European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Applicants’ pre-test reactions towards video

interviews: the role of expected chances to
demonstrate potential and to use nonverbal cues

Karin Proost, Filip Germeys & Arne Vanderstukken

To cite this article: Karin Proost, Filip Germeys & Arne Vanderstukken (2021) Applicants’ pre-
test reactions towards video interviews: the role of expected chances to demonstrate potential
and to use nonverbal cues, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30:2,
265-273, DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2020.1817975

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1817975

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 07 Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4175

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
2021, VOL. 30, NO. 2, 265–273
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1817975

Applicants’ pre-test reactions towards video interviews: the role of expected chances
to demonstrate potential and to use nonverbal cues
Karin Proosta,b, Filip Germeysb and Arne Vanderstukkenc
a
Faculty of Psychology, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands; bFaculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven, Leuven,
Belgium; cFaculty of Management, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Technological innovations, among which the use of video interviews in personnel selection, are wel­ Received 1 July 2019
comed by organizations for reasons such as reductions in cost and time and the ability to reach a more Accepted 28 August 2020
global labour market. The literature to date suggests that applicants do not share this enthusiasm and KEYWORDS
feel less attracted towards organizations that use video interviews versus face-to-face interviews. In this Selection expectations; video
study, we extended the literature by studying pre- instead of post-test reactions and testing two interview; impression
explanatory mechanisms, namely expected chances to demonstrate potential and to use nonverbal management; organizational
cues. In a first within-subjects experiment among 38 students, the results of two t-tests showed that attraction; recruitment
participants preferred the face-to-face interview above the video interview and that they expected lower
chances to demonstrate potential and to use nonverbal cues in the video interview. In a second between-
subjects experiment among 121 potential job seekers, these results were partially replicated. The results
of a t-test and a mediation bootstrap analysis with PROCESS showed a significant indirect effect of
interview medium on organizational attraction via expected chances to demonstrate potential but not
via expected opportunities to use nonverbal communication. This study has important practical implica­
tions for organizations in the current context of talent shortages.

The personnel selection interview is one of the most popular
methods for selecting the right applicant for the job (Macan,
2009), for several reasons. First, the interview, if correctly struc­
tured, is quite accurate in predicting the future performance of
applicants (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Second, applicants tend to
favour the selection interview above other methods such as
personality tests and cognitive ability tests (Hausknecht et al.,
2004).
The interview has known several trends over its many years
of use, among which the introduction of videoconferencing
software to meet with potential employees (Lievens et al.,
2002; Sears et al., 2013). This technological innovation is
embraced by organizations for reasons such as cost and time
reduction, ability to reach a more global labour market (Bauer
et al., 2004), and keeping the procedure more green (Andrews
et al., 2013).
The literature, however, shows that applicants do not share
this enthusiasm (see Blacksmith et al., 2016, for a meta-analysis)
. For example, Horn and Behrend (2017) showed that 89% of
applicants preferred face-to-face interviews while only 9% pre­
ferred video interviews. The current literature on reactions
towards the use of technology in selection procedures, how­
ever, focuses on post-test reactions (e.g., Kroeck & Magnusen,
1997). Although this has its added value, it overlooks a second
crucial type of response towards a selection procedure, i.e., pre-
test reactions. Prior to applying and test-taking, applicants
typically receive information about the selection procedure
that moulds their expectations. These expectations have been
shown to influence pre-test motivation (Bell et al., 2006),
recommendation and litigation intentions (Geenen et al.,
2012) and organizational attraction (Schreurs et al., 2009;
Wanous et al., 1983). Moreover, pre-test expectations have
been shown to be key in understanding post-test reactions
(Bell et al., 2004). An important contribution of this study to
the literature is thus that we investigate whether the use of
video interviews, as part of a selection procedure, influences
applicants’ reactions as measured prior to taking the interview.
Second, the literature to date is limited in the sense that it
suggests that applicants react more negatively towards video
interviews than face-to-face interviews but fails to answer the
“Why” (Anderson, 2003). Chapman et al. (2003) and later
Blacksmith et al. (2016) suggested that video interviews may
make it more difficult for applicants to create a favourable
impression but did not empirically test this idea. Other studies
tested mechanisms such as procedural fairness and interviewer
characteristics (see, e.g., Sears et al., 2013). In this study, we
acknowledge the fact that communication occurs through two
important channels, namely both verbal and nonverbal and
that both channels may on the one hand be hampered by the
use of video’s in hiring interviews and on the other hand may
influence interview performance (Burnett & Motowidlo, 1998).
Specifically and based on media richness theory (Daft & Lengel,
1986), we suggest that applicants will expect lower chances to
demonstrate potential and to communicate through nonverbal
signals in video interviews versus face-to-face interviews. We
further expect that this will lead to a lower attractiveness of
organizations that use video interviews versus face-to-face
interviews. We empirically test this idea in two scenario studies,

CONTACT Karin Proost karin.proost@ou.nl

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/),
which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
266 K. PROOST ET AL.
manipulating whether applicants apply for a company that
uses video versus face-to-face interviews.
From post-test to pre-test reactions towards video
interviews
We know from the literature that, although applicants, in general,
react positively to the use of technology in personnel selection,
they are more hesitant with respect to video interviews (see
Blacksmith et al., 2016 for a meta-analysis). For example, in a semi-
experimental field study, Kroeck and Magnusen (1997) showed
a weak preference for face-to-face interviews versus video inter­
views, although this preference was stronger for recruiters than for
applicants. Later studies showed more pronounced negative reac­
tions of applicants. For example, Straus et al. (2001) showed that
students reacted more negatively to previously conducted mock
selection interviews via video versus face-to-face in terms of inter­
viewer likeability, ease of regulating and understanding the con­
versation, and feeling comfortable during the interview. Also,
Chapman et al. (2003) showed in a field study among students
who participated in a campus recruitment procedure, that appli­
cants perceived the interviewer, the interview procedure, and the
interview medium as less procedurally fair when the interview was
conducted via video versus face-to-face. Finally, Sears et al. (2013)
showed that applicants rated the video interview lower on proce­
dural fairness compared to the face-to-face interview on dimen­
sions such as chance to perform, offering selection information
and job-relatedness, as well as on interviewer characteristics such
as personableness, trustworthiness, competence and overall
appearance.
These studies measured the outcomes under study after
conducting a (mock) interview. In this study, we direct our
attention to pre-test reactions or expectations, which can be
defined as “probabilistic beliefs about the characteristics of the
forthcoming selection procedure” (Schreurs et al., 2008, p. 170).
As described by Derous et al. (2004), pre-test reactions may be
the “stepping-stones of future behavior” (p. 100), and thus may
offer valuable insights into applicants’ post-test reactions (see
also Howardson & Behrend, 2014).
Before participating in the selection procedure, applicants
form expectations about it, based on the information they
receive about the selection procedure. For example, organiza­
tions may inform applicants about the tests (and the technol­
ogy) that will be used in the selection procedure, motivated by
procedural fairness concerns (Bauer et al., 1998; Gilliland, 1995).
Based on media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986), we expect
that informing applicants that the interview will be held via
video may elicit more negative pre-test reactions compared to
face-to-face interviews. We assume this because applicants may
expect that video interviews may offer fewer opportunities to
demonstrate potential as well as to use nonverbal communica­
tion compared to face-to-face interviews. This pre-test expecta­
tion may, in turn, lead to lower organizational attraction.
Media richness theory and chances for (non)verbal
communication
Media richness is defined as “the ability of information to
change understanding within a time interval” (Daft & Lengel,
1986, p. 560) and depends on the availability of immediate
feedback (i.e., possibility to ask questions and to make correc­
tions), multiple cues (i.e., number of social cues available),
language variety (i.e., the range of meaning that can be con­
veyed), and personal focus (i.e., personal feelings and emotions
can be expressed, Daft et al., 1987). According to Media
Richness Theory, despite giant leaps in the development of
video conferencing technologies, video conferencing is still
behind on face-to-face interactions in terms of media richness
(Dennis & Kinney, 1998; Ishii et al., 2019). For example, in video
conferencing, verbal communication may be hindered by time
lags and other connection failures leading to less fluent com­
munication exchanges, which may prevent fluent turn taking
between communicating parties (Powers et al., 2011; Wegge,
2006). Also, nonverbal communication may be hindered in
different ways. For example, it may be more difficult to keep
good eye contact, especially since that would mean that both
parties would have to look directly in the camera, mostly posi­
tioned on top of the computer screen (see Bohannon et al.,
2013 for a review). Also, the opportunity to communicate via
body language and gestures (e.g., hand gestures that put
emphasis on important parts of the story) is restricted as people
are typically displayed from their mid-chest up (Chapman &
Rowe, 2002). Barry and Fulmer (2004) speak of a lower “social
bandwidth”, as the video interview may limit the exchange of
social (i.e., verbal, nonverbal and paralinguistic) cues.
Media Richness Theory further posits that the extent to
which these limitations hinder social exchanges and interpre­
tations depends on the goal of the communication (Daft et al.,
1987). When the goal of the communication is to exchange
factual information, lean communication media such as email
and shared online file storage are effective. When, on the
contrary, communication is meant to reduce equivocality or
ambiguity, a rich communication medium is important. This is
particularly so for the hiring interview, which can be defined
as a social exchange process: While the interviewer tries to sell
the organization and thus to attract the most qualified candi­
date (Wilhelmy et al., 2016), the applicant tries to convince the
recruiter that he/she is the most qualified candidate for the
job (Gilmore & Ferris, 1989; Proost et al., 2010). In this context,
both verbal and nonverbal communication plays a dominant
role (Peeters & Lievens, 2006) and applicants may fear that this
is hindered in the video interview. For example, the technical
difficulties and lack of nonverbal cues may make it more
difficult to get a sense of what the interviewer is thinking
and thus adequately judge how their performance is evalu­
ated, which consequently hinders the choice for the most
effective way to create a desired impression (see DeGroot &
Gooty, 2009; Doherty-Sneddon et al., 1997). Also, restrictions
in terms of use of smiles, nods, hand gestures and body
movements can lead to lower performance as they make it
more difficult to impress the recruiter (Peeters & Lievens,
2006) and to reach a shared understanding about the appli­
cant’s performance (Chapman & Rowe, 2002). Finally, the lack
of eye contact has been shown to lead to lower trust between
the parties (Bekkering, 2004) as well as lower likeability and
lower ratings on intelligence (Fullwood, 2007), aspects which
have an important influence on interview outcomes (Fox &
Spector, 2000).
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
When a medium is used that hinders this verbal and non­
verbal communication, it may be expected that applicants react
less positively. For example, Schreurs et al. (2009) showed that
organizations are perceived as more attractive when applicants
expect higher chances to show their potential. The same may
apply to nonverbal communication. Based on this literature, we
formulate the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Applicants are more attracted to organizations
conducting face-to-face interviews than to organizations con­
ducting video interviews.
Hypothesis 2: Applicants expect more chances to demonstrate
potential (H2a) and to use nonverbal cues (H2b) in face-to-face
interviews, compared to video interviews.
Hypothesis 3: Organizational attraction will be lower for video
interviews versus face-to-face interviews because applicants
expect lower chances to demonstrate potential (H3a), and to
use nonverbal cues (H3b) in video interviews compared to face-
to-face interviews.
Overview of the studies
We conducted two experimental studies to test the hypoth­
eses. In the first study, in line with the study of Kroeck and
Magnusen (1997), we asked applicants to directly contrast the
face-to-face interview with the video interview in a within-
subjects experimental design. We assessed pre-test expecta­
tions about chances to demonstrate potential and to use non­
verbal cues as well as organizational attraction. In the second
study, we followed a between-subjects experimental design
where each participant was assigned to only one condition
(i.e., face-to-face interview versus video). Only the latter design
allowed a direct test of the proposed mediations (hypothesis 3).
We chose to combine these two types of experiments as
they each have their own strengths and weaknesses (see
Charness et al., 2012). For example, a within-subjects design is
prone to demand effects (i.e., the participants interpret the
intentions of the experimenter and answer accordingly) but
offers more statistical power. On the contrary, a between-
subjects design offers no answering anchors but is more con­
servative in nature. By combining both experiments, weak­
nesses can be compensated and strengths can be reinforced.
Study 1
Sample and procedure
Study 1 was a within-subjects, vignette study on paper, distrib­
uted among 40 Business Administration students. Two stu­
dents did not answer all the questions for the focal variables
and were thus not included in the analyses, resulting in a final
sample of 38 students.
Seventy-eight per cent of the participants were women and
the participants were on average 22.27 years (SDage = 1.26).
51.3% had participated in an employment interview, 94.6% had
experience using videoconferencing software (i.e., Skype), and
267
18.9% had already participated in a employment interview via
videoconferencing software.
After being informed about the purpose of the study (“short
study into the use of technology in the selection interview and
applicants’ reactions towards interviews via Skype”) and com­
pleting the informed consent, participants were asked to ima­
gine that they had applied for a job, passed the first screening
and were kindly invited to participate in an employment inter­
view. On the next page, the same message appeared, for
a different company. One of the invitations (randomized across
questionnaires) specified that the interview would take place
face-to-face. The other invitation indicated that the interview
would take place via Skype (i.e., the video interview). Other
details such as the date of the interview and location of the
company were kept similar (although not identical, as to safe­
guard the realism of the vignettes). Finally, all participants com­
pleted a questionnaire on chance to demonstrate potential and
use nonverbal cues, attractiveness of the organization and some
demographic variables and were thanked for their participation.
Measures
Chance to demonstrate potential
Pre-Test expectations about chances to demonstrate potential
were assessed with five items taken from Schreurs et al. (2008).
A sample item is: “During this interview, I expect to get suffi­
cient opportunity to show what I’m capable of”. Items were
answered on a five-point scale (1 = a lot more for face-to-face
interviews, 5 = a lot more for video interviews). Internal consis­
tency of the scale was.84.
The use of nonverbal cues
Based on the literature, we developed three items to measure
pre-test expectations about the use of nonverbal cues (i.e.,
“During this interview, I expect that I will be able to make eye
contact with the interviewer/to smile to the interviewer/to use
hand gestures”), using the same five-point scale. Internal con­
sistency of this scale was .82.
Organizational attraction
Organizational attraction was assessed with seven items,
adopted from Highhouse et al. (2003). Three items measured
general attractiveness (e.g., “A job at this organization is very
appealing to me.”) and four items measured pursuit intentions
(e.g., “I would make this organization one of my first choices as
an employer.”). All items were measured on a five-point Likert
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). These items
were presented twice: once about the organization using the
face-to-face interview (α = .92) and once about the organization
using the video interview (α = .85).
Analyses
Because the measure of pre-test expectations was a relative
one in this study, we conducted a one-sample t-test to study
whether applicants perceived significantly more opportunities
to demonstrate potential and to use nonverbal cues in a face-to
-face interview (i.e., when the mean is significantly lower than 3,
the midpoint of the scale) or significantly more opportunities in
268 K. PROOST ET AL.
a video interview (i.e., when the mean is significantly higher
than 3). We used a paired-samples t-test to study the effect of
interview medium on organizational attraction.
Results
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations between
the variables in this study. Only the correlation between expecta­
tions about chances to demonstrate potential and to use non­
verbal cues was significantly positive.
Hypotheses testing
The results supported hypotheses 1, suggesting an effect of
interview medium on organizational attraction. Specifically, the
results showed that applicants found organizations using face-
to-face interviews significantly more attractive compared to
organizations using video interviews (MFTF = 3.73, MVideo = 2.95,
MDiff = 0.79, SD = 0.64, t(37) = 7.56, p < .01, d = 1.22).
H2 suggested that applicants’ expectations about the chance
to demonstrate potential H2a) and to use nonverbal cues (H2b)
would be lower for video interviews compared to face-to-face
interviews. The results indeed showed that applicants expected
a significantly higher chance to demonstrate potential in face-to-
face interviews vs. the video interview (as they scored signifi­
cantly lower than 3, the midpoint of the scale; M = 1.91, SD = .51, t
(37) = 13.20, p < .01, d = 2.14), which supports hypothesis 2a.
Second and in line with hypothesis 2b, more nonverbal commu­
nication opportunities were expected in the face-to-face inter­
view vs. the video interview (again scoring significantly lower
than 3; M = 1.83, SD = .75, t(37) = 9.58, p < .01, d = 1.56).
Discussion
The results of the first study supported the first two hypotheses
and showed that applicants prefer face-to-face interviews over
video interviews and expect lower chances to demonstrate
potential and to use nonverbal cues in video interviews versus
face-to-face interviews. A post hoc power analysis (Gpower)
showed that this study had an adequate power of 1.00 to con­
duct a one-sample t-test, with alpha set to .05 and an effect size
of 1.22 (set to the lowest value that was found in this study, see
H1). Although this study focused on pre-test expectations, the
lower attractiveness of organizations that use video interviews is
completely in line with studies on post-test perceptions about
video versus face-to-face interviews (Chapman et al., 2003; Sears
et al., 2013; Straus et al., 2001). This study adds to this literature
by focusing on pre-test expectations and by testing two possible
explanations. Whether these expectations really mediate
between the interview medium and organizational attraction,
Table 1. Descriptives and intercorrelations of study 1.
M SD 2 3
1. Chances to demonstrate potential 1.91 .51 .39* −.25
2. Use of nonverbal cues 1.83 .75 −.28+
3. Organizational attraction ftf 3.73 .41
4 Organizational attraction video 2.95 .63
ftf = face-to-face; +: p < .10; *: p < .05.
could not be tested in this study. Therefore, we set up a second
study that allowed to test hypothesis 3, following a between-
subjects design.
Study 2
Sample and procedure
Study 2 was an online between-subjects vignette study. An invita­
tion was sent to 212 potential job seekers who belonged to the
(social) network of the researcher. One hundred and twenty-one
participants decided to partake in the study (58% response rate).
Assuming a medium effect size of .50 (based on the meta-analysis
of Blacksmith et al., 2016 and the first study, that even showed
large effect sizes) and an alpha of .05, the achieved power of this
sample is .82 for a directional hypothesis and .73 for a non-
directional hypothesis (Gpower). One hundred and fourteen par­
ticipants completed the sociodemographic questionnaire at the
end of the survey (58% women, Mage = 32.41, SDage = 11.57). The
majority of participants were employed (69%), the others were
either student (29%) or fulltime job seeker (3%). Of the students,
47% was seeking a job and applied to one or more organizations.
Most participants knew Skype (99%) and had used it before to
make calls (77%) or to organize a video chat (66%). Only one
participant had used Skype to participate in a selection interview.
This study was similar to Study 1 but featured a between-
subjects design with two conditions (i.e., the face-to-face condi­
tion and the video condition) to which the participants were
randomly assigned. Specifically, participants were asked to pre­
tend that they had applied for multiple jobs a couple of weeks
earlier, but were then presented with only one of the emails (i.e.,
either the face-to-face interview email or the video interview
email). As a conservative test of the effect, we informed the
participants in this study that the interview (either face-to-face or
video) would take place in the offices of the potential employer, in
order to exclude the alternative explanation that the face-to-face
interview was favoured because of personal contact with the
recruiter and first acquaintance with the company. To justify the
request for the video interview to be held at the office, the emails
mentioned that participants had to be physically present to com­
plete psychological tests. Other details were kept constant (e.g.,
date of the interview). After reading the email, all participants
completed a questionnaire on chances to demonstrate potential
and use nonverbal cues as well as organizational attraction.
Although participants were randomized across conditions,
we checked whether the two groups were similar in terms of
demographic variables (i.e., age and gender) and experience
with skype. The results of a chi-square test did not show
a significant relationship between condition and gender
(0 = male, 1 = female), χ2 = 1.88, p = .17, nor between condition
and experience (0 = no, 1 = yes), χ2 = 1.66, p = .20. An inde­
pendent sample t-test also did not show a significant difference
in mean age between the two groups, t(111) = .35, p = .72.
4
.27 Measures
−.05
.30+ Chance to demonstrate potential
Pre-Test expectations about chances to demonstrate potential
were assessed with the same five items as in study 1. Instead of

making a direct comparison as in study 1, participants were
asked to answer on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly
disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha of this scale
was .85.
The use of nonverbal cues
Expectations about the use of nonverbal cues were also
assessed in the same way but with one additional item, i.e.,
“During this interview, I expect that I will be able to nod my
head to show agreement with the opinion of the interviewer”.
Internal consistency of this four-item scale was .73. All items
were rated on a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree).
Organizational attraction
Organizational attraction was measured with a more elaborate
scale of ten items, with five items measuring general attractive­
ness and five items measuring pursuit intentions (Highhouse
et al., 2003). All items were scored on a Likert-scale from 1 (=
totally disagree) to 5 (= totally agree). This scale had an internal
consistency of .94.
Analyses
We conducted three independent sample t-tests to compare
the expectations about chances to demonstrate potential, to
use nonverbal cues and organizational attraction across condi­
tions (i.e., one t-test for H1 and H2a and H2b, respectively). We
further tested the indirect effects of face-to-face versus video
interviews on organizational attraction via chances to demon­
strate potential and the use of nonverbal cues (H3a and H3b) by
generating 50 000 bootstrap samples using Hayes’ PROCESS
macro model 4, which allows to test for mediation (Hayes,
2017). We included both mediators in the same analysis.
Results
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations
between the variables in this study. Both expectations about
chances to demonstrate potential and to use nonverbal cues
related positively to organizational attraction. Also, interview
medium correlated negatively which chances to demonstrate
potential, meaning that participants perceived lower chances
in video interviews than in face-to-face interviews.
Hypotheses testing
First, we tested the difference in organizational attraction in the
face-to-face interview condition and in the video interview con­
dition and this was not significant (MFTF = 3.46, SD = .77, MVideo
Table 2. Descriptives and intercorrelations of study 2.
M SD 2 3
1. Interview medium −.20* .01
2. Chances to demonstrate potential 3.62 .75 .37**
3. Use of nonverbal cues 3.71 .71
4. Organizational attraction 3.40 .84
**p < .01.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 269
= 3.32, SD = .96, t(112) = .87, p = .39, d = .16). Hypothesis 1 was
not supported by the data.
Second and line with H2a, the results showed that appli­
cants in the face-to-face interview condition expected signifi­
cantly more chances to demonstrate potential compared to
applicants in the video interview condition (MFTF = 3.73,
SD = .69, MVideo = 3.43, SD = .82, t(112) = 2.11, p = .04,
d = .40). However, we did not find any significant differences
between applicants in the face-to-face interview condition and
applicants in the video interview condition regarding expecta­
tions about nonverbal communication (MFTF = 3.71, SD = .66,
MVideo = 3.73, SD = .78, t(112) = −.14, p = .89, d = .03). In other
words, the data did not support hypotheses 2b.
Finally, the results of the PROCESS analysis showed
a significant indirect effect of interview medium on organiza­
tional attraction via expectations about chances to demonstrate
potential (B = −.05, SE = .03, 95% CI: −.13 – −.01). This supports
H3a by showing that participants in the video interview condi­
tion found the organization less attractive compared with parti­
cipants in the face-to-face interview condition because they saw
fewer opportunities to show their potential. The effect of
chances to demonstrate potential on organizational attraction
was significantly positive (B = .33, SE = .11, p < .01). We did not
find support for H3b, since the indirect effect via expectations
about nonverbal communication was not significant (B = .00,
SE = .01, 95% CI: −.03 – .03). Also, the effect of expectations about
nonverbal communication on organizational attraction was not
significant (B = .18, SE = .11, p = .12).
Discussion
The results of the second experiment show that applicants
expect that face-to-face interviews offer more opportunities
to demonstrate potential than video interviews and that this
pre-test expectation is positively related to organizational
attraction. These results are in line with previous research on
post-test reactions (Sears et al., 2013). Contrary to expectations
based on media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986), the
results did not show an effect of interview medium on expecta­
tions about nonverbal communication.
General discussion
Organizations increasingly use (video) technology in the con­
text of personnel selection as it offers many benefits such as
savings in time and costs while being able to reach a much
larger pool of applicants (Bauer et al., 2004). This increased
mobility across geographic borders may benefit organizations
that are having a difficult time to attract talented candidates
(Beechler & Woodward, 2009).
Organizations, however, may also want to take into account
the reactions of applicants towards this new technology (König
et al., 2010). Whereas applicants generally react positively
towards the use of computer-assisted testing, the literature
4 suggests that they are much more reserved with respect to
−.08 the use of (video) technology in the selection interview
.36**
.26** (Blacksmith et al., 2016). This study expands our understanding
of applicants’ pre-test reactions towards the use of face-to-face
versus video interviews in the selection context and tests two
270 K. PROOST ET AL.
possible explanatory mechanism namely expectations about
chances to demonstrate potential and to use nonverbal com­
munication. These pre-test reactions are important predictors
of applicants’ willingness to participate in the selection proce­
dure and thus have an important impact on the selection ratio
and the success of the organization to attract a talented pool of
applicants.
Theoretical implications and suggestions for future
research
The results of the first study showed that applicants are less
attracted towards organizations that use video interviews ver­
sus face-to-face interviews, measured before test-taking. This
result is in line with the stream of literature on this topic,
conducted at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st
century and focusing on post-test reactions (Chapman et al.,
2003; Sears et al., 2013; Straus et al., 2001, see also Blacksmith
et al., 2016 for a meta-analysis). This study adds to this literature
by showing that not only post-test reactions but also pre-test
expectations of applicants are more negative towards video
interviews. These pre-test reactions may be important determi­
nants of the observed post-test reactions (Bell et al., 2004) and
organizations may thus benefit from trying to bend these pre-
test expectations in a more positive way.
The results further showed that applicants expect lower
chances to demonstrate potential and be hindered in the use
of nonverbal cues in video interviews. These results are in line
with media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Daft et al.,
1987) and studies showing that video interviews may hinder
fluent turn taking, eye contact and communicating via body
language and gestures (Bohannon et al., 2013; Powers et al.,
2011; Wegge, 2006).
The results were somewhat different in the second study in
the sense that the direct effect of interview medium on orga­
nizational attraction was not significant. Although Hayes (2009)
argues that an indirect effect can exist and be meaningful
interpreted in the absence of a direct effect, the results of
study 2 should be interpreted with caution. Only an indirect
effect was found of interview medium on organizational attrac­
tion via chances to demonstrate potential. Also, the effect of
interview medium on the use of nonverbal cues was not
significant.
This difference in results between the two studies may be
explained in different ways. First, the fact that we asked for
a direct comparison between the two conditions in the first
study and not in the second study may have strengthened the
effect in the first study. On the other hand, the scenario in the
first study may be more realistic as applicants, when looking for
a job, most often apply to different organizations and receive
invitations for interviews from multiple organizations that have
different selection procedures. In practice, applicants thus
directly compare organizations and selection procedures.
Second, the participants in the first study were last year stu­
dents at the university while participants in the second study
were older and mostly employed. This younger group of parti­
cipants may be more concerned with showing their potential.
As suggested by Fletcher (2013), older and more experienced
applicants may “expect to be taken for what they are” (p. 273).
Since applicants may expect that showing potential may be
hindered in video interviews, this may explain stronger effects
in the first study. An interesting avenue for future research is to
look more into the effects of age and work experience on
attitudes towards video interviews.
Finally, participants in the second study, contrary to the first
study, were all invited at the company. This may also explain
the weaker effects in the second study for two reasons. First, as
the video interview still allowed site visits and as these site visits
are important sources of information for applicants and form
the basis for perceptions of person-organization fit (Parsons
et al., 1999) and applicant attraction (Uggerslev et al., 2012),
this may explain why applicants did not report lower attraction
levels in the video condition. Also, Boswell et al. (2003) showed
that applicants appreciate site visits, offering opportunities to
meet possible future colleagues but also other high ranking
persons. When this is prohibited by conducting video inter­
views, this may offer an alternative explanation for negative
applicant reactions towards video interviews. Second, the fact
that the video interview was held on site, may have eliminated
possible negative signals that are sent by the use of video
interviews in terms of not being taking seriously by the orga­
nization or not wanting to make time to assess the candidate in
a real-life setting. Future research could therefore focus more
on possible signals that are sent by the organization when
using video interviews and on how these signals affect organi­
zational attraction.
On the other hand, the fact that the interview was in the
company but still via video may have created a rather artificial
situation. We did not clarify why the interview was via video.
A plausible explanation could be that, in international compa­
nies, the HR manager does not work in the country where the
applicant resides. We did not assess how applicants interpreted
this situation. Taking this into account or offering a justification
for interviews via video on site could be important avenues for
future research.
Limitations
The generalizability of our results may be restricted by several
factors. First, we conducted two lab studies with vignettes.
These designs are criticized for a lack of realism and thus
limited external validity. Specifically, participants in our studies
may not feel the pressure and motivation that comes with
a high-stake selection interview and attach less importance to
being offered the chance to demonstrate potential. In a fictive
world, they may see the video interview as novel and challen­
ging, while in a high-stake context these positive elements may
be overshadowed by concerns about opportunities to show
their potential. As such, the results of our studies may be an
underestimation of the effect in a real-life context. However, we
made sure to make the vignette realistic: All participants were
potential job seekers and getting an invitation for an interview
from one or two companies is a realistic scenario in that case.
Moreover, experimental vignette studies have one clear advan­
tage, namely they allow to draw causal conclusions since it is
possible to control for all possible confounds (Antonakis et al.,
2010). Especially the latter is more difficult in more complex,
realistic settings such as mock interviews as they produce more
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
“natural noise” (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). The optimal alterna­
tive would be to experimentally manipulate in interview invita­
tions from real companies whether the interview will be held
via video versus face-to-face. It is questionable, however, to
what extent this is practically feasible and desirable, seen the
possible negative recruitment outcomes.
Second, we did not define the extent to which the interview
would be structured. Participants in this study may have intui­
tively expected an unstructured interview, as this type of inter­
view is preferred by companies (Highhouse, 2008; Lievens & De
Paepe, 2004). As such, the observed effect in this study may be
typical for an unstructured interview and could have been
different in a structured interview. For example, Chapman and
Rowe (2002) showed that applicants are more positive towards
video interviews when the interview is structured vs. unstruc­
tured or semi-structured. More research is needed to test the
generalizability of the results across different interview types.
We focused on organizational attraction as the focal variable
of interest and based on the literature, suggested that lower
organizational attraction may lead to lower job pursuit/accep­
tance intentions (McCarthy et al., 2017). Chapman et al. (2003),
however, showed that it may be important to differentiate
between outcomes. Specifically, they found that video inter­
views were perceived as less procedurally fair than face-to-face
interviews. However, interview medium did not affect the
intentions to accept a job offer from the company. Future
research should therefore include other attitudinal outcomes
and even move beyond attitudinal outcomes and also include
more behavioural outcomes.
This study is limited in the sense that it focuses on two
explanatory mechanisms for possible differences in applicant
pre-test reactions towards video versus face-to-face interviews.
We thereby focused on possible shortcomings of video inter­
views, that can be derived from media richness theory (Daft &
Lengel, 1986). On the other hand, video interviews have
a number of assets that may elicit positive applicant reactions
and remain underexplored such as remote access to colleagues
and managers across the world, less discrimination of less
mobile applicants, etc. Further research could take applicant
reactions towards these aspects more into account.
Finally, we compared face-to-face interviews with video
interviews in this study but did not consider different versions
of video interviews. For example, a promising avenue for future
research could be to compare synchronous with asynchronous
video interviews in which applicants’ answers are recorded and
evaluated at a later point in time. Suen et al. (2019) provided
first evidence that asynchronous interviews are more disliked
by applicants compared to synchronous video interviews as
they “dehumanize” the interview.
Practical implications
The results of this study suggest that applicants may feel less
attracted to organizations that use video interviews versus
face-to-face interviews in their selection procedure. In the
“war for talent”, it may be important for organizations to take
these pre-test reactions into account as they may not only
lower attraction but lead to lower pre-test motivation,
271
intentions to apply, to pursue employment or to accept a job
offer (Bell et al., 2006; Schreurs et al., 2009).
This study suggests that one possible reason for this lower
attractiveness is lower expectations about chances to demon­
strate potential. It may therefore be important for organizations
that want to use video interviews to pay attention to this con­
cern. One possible way is by communicating clearly to applicants
that they will get the opportunity to show their knowledge, skills
and abilities (Arvey & Sackett, 1993), and be offered the explicit
opportunity to point out possible competences that might have
been overlooked (Bies & Shapiro, 1988). Bies and Shapiro also
showed that clearly explaining the underlying motives for certain
decisions may help. If organizations clearly explain to applicants
why video interviews are used instead of face-to-face interviews,
this may increase pre-test reactions towards video interviews.
The results of the first study also showed that applicants
expect that video interviews hinder nonverbal communication.
Bohannon and colleagues offer some interesting suggestions in
their review with respect to eye contact, such as embedding
a camera in the display (Tapia et al., 2003) or using software to
create the illusion of eye contact (Gemmell et al., 2000).
The more negative reactions towards video interviews in
this study do not have to generalize to other selection prac­
tices. For example, Internet-based technology can well be used
to attract candidates (Lievens & Harris, 2003; Thompson et al.,
2009), to offer realistic job previews (Highhouse et al., 2004) or
even to give online feedback (Dineen et al., 2002).
Conclusion
This study scrutinized applicants’ pre-test reactions towards the
use of video interviews in selection procedures. The results
suggest that applicants rate organizations that use video inter­
views as less attractive compared to those that use traditional
face-to-face interviews. This effect is in part explained by the
fact that applicants expected fewer chances to demonstrate
their potential in video interviews (vs. face-to-face interviews).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for
designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology
studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1094428114547952
Anderson, N. (2003). Applicant and recruiter reactions to new technology in
selection: A critical review and agenda for future research. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(2–3), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1468-2389.00235
Andrews, L., Klein, S. R., Forsman, J., & Sachau, D. (2013). It’s easy being
green: Benefits of technology-enabled work. In A. H. Huffman &
S. R. Klein (Eds.), Green organizations: Driving change with
I-O psychology (pp. 300–322). Routledge.
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal
claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6),
1086–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010
272 K. PROOST ET AL.
Arvey, R. D., & Sackett, P. R. (1993). Fairness in selection: Current develop­
ments and perspectives. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel
selection (pp. 171–202). Jossey-Bass.
Barry, B., & Fulmer, I. S. (2004). The medium and the message: The adaptive
use of communication media in dyadic influence. Academy of
Management Review, 29(2), 272–292. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.
12736093
Bauer, T. N., Maertz, C. P., Dolen, M. R., & Campion, M. A. (1998). Longitudinal
assessment of applicant reactions to employment testing and test out­
come feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 892–903. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.892
Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Paronto, M. E., & Weekley, J. A. (2004). Applicant
reactions to different selection technology: Face-to-face, interactive
voice response, and computer-assisted telephone screening interviews.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(1–2), 135–148.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2004.00269.x
Beechler, S., & Woodward, I. C. (2009). The global “war for talent”. Journal of
International Management, 15(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.int
man.2009.01.002
Bekkering, T. J. E. (2004). Visual angle in videoconferencing: The issue of trust
[Doctoral dissertation]. Mississippi State University, ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing. (Accession no. 3120803).
Bell, B. S., Ryan, A. M., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). Justice expectations and
applicant perceptions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
12(1–2), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2004.00261.x
Bell, B. S., Wiechmann, D., & Ryan, A. M. (2006). Consequences of organiza­
tional justice expectations in a selection system. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(2), 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.455
Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1988). Voice and justification: Their influence on
procedural fairness judgments. The Academy of Management Journal, 31
(3), 676–685. https://www.jstor.org/stable/256465
Blacksmith, N., Wilford, J. C., & Behrend, T. S. (2016). Technology in the
employment interview: A meta-analysis and future research agenda.
Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 2(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.
25035/pad.2016.002
Bohannon, L. S., Herbert, A. M., Pelz, J. B., & Rantanen, E. M. (2013). Eye
contact and video-mediated communication: A review. Displays, 34(2),
177–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2012.10.009
Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., LePine, M. A., & Moynihan, L. M. (2003).
Individual job-choice decisions and the impact of job attributes and
recruitment practices: A longitudinal field study. Human Resource
Management, 42(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.10062
Burnett, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1998). Relations between different sources
of information in the structured selection interview. Personnel
Psychology, 51(4), 963–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.
tb00747.x
Chapman, D. S., & Rowe, P. M. (2002). The influence of videoconference
technology and interview structure on the recruiting function of the
employment interview: A field experiment. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 10(3), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-
2389.00208
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., & Webster, J. (2003). Applicant reactions to
face-to-face and technology-mediated interviews: A field investigation.
The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 944–953. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-9010.88.5.944
Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Kuhn, M. A. (2012). Experimental methods:
Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, 81(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.
08.009
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements,
media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5),
554–571. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media
selection and manager performance: Implications for information
systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.2307/248682
DeGroot, T., & Gooty, J. (2009). Can nonverbal cues be used to make
meaningful personality attributes in employment interviews? Journal
of Business and Psychology, 24(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10869-009-9098-0
Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the
new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality.
Information Systems Research, 9(3), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.1287/
isre.9.3.256
Derous, E., Born, M., & De Witte, K. (2004). How applicants want and expect
to be treated: Applicants’ selection treatment beliefs and the develop­
ment of the social process questionnaire on selection. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(1–2), 99–119. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.0965.075X.2004.00267.x
Dineen, B. R., Ash, S. R., & Noe, R. A. (2002). A web of applicant attraction:
Person-organization fit in the context of web-based recruitment. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 723–734. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-
9010.87.4.723
Doherty-Sneddon, G., Anderson, A., O’Malley, C., Langton, S., Garrod, S., &
Bruce, V. (1997). Face-to-face and video-mediated communication:
A comparison of dialogue structure and task performance. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(2), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/
1076-898X.3.2.105
Fletcher, C. (2013). Impression management in the selection interview. In
R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the
organization (pp. 269–281). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2000). Relations of emotional intelligence, practical
intelligence, general intelligence, and trait affectivity with interview
outcomes: It’s not all just ‘G’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(2),
203–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2<203::
AID-JOB38>3.0.CO;2-Z
Fullwood, C. (2007). The effect of mediation on impression formation:
A comparison of face-to-face and video-mediated conditions. Applied
Ergonomics, 38(3), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2006.06.002
Geenen, B., Proost, K., van Dijke, M., De Witte, K., & von Grumbkow, J. (2012).
The role of affect in the relationship between distributive justice expec­
tations and applicants’ recommendation and litigation intentions.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(4), 404–413.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12003
Gilliland, S. W. (1995). Fairness from the applicant’s perspective: Reactions
to employee selection procedures. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 3(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.1995.
tb0002.x
Gilmore, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (1989). The effects of applicant impression
management tactics on interviewer judgments. Journal of Management,
15(4), 557–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638901500405
Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to
selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 57(3), 639–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.
00003.x
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis
in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
Highhouse, S. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in
employee selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(3),
333–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00058.x
Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring attraction to
organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(6),
986–1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258403
Highhouse, S., Stanton, J. M., & Reeve, C. L. (2004). Examining reactions to
employer information using a simulated web-based job fair. Journal of
Career Assessment, 12(1), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1069072703257738
Horn, R. G., & Behrend, T. S. (2017). Video killed the interview star: Does
picture-in-picture affect interview performance? Personnel Assessment
and Decisions, 3(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.10.25035/pad.
2017.005
Howardson, G. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2014). Using the Internet to recruit
employees: Comparing the effects of usability expectations and objec­
tive technological characteristics on Internet recruitment outcomes.
Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 334–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2013.10.057
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
Ishii, K., Lyons, M. M., & Carr, S. A. (2019). Revisiting media richness theory
for today and future. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2),
124–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.138
König, C. J., Klehe, U. C., Berchtold, M., & Kleinmann, M. (2010). Reasons for
being selective when choosing personnel selection procedures.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(1), 17–27. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00485.x
Kroeck, K. G., & Magnusen, K. O. (1997). Employer and job candidate reac­
tions to videoconference job interviewing. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 5(2), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-
2389.00053
Lievens, F., & De Paepe, A. (2004). An empirical investigation of
interviewer-related factors that discourage the use of high structure
interviews. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 29–46. https://doi.
org/10.1002/job.246
Lievens, F., & Harris, M. M. (2003). Research on Internet recruiting and
testing: Current status and future directions. In C. L. Cooper &
I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational
psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 131–165). John Wiley.
Lievens, F., Van Dam, K., & Anderson, N. (2002). Recent trends and chal­
lenges in personnel selection. Personnel Review, 31(5), 580–601. https://
doi.org/10.1108/00483480210438771
Macan, T. H. (2009). The employment interview: A review of current studies
and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review,
19(3), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.006
McCarthy, J. M., Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Anderson, N., Costa, A., &
Ahmed, S. M. (2017). Applicant perspectives during selection: A review
addressing “so what?”, “what’s new”, and “where to go?”. Journal of
Management, 43(6), 1693–1725. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206316681846
Parsons, C. K., Cable, D. M., & Liden, R. C. (1999). Establishing person-
organization fit. In R. W. Eder & M. M. Harris (Eds.), The employment
interview handbook (pp. 125–141). Sage Publications.
Peeters, H., & Lievens, F. (2006). Verbal and nonverbal impression manage­
ment tactics in behavior description and situational interviews.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(3), 206–222.
https://doi.org/10.111/j.1468-2389.2006.00348.x
Powers, S. R., Rauh, C., Henning, R. A., Buck, R. W., & West, T. V. (2011). The
effect of video feedback delay on frustration and emotion communica­
tion accuracy. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1651–1657. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.003
Proost, K., Schreurs, B., De Witte, K., & Derous, E. (2010). Ingratiation and
self-promotion in the selection interview: The effects of using single
tactics or a combination of tactics on interviewer judgments. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 40(9), 2155–2169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1559-1816.2010.00654.x
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection
methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications
273
of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
Schreurs, B., Derous, E., Proost, K., Notelaers, G., & De Witte, K. (2008).
Applicant selection expectations: Validating a multidimensional mea­
sure in the military. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16
(2), 170–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00421.x
Schreurs, B., Derous, E., Van Hooft, E., Proost, K., & De Witte, K. (2009).
Predicting applicants’ job pursuit behavior from their selection expecta­
tions: The mediating role of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 761–783. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.570
Sears, G. J., Zhang, H., Wiesner, W. H., Hackett, R. D., & Yuan, Y. (2013).
A comparative assessment of videoconference and face-to-face employ­
ment interviews. Management Decision, 51(8), 1733–1752. https://doi.
org/10.1108/MD-09-2012-0642
Gemmell, J, Toyama, K, Zitnick, C. L., Kang, T., & Seitz, S. (2000). Gaze
awareness for video-conferencing: A software approach. IEEE
Multimedia, 7(4), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1109/93.895152
Straus, S. G., Miles, J. A., & Levesque, L. L. (2001). The effects of videocon­
ference, telephone, and face-to-face media on interviewer and applicant
judgements in employment interviews. Journal of Management, 27(3),
363–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700308
Suen, H.-Y., Chen, M. Y.-C., & Lu, S.-H. (2019). Does the use of synchrony and
artificial intelligence in video interviews affect interview ratings and
applicant attitudes? Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 93–101. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.012
Tapia, E. M., Intille, S. S., Rebula, J., & Stoddard, S. (2003). Concept and partial
prototype video: Ubiquitous video communication with the perception
of eye contact. Proceedings of UBICOMP (pp. 1–2). Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Thompson, J., Braddy, P. W., & Wuensch, K. L. (2009). E-recruitment and the
benefits of organizational web appeal. Computers in Human Behavior, 24
(5), 2384–2398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.014
Uggerslev, K. L., Fassina, N. E., & Kraichy, D. (2012). Recruiting through the
stages: A meta-analytic test of predictors of applicant attraction at
different stages of the recruiting process. Personnel Psychology, 65(3),
597–660. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01254.x
Wanous, P., Keon, T. L., & Latack, J. C. (1983). Expectancy theory and
occupational/organizational choice: A review and test. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 32(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0030-5073(83)90140-X
Wegge, J. (2006). Communication via videoconference: Emotional and
cognitive consequences of affective personality dispositions, seeing
one’s own picture, and disturbing events. Human-Computer Interaction,
21(3), 273–318. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci2103_1
Wilhelmy, A., Kleinmann, M., König, C. J., Melchers, K. G., & Truxillo, D. M.
(2016). How and why do interviewers try to make impressions on appli­
cants? A qualitative study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3),
313–332. https://doi.org/10.1037/ap10000046