Job Applicant Screening 1

The Use of Social and Professional Networking Sites in Job Applicant Screening:

An Empirical Investigation of Privacy, Justice, and Job Pursuit Variables

Kenneth S. Shultz and David B. Dysart

California State University, San Bernardino

Deborah A. Olson

University of La Verne

Abstract

Social and professional networking sites (SPNSs - e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter) have

increased exponentially not only in the number of users, but also in their uses. For example, as

SPNSs have become more prominent parts of people’s lives, organizations are starting to use them

as a job applicant screening tool. However, issues around these new practices have arisen (e.g.,

privacy, justice, and job pursuit). Therefore, the present study was conducted to empirically examine

the effects of several factors related to SPNSs in the recruitment and selection process. Using a

scenario based methodology, the results from the present study indicate that when the job individuals

were applying for involved children, participants rated the use of SPNSs as significantly less of an

invasion of privacy, more fair, and had a greater interest in pursuing the job than when SPNSs were

used in screening for jobs that did not involve children. Implications of these results for both theory

and practice are discussed.

 Job Applicant Screening 2

The Use of Social and Professional Networking Sites in Job Applicant Screening:

An Empirical Investigation of Privacy, Justice, and Job Pursuit Variables

The growth of Social and Professional Networking Sites (SPNSs), such as Facebook,

Twitter, and LinkedIn, has led to a myriad of issues for the people who use them. For example,

SPNSs have increased the ability of people to meet others (Ellison, Lampe, & Steinfield, 2009), as

well as create and maintain stronger bonds with people who would have otherwise been lost (Ellison,

Steinfield, & Lampe, 2011). However, when SPNSs are used in the employment context issues with

privacy arise. For example, the city of Bozeman, Montana in the USA in June of 2009 began

requiring all applicants to give up their username and password to not only their SPNSs, but all

personal and business websites as well and even other sites such as chat rooms and forums. While

the city of Bozeman likened their practice to a background check, national media coverage and the

resulting outrage from the public forced them to discontinue the practice (Brown & Vaughn, 2011).

Some of the strongest and most systematic criticism of this new practice comes from Brown

and Vaughn (2011). They bring up issues of this new practice being an invasion of privacy as well as

lacking any kind of theoretical constructs justifying its use as a screening tool, while lacking

evidence that it is even relevant. The researchers also bring up that across an applicant pool, there

will be an uneven amount of information that can be gained from each applicant, preventing any

kind of standardization of the process. The information that they do receive could be distorted by the

applicant due to issues of social desirability and self-monitoring. Lastly, the issue of the context of

the job must be considered.

Madera (2012), for example, studied the effects of SPNS use as a screening tool and found

that jobs that were screened by SPNSs were judged as less fair and were pursued less by participants

surveyed. Going beyond this, privacy has arisen as an issue when SPNSs are used to screen job

applicants (Debatin, Lovejoy, Horn, & Huges, 2009). Another variable, job context, has been

occurring in more research (Madera & Chang, 2011). A novel twist on this last variable is to specify
 Job Applicant Screening 3

it to childcare jobs. This allows researchers to assess if participants have a subjective view of SPNS

use, putting the benefits of SPNS use over the adverse impacts of privacy, fairness, and job pursuit

for certain jobs and not others.

To assess the public opinion of these variables, the current study examined if the use of

SPNSs as a screening tool was perceived as an invasion of privacy, whether it was perceived as fair

to use SPNSs, and whether participants would pursue a job with an organization that used SPNSs to

screen job applicants and compared the results based on whether the job in question involved

children or not.

Hypotheses 1. The use of social networking websites as a selection tool by an organization

will be perceived as less of an invasion of privacy when the job being applied for involves children.

Hypothesis 2. The use of social networking websites as a selection tool by an organization

will be perceived as less fair (less just) when the job being applied for does not involve children.

Hypothesis 3. Job pursuit intentions will be lower for an organization that uses social

networking websites as a selection tool for jobs not involving children compared to jobs that do

involve children.

Method

Participants and Procedures

A convenience sample of 166 participants was analyzed (32 men and 134 women) which

varied in age from 18 to 55 years old (M=24.36, SD=6.7). Participants were recruited through

snowball sampling techniques which recruited participants by sharing the survey link with friends

and colleagues (through sites such as Facebook), and asking them to pass on the survey hyperlink.

Participants used a self-report online survey administered via Qualtrics. In order to

participate in the study, a participant had to be at least 18 years old and be currently employed.

Participants received (in random order) the four scenarios described in the Appendix and then were

asked a series of questions regarding their perceived fairness, invasion of privacy, and job pursuit
 Job Applicant Screening 4

intentions. Scenario 2 explicitly references working with children, while Scenario 3 implicitly

references working with children. Neither Scenario 1 nor 4 reference working with children.

Materials

The measures used included Ambrose and Schmink’s (2009) six-item measure of Perceived

Overall Justice Scale (POJ) (alpha = .94), while Fairness was assessed by modifying the six-item,

Ambrose and Schmink (2009) POJ Scale (alpha = .94). To assess job pursuit intentions, three items

were used from Macan et al. (1994) and Smither et al. (1993) (alpha = .97).

Each of these three scales was applied to a series of four scenarios created for this study to

assess job context (e.g., childcare job versus a non-childcare job). Each scenario described the

participant being in a situation in which they are applying for a job, and the hiring organization

would log into the applicant’s Facebook account and “thoroughly look over your account” (See

Appendix for further information).

Results

Hypothesis 1. The view of an organization’s respect for privacy was significantly affected by

the type of job, V = .087, F(3, 165) = 5.25, p = .002, partial η2 = .087. See Figure for details.

Hypothesis 2. The view of an organization’s justice was significantly affected by the type of

job, V = .099, F(3, 163) = 5.95, p = .001, partial η2 = .099. See Figure for details.

Hypothesis 3. Job pursuit was significantly affected by the type of job, V = .164, F(3, 165) =

10.81, p < .001, partial η2 = .164. See Figure for details.

Discussion

The current study predicted that SPNSs would be perceived as less of an invasion of privacy

(hypothesis one), more fair (hypothesis two), and applicants would be more likely to pursue the job

(hypothesis three) if the job in question involved childcare rather than not. This new aspect of

SPNSs offers a novel variable in the literature. The results of the study supported all three of the

hypotheses.
 Job Applicant Screening 5

Madera and Chang (2011) found for one company that SPNSs were used for their

management applicants and those who were going to work the front of the house and not applicants

applying for entry level jobs and those working in the back, away from the customers. They did not

just indiscriminately use them for everyone, but for those positions they deemed as special or for

jobs that require interaction. This is in line with what was found in the current study. Participants

thought that when the job dealt with children (Scenarios 2 and 3) it was fairer than if the job did not

involve children (Scenarios 1 and 4). However, Madera (2012) found that when organizations used

SPNSs to screen job applicants, participants pursued jobs less than organizations that did not use

SPNSs to screen job applicants. When the post hoc comparisons were run, significant difference

were found everywhere they were expected (see Figure for details). In addition, gender was

examined as a between-subjects covariate, but it had no effect on the results.

Implications

The expansion of SPNSs is happening on a global scale (Ellison et al, 2009). If the evolution

of these sites results in the utilization by companies for recruitment and selection, then knowing

more about how the public will react to their use is crucial. Since people will tolerate the use SPNSs

for certain jobs, such as those involving children, while not tolerating for more mundane jobs with

less safety issues, SPNSs use would be better suited for those jobs that people deem to have access

to sensitive issues. This assumption however would have to be tested further to see if the current

study generalizes from childcare jobs to other sensitive jobs. The current study’s scenarios do

specify that the organization asked for the applicant’s username name and password. Since our

predictions are correct, we painted not only a fuller picture of SPNSs use in organization hiring, but

also show how people treat the standards of different occupations differently. Thus, the current study

extends the present research by showing how job context affects public opinion as well as privacy

issues related to SPNS use as a job applicant screening tool. Further research on job context is

needed (i.e., not simply childcare jobs) as it could fill the picture of SPNS use more.
 Job Applicant Screening 6

References

Ambrose, M. L. & Schminke, M (2009) The role of overall justice judgments in organizational
justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 491-500.
doi:10.1037/a0013203

Brandtzæg, P. B., & Heim, J. (2009, July). Why people use social networking sites. In A. Ozok & P.
Zaphiris (Eds.), Proceedings of the HCI International, San Diego (pp. 143–152). Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.

Brown, V. R., & Vaughn, E. D. (2011) The writing on the (facebook) wall: The use of social
networking sites in hiring decisions. Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 219-225.

Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A., & Huges, B. N. (2009). Facebook and online privacy:
Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 15, 83–108.

Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Steinfield, C. (2009). Social network sites and society: Current trends
and future possibilities. Interactions, Janurary-February, 6-9. doi:10.1145/1456202.1456204

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007) The benefits of facebook “friends:” Social capital
and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 12, 1143-1168.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011) Connection strategies: Social capital implications
of facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13(6), 873-892.

Elzweig, B., & Peeples, D. K. (2009). Using social networking web sites hiring and retention
decisions. SAM Advanced Management Journal, Autumn, 27-35

Macan, T.H., Avedon, M.J., Paese, M., & Smith, D.E., (1994). The effects of applicants’ reactions to
cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47, 715–738.

Madera, J. M. (2012) Using social networkingwebsites as a selection tool: The role of selection
process fariness and job pursuit intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
1213, 1-7. doi:10.1016/k.ijhm.2012.03.008

Madera, J. M. & Chang, W. (2011) Using social network sites to investigate employees in the
hospitality industry. International CHRIE Conference-Refereed Track. Paper 20.
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/refereed/ICHRIE_2011/Wednesday/20

Smither, J.W., Reilly, R.R., Millsap, R.E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey, R.W. (1993). Applicant
reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 49–77.
 Job Applicant Screening 7

Figure 1. Means of every scenario clustered by variable

Note: Error bars (adjusted for a repeated measures analysis) centered around the means.

APPENDIX - Job Scenarios

Scenario 1: Suppose you were applying for a temporary sales position at a department store to work
during Christmas break. As you are filling out the application you notice that they require you to
disclose your username and password for your Facebook account and other social networking sites
you currently use. During the interview they will log into and thoroughly look over your accounts.

Scenario 2: Imagine you are applying for a childcare provider at a day care center. As you are filling
out the application you notice that they require you to disclose your username and password for your
Facebook account and other social networking sites you currently use. During the interview they will
log into and thoroughly look over your accounts.

Scenario 3: Suppose you are applying for a position at the county of Riverside in the social services
department filing documents and answering phone calls. As you are filling out the application you
notice that they require you to disclose your username and password for your Facebook account and
other social networking sites you currently use. During the interview they will log into and
thoroughly look over your accounts.

Scenario 4: A property management company you are applying to is hiring a property management
position to manage apartments. As you are filling out the application you notice that they require you
to disclose your username and password for your Facebook account and other social networking
sites you currently use. During the interview they will log into and thoroughly look over your
accounts.