Due to technological progress, videoconference interviews have become more and more common in personnel selection. Nevertheless, even in recent studies, interviewees received lower performance ratings in videoconference interviews than in face-to-face (FTF) interviews and interviewees held more negative perceptions of these interviews. However, the reasons for these differences are unclear. Therefore, we conducted an experiment with 114 participants to compare FTF and videoconference interviews regarding interview performance and fairness perceptions and we investigated the role of social presence, eye contact, and impression management for these differences. As in other studies, ratings of interviewees’ performance were lower in the videoconference interview. Differences in perceived social presence, perceived eye contact, and impression management contributed to these effects. Furthermore, live ratings of interviewees’ performance were higher than ratings based on recordings. Additionally, videoconference interviews induced more privacy concerns but were perceived as more flexible. Organizations should take the present results into account and should not use both types of interviews in the same selection stage.

Interviews are commonly used for selection but research on interview faking only gained momentum relatively recently. We review both theoretical and empirical work on prevalence, antecedents, processes, and effects of interview faking. Most applicants fake at least to some degree. Personality (e.g., Conscientiousness, Honesty‐humility, the Dark Triad) and attitudes toward faking substantially correlate with faking behaviors. Research concerning applicants' ability, interview structure components, or contextual factors is limited. Furthermore, the impact of faking on interview ratings is mixed and effects on criterion‐related validity are not consistently negative. Finally, the detection of faking seems hardly possible and there are limited options available to reduce interview faking. Throughout our review, we describe important gaps and derive suggestions and propositions for future research.

To remain viable in today's highly competitive business environments, it is crucial for organizations to attract and retain top candidates. Hence, interviewers have the goal not only of identifying promising applicants but also of representing their organization. Although it has been proposed that interviewers' deliberate signaling behaviors are a key factor for attracting applicants and thus for ensuring organizations' success, no conceptual model about impression management (IM) exists from the viewpoint of the interviewer as separate from the applicant. To develop such a conceptual model on how and why interviewers use IM, our qualitative study elaborates signaling theory in the interview context by identifying the broad range of impressions that interviewers intend to create on applicants, what kinds of signals interviewers deliberately use to create their intended impressions, and what outcomes they pursue. Following a grounded theory approach, multiple raters analyzed in-depth interviews with interviewers and applicants. We also observed actual employment interviews and analyzed memos and image brochures to generate a conceptual model of interviewer IM. Results showed that the spectrum of interviewers' IM intentions goes well beyond what has been proposed in past research. Furthermore, interviewers apply a broad range of IM behaviors, including verbal and nonverbal as well as paraverbal, artifactual, and administrative behaviors. An extensive taxonomy of interviewer IM intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes is developed, interrelationships between these elements are presented, and avenues for future research are derived.

Personnel selection procedures such as assessment centers, structured interviews, and personality inventories are useful predictors of candidates' job performance. In addition to existing explanations for their criterion-related validity, we suggest that candidates' ability to identify the criteria used to evaluate their performance during a selection procedure contributes to the criterion-related validity of these procedures. Conceptually, the ability to identify criteria can be framed in the broader literature on peoples' ability to read situational cues. We draw on both theory and empirical research to outline the potential this ability has to account for selection results and job performance outcomes. Finally, implications for future research are presented.

Purpose: Videoconference interviews and asynchronous interviews are increasingly used to select applicants. However, recent research has found that technology-mediated interviews are less accepted by applicants compared to face-to-face (FTF) interviews. The reasons for these differences have not yet been clarified. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to take a closer look at potential reasons that have been suggested in previous research. Design/methodology/approach: The present study surveyed 154 working individuals who answered questions concerning their perceptions of FTF, videoconference and asynchronous interviews in terms of perceived fairness, social presence and the potential use of impression management (IM) tactics. Furthermore, potential attitudinal and personality correlates were also measured. Findings: Technology-mediated interviews were perceived as less fair than FTF interviews and this difference was stronger for asynchronous interviews than for videoconference interviews. The perceived social presence and the possible use of IM followed the same pattern. Furthermore, differences in fairness perceptions were mediated by perceived social presence and the possible use of IM tactics. Additionally, affinity for technology and core self-evaluations correlated positively with perceptions of videoconference interviews but not with those of FTF and asynchronous interviews. Originality/value: This is the first study to compare fairness perceptions of FTF, videoconference and asynchronous interviews and to confirm previous assumptions that potential applicants perceive technology-mediated interviews as less favorable because of impairments in social presence and the potential use of IM.