a complex process and a lot of factors can influence a decision unconsciously (Coppin, 2014; Brooks & Stein, 2014). Due to the long research history and the complex process of decision making a lot of competing models have been developed (McFall, 2015). For example Simon´s theory of bounded rationality (1955) states that individuals are only capable to some extent of making rational decisions and that the choice process depends on the amount of information we can process due to cognitive limitations (Simon, 1955). For this research it is important to keep in mind that human decision-making is not as rational as we want it to be and that it is influenced by many factors unconsciously. This sometimes uncontrollable process of decision-making can have detrimental outcomes when important decisions are made or the decision has an impact on another person. Both mentioned examples are the case in personnel selection.
In hiring decisions it is crucial to be as objective as possible to find the best suitable candidate, in order to give every applicant the same opportunity and to not violate any laws. Münsterberg was the first in 1913 to explore what the crucial factors are to find the best applicant and what kind of characteristics should be considered in staffing decisions
Moralization
As mentioned above, individuals are only capable of making rational decisions to some extent and are often constrained to use short-cut strategies (heuristics) to compensate for cognitive limitations (Simon, 1955). People tend to judge an entire object or person by
focusing their attention on subset of this object, whereby this subset is overweighed relative to the unattended subset (Simon, 1955). This focusing illusion can occur due to the factor of stereotyping which leads to the scheme that people focus more on some characteristics and downplay others (Schkade, & Kahneman, 1998). Stereotyping in this study is defined as:” The cognitive component of bias, as category-based beliefs about a group that also involve affective–evaluative loading and behavioral tendencies” (Fiske, & Tablante, 2015, pp. 457). In other words, a stereotype exists when a categorization of a group of people is made and when a characteristic of this group is recognized and a classification is made upon this one attribute. Stereotyping and making generalizations is similar to the process of moralization.
race).This difference in treatment might then lead to an unfavorable selection (Anderson, 2011). When discrimination in hiring decisions is of racial or ethnical nature this can lead to legal actions (Hebl, Madera, & Martinez, 2014), cost the organization not only money but might also decrease the reputation of the firm.
Until now, there has been no research about the influence of moralization on decision making in general, or more specifically in the case hiring decisions. This thesis examines the relationship of moralization and personnel selection and it is hypothesized that high
moralizers are more likely to reject people based on characteristics that are potentially moralizing. It is hypothesized that high moralizers are more influenced in their selection decisions by the moral content of job applicants’ resumes.
Formalization
To overcome biases and provide a standardized process in hiring decisions, the concept of formalization was introduced (Jewson & Mason, 1986). Formalization is the regulation and prescription of working processes to improve fairness, hence equalize opportunities in organizations and in our case in hiring decisions (Noon, Healy, Forson, & Oikelome, 2013). Nowadays two types of formalization exist in human resource management structures: “Identity blind and Identity conscious.”( Konrad & Linnehan, 1995). Identity blind is a formalization structure designed to guarantee each applicant the same human resource decision-making. This type of formalization should eliminate discrimination through judging an applicant only on the basis of his or her achievements and ignore his or he group
790).
In this study the structure of identity-blind human resource management will be used because participants should not focus on gender, race or ethnicity. Additionally formalization is implemented in this study to decrease discrimination and not to make participants aware of discrimination. In specific, this study will make use of threshold selection as formalization. Threshold selection is a selection method where each applicant is evaluated against the job specifications needed for a specific position to determine the extent to which the applicant has the suitable requirements to do the job (Noon, 2012). This method produces a greater degree of formalization and can limit the influence of biases in selection decisions (Noon, 2012).
If a working process is formalized, equal opportunities are not guaranteed but should be preferred to informality (Jewson, & Mason, 1986b). Therefore formalization should decrease the impact of moralization on decision making in personnel selection through providing a standardized and more objective selection. Thus it is hypothesized that
formalization eliminates or decreases the impact of moralization, a bias, on decision-making in personnel selection process. The second hypothesis of this study is the following:
Formalization decreases the impact of moralization on the personnel selection process. Method
A 3x2 factorial research design was used to test the two hypotheses. The study consists of three independent variables (Group, Moralization, Formalization) and two
dependent variables (Decision, Recommendation). To construct resumes for the main study a pre-test was necessary to find items that were perceived as ambiguously moralizing
Pre-Test
Participants and procedure. Participants for the pre-test were recruited using the online platform Mechanical Turk. The study was designed in such a way to get participant ratings on how moralizing different items are perceived.
A randomly selected sample of 152 subjects participated in the pre-test. Over half of the participants in the sample were male (57%, N=87) and 43% (N=63) were female. The mean age of the sample was 36.19 years; the ages varied from 19 years to 73 years. The distribution of highest education and the highest obtained degrees was widely distributed. The majority indicated a bachelor’s degree as their highest obtained degree. Most of the
participants were Caucasian (74%, N=112), sixteen were African American (11%, N=16) and eight participants were Asian (5% N=8). Participants were asked to fill in an online survey that consisted of two parts and took approximately 10 minutes to complete. In the beginning of the survey, a statement was given that participation was voluntary and that the data would be kept anonymous. Participants had to agree on the term that was stated otherwise they were excluded from the survey.
characteristics. In last part of the survey participants were asked to fill in questions of the moralization scale.
Pre-Test Results. Tables 1-4 show the results obtained from a preliminary analysis of all items in the four categories (Hobbies, Volunteering, Work experience, Names). Standard deviations and means were calculated for each item. Only the most ambiguous items of each category are shown. An ambiguous item is an item that is not perceived as indicative of the morality of a person nor extremely indicative. Items with a mean in between of the 7-point-Likert scale are shown. In this analysis most ambiguous items are those with a mean above M = 3 and beneath M = 4.5 and a high standard deviation around two.
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of the Category Hobbies
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of the Category Volunteering
Self Other Item M SD M SD Right-wing Political Organizations 4.17 2.00 4.70 1.85 National Rifle Association (NRA) 3.89 2.06 4.63 1.84 Note. N=152. Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations of the Category Work Experience
Self Other Item M SD M SD Philip Morris 3.19 1.93 4.61 1.91 Monsanto 2.95 1.87 3.99 1.93 British Petroleum 2.80 1.72 3.93 1.85 Pharmaceutical Corp. 3.04 1.82 3.99 1.76
Whole Foods Market 2.97 1.92 3.57 1.94
Investment bank 3.38 1.96 4.37 1.88
Table 4
Means and Standard Deviations of the Category Names
Self Other M SD M SD Azize Hussein 2.29 1.89 3.71 2.02 Ikram Maalouf 2.20 1.74 3.51 2.00 Seyah Wasem 2.05 1.61 3.37 1.96 Note. N = 152.
The analysis yielded that many of the presented items are perceived as ambiguously moralizing. After preliminary analysis of these results only the category “work experience” and the category “name” have been chosen for further analysis. The categories “volunteering” and” hobbies“ have been excluded of the analysis because they are less likely to appear on a resume or do not offer much information about specific skills. The categories “name“ and “work experience“ contain the most plausible items to find on a resume. Statistical analysis was done to find the item in each category with the highest mean in the range between 3 and 4.5 and a high standard deviation around 2. The results yielded that the items Philip Morris (M = 3.19, SD = 1.93) and Azize Hussein (M = 2.29, SD = 1.83) were the most ambiguous items in the category “work experience“ and the category name.
Constructing resumes. These pre-test results were used to build three resumes:”
neutral, name and work experience”. The “neutral” resume contained no potentially
potentially moralizing content. For the open position the job as an Corporate Affairs Officer was chosen, because it is a job with quite general responsibilities and could be filled with any person without special consideration regarding gender or race. Specifications for this job were retrieved from websites offering job descriptions for this position.( “Corporate Affairs and Communications Manager”, 2015; Ray, 2013). Seven specifications were chosen to be necessary for this position:” Organizational-/Administrative talent, Multitasking, Decision-making skills, Budgeting, Interpersonal Skills, Logical Thinking and a Degree in Business Administration”. As noted by Martin (2014) artificial or hypothetical resumes can be experienced as real by applicants.
Main Study
Participants and procedure. In the main study 601 participants (N=601) completed the survey. The participants included 282 (46,9%) women and 319 (53,1%) men. The age of this sample ranged from 18 to 76 years and the mean age of this study was 33.79 years old (SD=10.83). Of these six hundred one, three hundred twenty-one had enjoyed a higher-level education. From these three hundred twenty-one participants, 256 had a bachelor’s or equivalent degree, and sixty-five subjects had a master’s degree or PhD. The majority of the sample were Caucasian (76,7 %, N=461), fifty were Asian (8,3%, N=50), forty were African-American (6,7%, N=40), eight were Hispanic (4,7%, N=28) and twenty-two had an other ethnicity.
resume. After those seven specifications were given that were needed to fulfill the open position participants were asked to keep them in mind. An attention check followed, were the task was to identify the seven specifications.
In the second part of this study participants were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions. In each condition the same resume were presented but with one item changed. The resume was shown twice for at least 30 seconds. Conditions 1 and 2 were the No
Moralization conditions in which the neutral resume, without any item that could be
perceived as moralizing, was presented. Conditions 3 to 6 were the Moralization conditions. In conditions 3 and 4 the name was changed into Azize Hussein, which was derived from the pre-test as ambiguously moralizing. The work experience was changed in condition 5 and 6 to Philip Morris. Additionally condition 2, 4 and 6 were constructed as Formalized conditions were the specifications were shown simultaneously with the resume and participants had to rate each specifications on a 7 point-Likert-scale. After the resumes were shown for the second time participants had to indicate if they want to select or reject the applicant on the before seen resume and state if they would recommend the applicant on a 7 point-Likert scale. All resumes and an overview of the conditions are included in the appendix.
The third part consisted out of the moralization scale. Participants were asked to rate statements on how indicative these statements are of a person´s morality on a 7 point-Likert-scale. The moralization scale is implemented at the end of the survey so participants are not influenced by this questionnaire or get any idea what this study is about when they evaluating the resume. In the last part only general demographic questions were asked.
Measures. In this study moralization was measured with the moralization scale constructed by Jordan and her colleagues (2014).
Independent variables. As measurement method of moralization the moralization
participants have to indicate on 7 point-Likert-scale to what degree they disagree (1 = very strongly disagree) or agree (7 = strongly agree) with each statement. The reliability analysis revealed a Cronbach´s Alpha of 0.89, which indicates a good reliability of this scale.
Furthermore moralization (named group) was used in this study as manipulation to measure if potentially moralizing content can influence personal selection. Four of the six conditions contained resumes with potentially moralizing content (name or work experience) and two conditions hold resumes without potentially moralizing content (neutral).
Moderator variable. Formalization was chosen as moderator variable for this study to examine if formalization has an impact on the relationship of moralization and personnel selection. Formalization was manipulated in that way that in conditions 2,4 and 6 high prescription of actions (e.g. score each specification on the range from 1 = Very poor to 7 = exceptional) were given and in conditions 1,3 and 5 low prescription of actions (e.g. read the resume carefully) were specified. This manipulation was derived from Noon and colleagues (2012).
Dependent Variable. This study had two dependent variables (recommendation and
decision) to measure how applicants perceived and evaluated the before seen resume.
Recommendation was implemented to measure personnel selection on a continuous level and to be able to calculate a mean. The variable recommendation was assessed with a 7 point-Likert-scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (absolutely). Furthermore decision was chosen as
dichotomous (select, reject) dependent variable to have a clear distinction if the applicant will be chosen for the position or not.
Attention check. An attention check was implemented in this study to see if
implement this attention check was to see if the results were different from when only participants are included in the analysis that get seven, six or five specifications right.
Statistical analyses. To test the hypotheses of this study analysis of variance, multiple regressions and logistic regression were used for statistical analyses. Due to the fact that the variable group holds three levels (neutral, name, work experience) it had to be dummy coded into the following variables. Dummy variable 1 (D1, name) was coded with “0” for control or work experience and “1” for name. The values of dummy variable 2 (D2, work experience) were “0” for control or name and “1” for work experience. Hence, we end up with four independent variables: “D1, D2, formalization and moralization”.
Multiple regressions. A multiple regressions was required to analyze the impact of
the four independent variables on the dependent continuous variable recommendation. This analysis makes it possible to identify if the four independent variables can predict the value of the dependent variable recommendation. Furthermore through a multiple regressions the overall fit (variance explained) of the model can be determined and the relative contribution of each predictor alone to the total variance explained can be examined.
Logistic regression. A logistic regression was necessary to analyze the outcome for
the dichotomous variable decision. The regression was performed to see if the chosen model, including the four independent variables (D1, D2, formalization, moralization), can predict that a possible observations falls in the category select. This analysis allows ascertaining the effect of each independent variable and their interaction on the likelihood that the applicant would be selected.
ANOVA. An analysis of variance was chosen to determine if there is any significant
(group and formalization) have a significant interaction effect. Results
Descriptive Statistics
The descriptive of the moralization scale are the following: The overall mean of moralization was M = 3.66 and the standard deviation was 1.27. All of the following
mentioned analyses have been done only with participants who got the attention check right. Only 275 participants got all seven specifications right, 395 participants got six specifications right and 503 participants got five specifications right. The results yield no significant
difference to the results when all participants were included. Hypothesis One Testing
To answer Hypothesis 1, a multiple regressions and logistic regression was performed to assess the impact of moralization on the likelihood that participants would select the hypothetical applicant on the before seen resume. The multiple regressions and logistic regression models contained three independent variables (Dummy variable 1, Dummy variable 2, Moralization). The size of the sample is N = 304.
Logistic regression. The logistic regression analysis containing all predictors was not statistically significant 𝜒2 (5, N = 304) = 4.80, p = .538, indicating that the model was not able to distinguish between participants who would select or reject the applicant. When predictors were entered in the model only 1.3% (Cox and Snell R square) and 2.1%
Table 5
Logistic Regression Predicting Likelihood of Selecting the Applicant
B S.E. Wald df p Odds
Ratio Dummy: Name (D1)* .13 .352 .14 1 .70 1.14 Dummy: Work experience (D2)* .31 .352 .77 1 .37 1.36 Moralization .07 .245 .08 1 .77 1.07 D1M .31 .334 .90 1 .34 1.37 D2M -.11 .237 .09 1 .75 .896
Note. N =304. D1(0 = control or work experience, 1 = name), D2 (0 = control or name, 1 = work experience).
When the interaction effect of dummy variable 1 and moralization was entered it was 1.37 time more likely that a participant would select the applicant. In contrast the odds ratio for the interaction of D2 and moralization was less than one, which indicates that respondents in the work experience condition were .896 times less likely to select the applicant.
Multiple regression. Additionally a multiple regressions was calculated to predict recommendations based on the moralization score and group. With all predictors included only .08% of variance in recommendation can be explained. It was found that moralization did not significantly predicted recommendations score (𝛽= .083, p = .236). In conclusion the above-mentioned results do not support hypothesis one.
Hypothesis Two Testing
ANOVA. A two-way analysis of variance was conducted to see if the variables group (neutral, name, work experience) and formalization (formalization, no formalization)
interacted and if the main effects were statistically significant in predicting recommendation of an applicant. Table 6 shows the descriptive of the entered variables group and
Table 6
Descriptive of Two-Way Analysis of Variance.
Group Formalization M SD
Neutral No Formalization 5.15 1.29
Formalization 5.25 1.09
Name No Formalization 5.00 1.22
Formalization 5.10 1.25
Work experience No Formalization 5.26 1.31
Formalization 5.18 1.32
Note. N = 601 subjects
ANOVA with moralized conditions only. To analyze if formalization and the moralized condition N=399 (name and work experience) show a significant interaction effect or main effects a second analysis was done. The analysis yielded no significant main effect for group (moralization conditions) F(1, 1) = 1.77, p > .184 and for formalization F(1,1) = 0.05, p > .943. Additionally, the interaction was again not significant for group (moralization conditions) and formalization, F(1,1) = 0.53, p > .464.
Logistic regression. The logistic regression analysis with all predictors entered was not statistically significant 𝜒2 (11, N = 601) = 6.80, p = .815, the model was not able to
distinguish between participants who would select or reject the applicant. The variance in decision-making could be explained with 1.1% (Cox and Snell R square) and 1.8%
(Nagelkerke R squared) when all predictors were included. Table 7 shows the result of the logistic regression, indicating that none of the predictors were statistical significant. The baseline model predicted 80.0% correctly in the category select. When the constant only is entered, the model was able to predict the outcome statistical significant p < .000.
moralization alone and the interaction effect of formalization and moralization was above one indicating that participants were 1.18 times more likely to select the applicant. In contrast to the odds ratio of formalization was below one showing that participants were .812 less likely to select the applicant. The interaction between dummy variable 1 and moralization showed an odds ratio above one (D1*M, odds ratio = 1.19) and the interaction between dummy variable 2 and moralization displayed an odds ratio below one (D2*M, odds ratio = .859). Stating that participants were less likely to select the applicant when they were part of the work experience condition and moralization scores are taken into account.
Table 7
Logistic Regression Predicting Likelihood of Selecting the Applicant
B S.E. Wald df p Odds
Ratio Dummy: Name (D1)* .05 .254 .05 1 .81 1.06 Dummy: Work experience (D2)* .16 .253 .42 1 .51 1.18 Moralization .16 .188 .80 1 .36 1.18 Formalization -.06 .208 .105 1 .74 .935 D1*M .18 .254 .50 1 .47 1.19 D2*M -.15 .266 .32 1 .56 .859 D1*F -.07 .254 .08 1 .77 .929 D2*F -.14 .253 .32 1 .56 .865 F*M .09 .188 .27 1 .59 1.10 D1*F*M -.13 .254 .29 1 .59 .872 D2*F*M -.04 .266 .02 1 .87 .959
Note. N = 601. D1(0 = control or work experience, 1 = name), D2 (0 = control or name, 1 = work experience).
three models. Model 1includes all four predictor variables, while Model 2 contains all predictors and their 2-way interactions and Model 3 consists out of the four independent variables and their 2- and 3- way interactions.
Table 8
Multiple Regressions on the Dependent Variable Recommendation
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Intercept 5.193 (.088) 5.194 (.089) 5.194 (.089) Dummy: Name (D1) -.139 (.125) -.139 (.126) -.144 (.126) Dummy: Work experience (D2) .033 (.125) .029 (.125) .023 (.126) Formalization .019 (.051) .050 (.088) .050 (.089) Moralization .075 (.051) (.095) .069 (.095) .069 D1*F -.005 (.126) -.004 (.126) D2*F -.086 (.125) -.089 (.126) D1*M .005 (.126) .013 (.127) D2*M (.131) -.008 (.131) F*M -.012 (.052) (.095) -.014 D1*F*M .060 (.127) D2*F*M -.065 (.131) Observations 601 601 601 F-statistics 1.126 .568 .557 R2 .008 .009 .010 R2 adj. .001 -.007 -.008
Note: N= 601 Subjects. D1(0 = control or work experience, 1 = name), D2 (0 = control or name, 1 = work experience).
entered in Model 3, R2 increased marginally to 0.010. All of the three Models of this multiple regressions showed no significant F-statistics.
Dummy Variable 2 showed a negative influence on recommendation, but this relationship was not significant in any of the models. Additionally all other variables independently had a positive influence but were again not significant. Overall no predictor or interaction effects were statistically in any of the models. This discards Hypothesis 2, that formalization decreases the impact of moralization on the personnel selection process
Discussion Summary and Interpretation of Findings
Moralization is a recently developed concept of Jordan and her colleagues (2014). No previous study investigated the influence of moralization on personnel selection. Thus little is known about moralization and if this form of discrimination leads to an unequal and unfair treatment in hiring situations. In specific, this study examined if the well-known concept of human resource management formalization structure can diminish the negative influence of moralization on staffing selection. The present study sought to fill these voids in research and literature. Two hypotheses were tested and the two main results can be summarized as
follows.
Hypothesis 1 stated that high moralizers are more influenced in their selection decisions by the moral content of job applicants’ resumes. However, the statistical analysis yielded no statistically significant result. Moreover, potentially moralizing content and
needed specifications for the open position, which could have lead participants to accept the applicant more easily even in the moralization conditions. Another possible explanation could be that only one item in the resume was a potentially moralizing item, which might not have enough to evoke an moralized response by participants. The results showed that when moralization is included into the analysis, participants presented with the potentially
moralizing work experience of Philip Morris, they were less likely to select the applicant then when the name Azize Hussein was displayed. Nonetheless the results were not significant so they should be interpreted carefully.
This study has been unable to demonstrate a relationship between moralization and personnel selection. Overall, the results offer no evidence that discrimination in form of moralization influences the decision making in hiring situations.
Hypothesis 2 of this research assumed that formalization decreases the impact of moralization on the personnel selection process. In specific, that formalization would lead to an equal and fair treatment, hence that the applicant is more often selected when formalization is applied. The results of the statistical analyses did not support this hypothesis. Formalization in this study did not lead to the situation that the applicant was more often selected.
decision. This negative influence of work experience is in accordance with the results of the multiple regressions, were work experience had a negative impact on recommendation. Again this data must be interpreted with caution because the statistical analyses were not significant. These findings are inconsistent with the findings of Noon and his colleagues (2013), where formalization lead to an equal treatment of applicants. However, this study showed no significant results and found no evidence for a moderating effect of formalization on the decision making in personnel selection.
Limitations and Implications for Future Research
Finally, a number of important limitations need to be considered: First, the fact that this study was conducted online. There was no direct contact with the participants during this study, which made it impossible to see if participants took this study seriously or if they had any questions. A second limitation of this study is the used sample. In this study, the
participants had to carefully read the resume and rate it. The proposed judgment situations could be experienced as unfamiliar for participants. The participants were not used to make a decision in a hiring situation or more important where they had to look at the resume. Future research could replicate this study but with actual human resource managers.
A third concern of this study is the constructed resume. The resume was constructed to hold all of the seven specifications that could have lead to the outcome that participants were more prone to select the applicant. Additionally, the resume included only one potentially moralizing item, which might not have been enough to trigger a moralizing decision-making. For future research it is suggested to test different resumes with a different amount of
potentially moralizing item. The manipulation of formalization is a fourth limitation. Participants in the formalization condition were presented simultaneously with the
Future research could show the specifications in both conditions (Formalization and no formalization) to see if this influences the decision making of participants.
Finally, the last limitation is the possible bias of social desirability. Social desirability is the tendency of participants to present themselves in a more favorable way (Fisher, 1993). This impression management could also have taken place in this study. For example, a participant may have gotten the feeling that this study was about discrimination in personnel selection and may thus have adapted their answers to show a more favorable answer, therefore select the applicant more easily than they would actually have. This behavior could distort the research findings and decrease the reliability of this study. Overall, for future research a correlational experiment with moralization as independent variable and decision or
recommendations as dependent variables is suggested. The results of this study are helpful to understand the influence of moralization on decision-making and if a relationship exists. Conclusion.
The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationship of moralization and personnel selection. The research results of this study failed to support the two tested
hypotheses. First, this study was not able to show a negative influence of moralization on personnel selection. Second, the findings of this study yielded no evidence for the influence of formalization on the relationship of moralization and personnel selection. Overall it should be mentioned that the results can be interpreted as positive, because discrimination (e.g.
References
Anderson, N. (2011). Perceived job discrimination: Toward a model of applicant propensity to case initiation in selection. International Journal Of Selection And Assessment, 19(3), 229-244. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00551.x
Bogdanovic, D., & Miletic, S. (2014).Personnel evaluation and selection by multicriteria decision making method. Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 48(3), 22-39.
Brooks, S. J., & Stein, D. J. (2014). Unconscious influences on decision making:
Neuroimaging and neuroevolutionary perspectives. Behavioral And Brain Sciences, 37(1), 23-24. doi:10.1017/S0140525X13000666
Coppin, G. (2014). Unconscious influences of, not just on, decision making. Behavioral And Brain Sciences, 37(1), 24-25. doi:10.1017/S0140525X13000678.
Corporate Affairs and Communications Manager (2015, May 5).
http://www.careersportal.ie/careers/detail.php?job_id=114#.VX1-58kXJKw.
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal Of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303-315.
Fiske, S. T., & Tablante, C. B. (2015). Stereotyping: Processes and content. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, E. Borgida, J. A. Bargh, M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, ... J. A. Bargh (Eds.) , APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 1: Attitudes and social cognition (pp. 457-507). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/14341-015
Hebl, M. R., Madera, J. M., & Martinez, L. R. (2014). Personnel selection. In F. L. Leong, L. Comas-Díaz, G. C. Nagayama Hall, V. C. McLoyd, J. E. Trimble, F. L. Leong, ... J. E. Trimble (Eds.) , APA handbook of multicultural psychology, Vol. 2: Applications and training (pp. 253-264). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14187-015
Heneman, H. G., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Staffing organizations. New York, NY: McGraw- Hill Irwin.
Jewson, N., & Mason, D. (1986a). ‘The theory and practice of equal opportunity policies: liberal and radical approaches’, Sociological Review, 34, 307-334.
Jewson, N., & Mason, D. (1986b). Modes of discrimination in the recruitment process: Formalisation, fairness and efficiency. Sociology, 20(1), 43-63.
Jordan, J. (2014). “Moralization.”University of Groningen. 11Novemeber 2014.
Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982).. Judgment under Uncertainty:Heuristic sand Biases.1sted.NewYork:Cambridge University
Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Formalized HRM structures: Coordinating equal employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices? Academy Of Management Journal, 38(3), 787-820. doi:10.2307/256746
Martin, E. (2004). Vignettes and respondent debriefing for questionnaire design and evaluation.In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, & E. Singer(Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 149–171). Hoboken,NJ: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471654728.ch8 McFall, J. P. (2015). Rational, normative, descriptive, prescriptive, or choice behavior? The
McGarty, Craig; Yzerbyt, Vincent Y.; Spears, Russel (2002). Social, cultural and cognitive factors in stereotype formation. Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–15.
Münsterberg, H. (2009). Psychology and Industrial Efficiency. [Auckland, N.Z.]: Floating Press Limited, The.
Noon, M. (2012). Simply the best? The case for using 'threshold selection' in hiring decisions. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(1), 76-88.
doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2011.00168.x
Noon, M., Healy, G., Forson, C., & Oikelome, F. (2013). The equality effects of the 'hyper- formalization' of selection. British Journal Of Management, 24(3), 333-346.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00807.x
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13, 65-105.
Nadler, J. T., & Kufahl, K. M. (2014). Marital status, gender, and sexual orientation:
Implications for employment hiring decisions. Psychology Of Sexual Orientation And Gender Diversity, 1(3), 270-278. doi:10.1037/sgd0000050
Ray, L. (2013, November 8). Corporate Affairs Manager Job Description. Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/facts_5572546_corporate-affairs-manager-job-description.html Reese, H. W., & Rodeheaver, D. (1985). Problem solving and complex decision making. In J.
E.Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 606–625). New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal Of Economics, 6999-118. doi:10.2307/1884852
Skandrani-Marzouki, I., & Marzouki, Y. (2010). Subliminal emotional priming and decision making in a simulated hiring situation. Swiss Journal Of Psychology / Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Psychologie / Revue Suisse De Psychologie, 69(4), 213-219.
doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000025
Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States. American Journal Of Sociology, 117(2), 586-686.
Vinson, E., & Holloway, M. (1977). The effects of formalization on perceptions of
discrimination, satisfaction, effort and performance. Journal Of Vocational Behavior, 10(3), 302-315. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(77)90065-3
Von Stockhausen, L., Koeser, S., & Sczesny, S. (2013). The gender typicality of faces and its impact on visual processing and on hiring decisions. Experimental Psychology, 60(6), 444-452. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000217
Appendix Overview Conditions
Condition Resume Formalization
1. No Moralization Neutral No Formalization
2. No Moralization Neutral Formalization
3. Moralization Name No Formalization
4. Moralization Name Formalization
5. Moralization Work experience No Formalization
