THE IMPORTANCE OF COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY TO ENSURING RELIABLE AND VALID METHODS OF RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION ARE USED WITHIN THE WORKPLACE STUDENT ID: 14068621 BUSINESS PSYCHOLOGY PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY & APPLICATIONS AT THE WORKPLACE 2014 "#$%&'# (%) *+,-.-/* / This essay is bound to show the importance of cognitive and social psychology to ensuring reliable and valid methods of recruitment and selection are used within the workplace. To do so, first there will be a brief discussion regarding the determinants of a hiring procedure thanks to Schmidt & Hunters article (1998). Moving on to the first component of the discussion Cognitive Testing theres a discussion citing Thomas and Scroggins (2006) regarding adverse impact when using cognitive ability testing as well as what are its ups and downs, and how it could be counter balanced. Robertson & Smith (2001), as well as Hunter & Schmidt (1990) are then cited providing useful information regarding meta-analysis and how it influenced testing validity over the years. Another interesting issue regarding Cognitive Ability Testing is the variability of validity related to job complexity, and that is shown by Hunter & Hunter (1984). In the second part, however focus is given to the Social Psychology issues, firstly when using Interviewing as a means of assessment. Facts about what types of interviews exist, as well as the pros and cons of certain ways are highlighted from Arnold (2005). Last but not least, Biodata assessment is discussed alongside with its categories and what approaches is Biodata conducted by, also showing its strengths and weaknesses. "#$%&'# (%) *+,-.-/* 0 The validity of a hiring procedure is a direct determinant of its actual value, but not the only one. Another is job performance variability. In extreme scenarios, if say variability would be zero, all applicants would have the same level of performance when latest jobs come to concern. Then the practical worth of selection procedures would be again zero, because in this hypothetical case it doesnt matter who is hired as all applicants are alike. From another angle, when performance validity is great, it is imperative to pick the best performing candidate and then the practical use of valid selection methods would also be great. This extreme case turns out to be a normal case when most jobs are considered (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998, p. 262).If Cognitive Psychology traits are of concern when recruiting and selection takes place, the most notable wayof assessment are clearly Cognitive Ability tests. According to Schmidt & Hunter, job skill gain and performance prediction validity for cognitive ability tests has been widely confirmed. Also confirmed is the organisations economical value gain with the selection of higher-level candidates (1998).Cognitive ability has been variously defined, but there is still dispute over whether cognitive ability is a general intelligence ability or a group of particular and distinct abilities, such as thinking, perception, reasoning, verbal or mathematical skills. But one thing is certain, with these cognitive ability tests employers spend the least when it comes to personnel assessment, costing even less than 5$ per applicant (Thomas and Scroggins, 2006, p.31). It has been proven though by several researchers like Cleary, Humphreys, Kendrick & Wesnan, Hartigan & Wigdor,Wigdor & Gamer, that this kind of testing creates group differences, also known as adverse impact, thus few "#$%&'# (%) *+,-.-/* + companies use them as selection tools. Heneman, Judge & Heneman and also Lubenski state that this means some groups, Hispanics and African Americans for example score worse than the rest, while others, like Asian Americans score higher (as cited in Thomas & Scroggins, 2006, p.32). These studies were made in the U.S. though and results from the rest of the World might be slightly different.Nevertheless, some proposed that linking the cognitive ability tests with personality tests would reduce adverse impact (Ryan, Ployhart & Friedel, 1998). Cognitive ability tests show high validity in job performance as high levels of cognitive ability relate with acquiring job knowledge faster and better, so as increasing performance. Personality traits however may amplify ones power to apply intellectual capacity, while others may limit its application (Kaufman & Lichtenberger, 1999). As Thomas and Scroggins state, the utility of personality testing is proven more and more as researchers find associations of personality traits with the importance of relationships for work organisations (2006, p.34). So, they add that its best to build a predictor composite which includes, besides a cognitive ability test, an extra measure, such as the one above mentioned. As the composite predictors are unrelated they show an unique variance in job performance prediction, thus enhancing incremental validity and prediction (2006, p.36). Validity was shown in different manners over the years, but in the 1980s personnel selection literature became more trustworthy than before. This might have been due to the beginning of using meta-analysis in research, as Hunter & Schmidt state (1990). This means that if artefactual consequences of sampling error, range restriction and measurement reliability "#$%&'# (%) *+,-.-/* 1 are not taken into consideration, then the meta-analysis shows us the true validity of personnel selection, much higher than the initial one (Robertson & Smith, 2001, p. 442). Figure 1 shows how validity figures when overall job performance is used as a criterion are higher than when training is used as the criterion. Fig. 1: Accuracy of selection methods Source: Robertson, I. T. and Smith, M., (2001), Personnel Selection, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, p. 443 "#$%&'# (%) *+,-.-/* - Cognitive ability or General Mental Ability tests are often used to describe the same thing cognitive tests. Even if validity tends to remain the same across personnel selection situations, job complexity is found to be a notable moderator variable in GMAs (General Mental Ability) relation to job performance (Hunter & Hunter, 1984). GMA shows the ability to learn and adapt, with special attention given to the importance of complex information processing through problem solving, conceptual thinking and reasoning (Ones, Viswesvaran & Dilchert, 2005). Schmidt & Hunter have reported the results in figure 2, results that look pretty reliable as theyre obtained from 425 different validity studies (2004). So, as the complexity of the position gets higher, GMA validity gets better, showing that the use of only cognitive ability tests for unskilled jobs could be somehow rendered useless. "#$%&'# (%) *+,-.-/* 2 Fig.2 : Validity of the GMA Measure in the General Aptitude Test Battery Source: Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (1), Table 2 p. 165 Though current literature provides proof of high validity levels when using GMA testing, some limitations do occur. One is that GMA is usually used as a predictor of job performance when it could be of similar use studying the validity of particular cognitive abilities (Bertua, Anderson & Salgado, 2005). Another limitation lies in the fact that most rely on U.S. sample studies only. Even if said to be generable to other countries by Herriot & Anderson, it does not allow for the awareness of a potential impact of differences in cultural, social, recruitment and performance between U.S. and the rest of the world "#$%&'# (%) *+,-.-/* . (as cited from Green & Macqueen, 2008, p.10).On the social psychology side, because they imply analysis of behavioural patterns, interviews are another form of assessment. Despite their popularity amongst organisations, they have been criticized of being vulnerable to bias, subjective, or just suffering from little reliability (Arnold, 2005, p.178). But on the other hand, Huffcutt, Conway, Roth and Stone found, during a meta-analysis study, that interview validity proves to be even greater than in cognitive ability tests (2001). Interviews are of two types: behavioural and situational ones. Because it is assumed that past behavior predicts future behavior, the behavioural pattern description interviews (BPDIs) involve making interviewees talk about past behavior situations which are relevant fort the workplace position (Arnold, 2005, p.180). An example of such a question could be : Could you please describe a situation when you had to sell something to someone? How did it go?. Situational interviews on the other hand, dont rely on the past, but on hypothetical situations presented. They assume that how one intends to behave in a certain situation predicts future job-related behavior (Arnold, 2005, p. 180). For example: Imagine you were a store manager, and one day you find that staff members are on strike, demanding salary raises and improved working conditions. What will you do first?. Interviewers will be using BARS (behaviourally anchored rating scale) to measure responses, while there isnt actually only one correct answer, but sets of typical responses. However, some problems arise with these kinds of personnel assessments. Situational interviews for instance dont take personal experience into account and somebody with experience over the "#$%&'# (%) *+,-.-/* 3 years in a field may hold an edge over an inexperienced applicant. Another issue, for both situational and behavioural interviews is that there maybe a possibility that individuals may say something different than what they would actually do, looking only to impress (Arnold, 2005, p. 180). Another selection tool, which uses Social Psychology facts is using Biodata, because, like Interviews, it also analyses ones behaviour. The main rule in its use is that past behavior is again a predictor of future performance. It involves using biographical information and criterion measures such as work performance or absenteeism, and then empirically correlating them by using a concurrent validation study (also known as empirical approach). Even so, chance factors may intervene when correlating the biodata items with the criterion. Its then necessary to cross validate, usually using a second sample. It doesnt stay stable in time though and it needs frequent revalidation. Biodata consists mostly of two categories: hard items (such as verifiable information from the past, qualifications, diplomas) and soft items (like hobbies and interests). Though validity coefficients are decent (0.48), issues arise from the imprecise use of empirical derived items. So while some items have been found to predict a criterion, there is no explanation of why does it predict it. Biodata is in this way atheoretical. The problems that are of concern are that the perceived Biodata may be a substitute for another variable, or that even if some items provide predictive value, they dont necessarily help in understanding the elements of job success (Arnold, 2005, p.189). An example of the first problem could be when linking family status to future job performance. This could actually mean that some specific social or ethnic groups within or related to family have to do with future performance, "#$%&'# (%) *+,-.-/* *, as family status is a vague variable.Because of these problems, development of Biodata displays is done by rational approach. This approach displays attempts of developing a theoretical rationale for Biodata predictive validity. With the use of rational approach come clear hypotheses about particular job-relevant constructs like ability to work in a team, which may be used by particular Biodata units (membership of clubs or societies). Now only items with a rational link to the criterion will be tried out. In terms of ease of explanation, this approach is more interesting, but there is evidence suggesting it has poorer validity than the empirical approach. But the benefit of fairness and more understanding could counter balance this loss (Arnold, 2005, 190). "#$%&'# (%) *+,-.-/* ** This essay was about demonstrating the importance of cognitive and social psychology to ensuring valid and reliable methods of recruitment and selection are used at the workplace. As a conclusion, in terms of validity, interviews, which analyse ones behavior in past and future situations, tend to show the greatest value according to Huffcutt et al. (2001). But their downside is that they can be vulnerable to bias, subjective and considered unreliable. Unreliability comes from the fact that people may lie when asked about past situations, or may just look to impress, thus not mirroring their actual ways of dealing with an incident. Even more, situational interviews in particular, dont take previous experience into account, so an experienced worker may prove better than an inexperienced candidate only because of that. Cognitive ability testing proves to show decent validity values, but when further researched by Hunter & Hunter (1984) it was proven that validity rises as job complexity gets greater. It indeed shows high validity (0.58) but mainly when managerial jobs are taken into account, rendering the use of cognitive testing only for unskilled workers somehow useless (validity 0.23). There is also the matter of adverse impact that comes to play, as different ethnic groups tend to show different sets of scores when assessed. A definite good side of cognitive ability testing though is its low cost, barely reaching 5$/applicant as Thomas & Scroggins state (2006). Biodata is the third assessment form showed, one which again analyses behavior, but this time in terms of biographical data from ones past. It shows decent validity (0.48), but problems do exist.The need of frequent revalidation is a downside, while perceived data maybe a substitute for "#$%&'# (%) *+,-.-/* */ another variable, so it isnt that clear. While its validity when making job performance prediction is good, it doesnt help in understanding why does it predict that, thus being rather vague. All in all, the most reliable measure for assessing job applicants at the workplace is a combination of tests rather than one on its own, like cognitive ability and personality testing for that matter. "#$%&'# (%) *+,-.-/* *0 REFERENCES Arnold, J., Silvester, J., Patterson, F., Robertson, I. ,Cooper, C. and Burnes, B. (2005), Understanding Human Behaviour at the Workplace (4th ed.), Pearson Education Limited. Essex. Bertua, C., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. (2005). The predictive validity of cognitive ability tests: A UK meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 78, 387-409.Green, T. and Macqueen P. (2008). Cognitive Ability: How Important?, Compass Consulting, retrieved from http://www.compassconsulting.com.au/icms_docs/31265_Cognitive_Ability_How_Important.pdf Huffcutt, A.I., Conway, J.M., Roth, P.L. and Stone, N.J. (2001) Identification and metaana- lytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 86, pp. 897913.Hunter, I. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.Hunter, J.E. and Schmidt, F.L. (1990) Methods of Meta-analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (1999). Essentials of WAIS- III Assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. "#$%&'# (%) *+,-.-/* *+ Ones, D., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilchert, S. (2005). Cognitive ability in personnel selection decisions. In A. Evers, N. Anderson & O. Voskuijl (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of personnel selection (pp. 143- 173). Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Robertson, I. T. and Smith, M., (2001), Personnel Selection, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 441-472. Ryan, A. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Friedel, L. A. (1998). Using personality testing to reduce adverse impact: A cautionary note. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (2), 298-307.Schmidt, F. L. and Hunter, J. E. (1998). The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 years of Research findings. Psychological bulletin, 124, 2, 262-274. Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (1), 162-173. Thomas, S. L. and Scroggins, W. A. (2006) Psychological Testing in Personnel Selection: Contemporary Issues in Cognitive Ability and Personality Testing. Journal of Business Inquiry. 28-38. WORD COUNT: 2098 words "#$%&'# (%) *+,-.-/* *1