Citation
Utilization and validity of nonverbal cues in the structured interview

Material Information

Title:
Utilization and validity of nonverbal cues in the structured interview
Creator:
Burnett, Jennifer R
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 195 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Depth interviews ( jstor )
Directive interviews ( jstor )
Employment interviews ( jstor )
Interviews ( jstor )
Personality traits ( jstor )
Recorded interviews ( jstor )
Smiles ( jstor )
Social psychology ( jstor )
Visual fixation ( jstor )
Women ( jstor )
Interviewing -- Evaluation -- United States ( lcsh )
Nonverbal communication ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1993.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 186-194).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jennifer R. Burnett.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
30608397 ( OCLC )
ocm30608397
001925689 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

utilizationvalid00burn.pdf

utilizationvalid00burn_0137.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0128.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0051.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0148.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0161.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0144.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0145.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0058.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0052.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0102.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0138.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0180.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0135.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0114.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0032.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0057.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0053.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0179.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0107.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0146.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0009.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0100.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0156.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0126.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0112.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0002.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0182.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0185.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0111.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0157.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0008.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0081.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0028.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0193.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0175.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0088.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0087.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0176.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0125.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0141.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0132.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0118.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0027.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0150.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0084.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0165.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0024.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0064.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0063.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0184.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0113.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0123.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0131.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0066.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0171.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0039.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0173.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0069.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0106.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0038.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0097.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0083.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0134.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0164.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0075.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0091.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0043.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0010.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0041.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0082.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0152.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0090.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0047.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0054.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0115.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0201.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0019.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0206.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0142.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0189.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0022.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0183.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0006.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0168.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0160.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0035.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0076.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0202.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_pdf.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0174.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0086.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0026.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0191.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0062.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0163.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0196.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0060.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0158.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0021.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0124.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0166.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0016.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0030.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0023.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0186.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0049.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0155.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0162.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0170.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0065.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0080.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0122.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0046.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0147.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0169.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0042.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0050.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0151.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0025.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0198.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0103.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0070.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0048.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0133.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0005.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0077.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0172.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0199.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0078.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0018.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0093.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0015.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0013.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0031.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0139.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0011.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0001.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0116.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0136.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0044.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0127.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0068.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0096.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0040.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0095.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0059.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0033.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0108.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0094.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0149.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0014.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0205.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0055.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0034.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0197.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0109.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0029.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0104.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0117.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0092.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0120.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0061.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0067.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0099.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0188.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0119.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0190.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0204.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0153.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0195.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0007.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0203.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0085.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0098.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0073.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0003.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0178.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0121.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0200.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0037.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0187.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0000.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0074.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0110.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0012.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0143.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0130.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0020.txt

AA00011147_00001_pdf.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0036.txt

AA00011147_00001.pdf

utilizationvalid00burn_0167.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0071.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0194.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0177.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0159.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0129.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0101.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0079.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0004.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0105.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0017.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0181.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0192.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0154.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0072.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0140.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0089.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0045.txt

utilizationvalid00burn_0056.txt


Full Text












UTILIZATION AND VALIDITY OF NONVERBAL CUES
IN THE STRUCTURED INTERVIEW

















BY


JENNIFER R. BURNETT


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1993




~--




UTILIZATION AND VALIDITY OF NONVERBAL CUES
IN THE STRUCTURED INTERVIEW
BY
JENNIFER R. BURNETT
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1993
Diversity
Varies


Copyright 1993
by
Jennifer R. Burnett


This work is dedicated to my supportive, patient, and ever
loving husband, Tom, who has helped me become all that I am,
and all that I will ever be; to my wonderful and caring
parents, who always believed in me and who instilled in me
the ambition and strength to reach for my goals; and to my
two brothers for their constant encouragement and
inspiration.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks are extended to my chairman, Dr. Stephan
Motowidlo, for his enduring guidance. His confidence in the
results and related implications of this line of research has
been very inspiring. As a committed mentor, he made the
dissertation process a true learning process. I am also
sincerely grateful for the support of Dr. Henry Tosi. His
belief in my abilities, constant encouragement, and
invaluable advice helped me to reach my goals. Dr. Norman
Markel was also a integral part of my learning experience.
He not only offered his expertise in the field of nonverbal
communication, but he also provided a much appreciated,
realistic perspective to this experience. Finally, I would
like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Wesley
Hutchinson. His suggestions and viewpoint were greatly
appreciated.
The financial and logistical support of Dr. Sanford Berg
and the Public Utility Research Center at the University of
Florida was greatly appreciated. His assistance made this
research possible.
A special acknowledgement is given to my parents and
brothers. Their faith in me was unwavering, and their
excitement in my accomplishments has made it all worthwhile.
iv


Finally, none of this would have been possible without my
husband, Tom. The long hours, doubts, and frequent obstacles
could not have been overcome without his undying patience,
understanding and strong belief in me. My accomplishments
are a direct result of his love and encouragement.
v


TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT viii
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW 1
Introduction 1
Structured Interviews 2
Theoretical Perspectives on the Effectiveness of the
Structured Interview 13
Attention to and Utilization of Nonverbal Cues in the
Interview 24
Issues of Concern and Future Directions 4 6
PRELIMINARY STUDIES AND THE CURRENT STUDY RESEARCH
QUESTIONS 59
Study #1: The Development and Validation of the
Interview 60
Study #2: Aural and Visual Sources of Validity 66
Study #3: Identifying Important Nonverbal Behaviors 71
Implications of Preliminary Studies on the Current
Study 81
Current Research Study 84
HYPOTHESES, METHODS, AND PROCEDURES 88
Research Hypotheses 88
Methods and Procedures 92
Reliabilities 105
Data Analysis 113
RESULTS 115
Total Sample Analyses 115
Analyses by Interviewee Sex 121
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 130
Cue Utilization and the Ecological Validity of
Nonverbal Cues 130
Incremental Validity 133
Sex Differences 134
vi


Contributions and Limitations 138
Summary and Conclusions 140
APPENDIX A INTERVIEW PROTOCOL AND INTERVIEW DIMENSIONS .... 142
APPENDIX B SUPERVISORY RATING FORMS 156
APPENDIX C TRAITS ASSOCIATED WITH BEHAVIORAL DIMENSIONS . 164
APPENDIX D NONVERBAL CUE RATING FORMS 169
REFERENCES 186
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 195
vii


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
UTILIZATION AND VALIDITY OF NONVERBAL CUES
IN THE STRUCTURED INTERVIEW
By
Jennifer R. Burnett
August, 1993
Chairman: Stephan J. Motowidlo, Ph.D.
Major Department: Management
The purpose of this study was to determine if nonverbal
cues are utilized by interview raters, are related to
performance ratings, and contribute incrementally to the
validity of a structured interview. Simulated job interviews
with 60 managers from 4 utility companies were recorded on
videotape. Supervisors provided performance ratings.
Undergraduate raters (N=167) watched the videotaped
interviews and rated subjects on 4 dimensions of managerial
effectiveness. Eight nonverbal behaviors, including gaze,
smiling, hand movement, back/side lean, body orientation,
physical attractiveness, dress, and vocal attractiveness,
were scored by independent judges.
Nonverbal cues, in combination, were significantly
correlated with both interview (r=.33, p<.01) and performance
viii


(r=.21, p<.05) ratings. Gaze was the only nonverbal cue
which was not only utilized by interview raters, but also was
a valid indicator of performance. Independent measures of
nonverbal cues did not contribute incrementally to the
validity of the interview, suggesting that interview raters
were utilizing cues sufficiently.
Results differed according to the sex of the
interviewee. Although nonverbal cues correlated
significantly with interview ratings for both men (r=.30,
p<.05, N=32) and women (r=.39, p<.05, N=28), correlations
with performance substantially differed by sex (men: r=-.18,
n.s.; women: r=.67, p<.001). For women only, combined
dynamic cues were both utilized by interview raters (r=.31,
p<.05), and significantly correlated with supervisory ratings
of performance (r=.56, p<.001). Also, for women,
independently rated nonverbal cues added significantly to the
prediction of performance, beyond that of interview ratings
alone. This indicates that interview raters were not
sufficiently utilizing nonverbal cues when judging female
interviewees.
It was concluded that nonverbal cues influence
structured interview ratings, and are related to supervisory
ratings of performance. Gaze, in particular, seems to be a
valid nonverbal cue to utilize in the interview. Three
explanations are proposed regarding the compelling sex
differences found in this study.
ix


INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Despite years of criticism about the interview's low
reliability and validity, it has prevailed as one of the most
popular methods of selection. Recently developed structured
interview techniques have lifted some of the negativity
surrounding the use of the interview. Studies that have
tested structured interview formats have provided favorable
reports of their use to increase the validity and reliability
of interviewer's judgments (M. Campion, Pursell, and Brown,
1988; Janz, 1982; Latham, Saari, Pursell, and M. Campion,
1980; Motowidlo, Carter, Dunnette, Tippins, Werner, Burnett,
and Vaughan, 1992). Researchers must continue to investigate
how to improve the structured interview in order to obtain
accurate ratings that identify qualified job candidates.
This study will focus on a set of factors that, research
has shown, affects the favorability of interviewer's
judgments. These factors are nonverbal cues. The specific
focus here is on the effect of nonverbal cues (e.g. body
positioning, gestures, facial expressions, voice
characteristics, appearance and attractiveness) on the
validity with which interviewers make predictions of
applicants' future job performance.
1


2
In order to establish the direction and contribution of
the current study, related literature will be reviewed.
First, an overview of structured interviewing will be
presented, including an explanation of what is meant by
"structured," and a description of different types of
structured interview techniques. Second, since it has been
suggested that the structure of the interview may affect
interviewers' ability to process information presented during
the interview, a closer look will be taken of each step of
the information processing system and how the structured
interview format can affect those steps. The step of
greatest interest in the current study is the process of
attending to and utilizing cues, particularly nonverbal cues.
This focus will lead to a review of studies that have
investigated the effect of nonverbal cues on raters'
judgments. What types of cues are important, how do they
affect interviewers' judgments, and to what degree do they
influence judgments beyond that of verbal information?
Finally, important issues which need to be addressed by
further research in this area will be discussed.
Structured Interviews
The Meaning of "Structure"
Structuring an interview may mean different things to
different people. Structure, in the context of the selection


3
interview, means that the interviewer follows systematic and
predetermined rules to observe and evaluate applicants.
Structuring may also mean that these rules are applied in the
same way for all applicants of a position. These rules may
designate the type of questions asked by the interviewer, the
elements of an applicant's answer to which the interviewer
should attend, and/or the scoring system used by the
interviewers to make judgments based on the applicant's
responses. We can think of structure in varying degrees. At
the low extreme there is the unstructured interview where no,
or few, rules exist with regard to conducting the interview,
and the interviewer has full discretionary control of the
process. At the high extreme there is the very structured
interview, where the interviewer only asks predetermined
questions and nothing more, and therefore has no discretion.
The highly structured interview is, in effect, an orally
administered objective test, and could just as well be
administered without the interviewer. Although we do not
know if there is an optimal degree of structure, there is
evidence that some structure is better than none.
For example, in 1949 Wagner noted that an interview
should be conducted according to a standardized form. He
proposed that an interview can be valid if all information
that can be obtained on a candidate is taken into
consideration and weighed properly. Furthermore, the
interviewer must be skilled at obtaining full and complete
information from an applicant, observing significant


4
behavior, ignoring irrelevant behavior, and synthesizing all
information into a valid prediction of success (Wagner,
1949). In fact, Wagner noted that another researcher,
McMurray (1947), developed a "patterned" interview that
accomplished these objectives. Using McMurray's format,
interviewers (1) were trained in the techniques of
interviewing, (2) attended to definite job specifications,
(3) had a plan and knew before the interview what questions
they would ask of applicants, (4) had clinical concepts to
use when interpreting and evaluating applicant's responses,
(5) checked outside references prior to the interview, and
(6) were assessed for their own degree of emotional
adjustment and intelligence. McMurray found a significant
correlation (r=.68) between interviewers' ratings of 587
factory workers and supervisor's evaluations of their work.
In another study he found a correlation of .43 between
interview ratings and truck drivers' tenure on the job.
These suggestions by Wagner and the early findings by
McMurray (1947) sound very similar to the rules and formats
used, and results reported, of many structured interview
techniques of today.
Empirical evidence of the advantage of more structure
was presented more recently by Wiesner and Cronshaw (1988)
who reported an uncorrected validity coefficient of .35 for
structured interviews, but only .11 for unstructured
interviews in a meta-analysis of validity studies of
selection interviews. Accordingly, the interest and


5
popularity of the structured interview is based on both long
held beliefs (Mayfield, 1964; McMurray, 1927; Schmitt, 1976;
Ulrich and Trumbo, 1965; Wagner, 1949; Wright, 1969) and
recent evidence (Hakel, 1989; Janz, 1982; Latham, Saari,
Pursell, and M. Campion, 1980; Motowidlo, Carter, Dunnette,
Tippins, Werner, Burnett, and Vaughan, 1992; Wiesner and
Cronshaw, 1988) that structured interviews have an advantage
over unstructured interviews.
Types of Structured Interview Formats
Two well known structured interview formats are the
Situational Interview (SI), developed by Latham et al.
(1980), and the Patterned Behavioral Description Interview
(PBDI), developed by Janz (1982; Janz, Hellervik, and
Gilmore, 1986). Another, more recently developed, structured
interview format is the Structured Behavioral Interview,
developed by Motowidlo et al. (1992). Similarities and
differences in format of each of these interview techniques
and evidence of the validity and reliability of each type of
structured interview provide insight into the advantages of
structured interviews over traditional interviews.
First, in the situational interview (SI), questions are
presented as hypothetical situations, and ask applicants what
they would do if they were in that situation. The SI
questions are based on goal theory, or the belief that
behavioral intentions are strongly linked with subsequent


6
behavior. SI questions are derived from a critical incidents
job analysis of the job to be filled.
The validity of the situational interview has received
support. Latham et al. (1980) reported three studies with
concurrent validity coefficients of .46 (p<.05, N=49) and .30
(p<.05, N=63) with incumbents, and predictive validities of
.33 (p<.05, N=56) with applicants. The criterion in all
cases was supervisor's composite performance ratings of
workers. Two additional studies by Latham and Saari (1984)
also support the validity of the situational interview. In
one study, they reported correlations of interview ratings
with concurrent supervisory ratings at .39 (p<.05) and with
peer ratings at .42 (p<.05)(N=29). In another study, they
reported a predictive validity coefficient of .14 (p<.05,
N=157) between interview scores and composite supervisory
ratings. Weekley and Gier (1987) gave evidence of the
predictive validity of the situational format when they
reported a correlation of .45 (p<.05) between interview
ratings of 54 individuals applying for a retail sales
position and their sales productivity nine months later.
Across six studies, validity estimates for the situational
interview ranged from .14 to .46 (all significant at the
p<.05 level) with a total sample of 378 interviewees. This
results in a mean validity of .28 weighted by sample size.
Reliability estimates from these same seven studies are
adequate. Interobserver reliabilities ranged from .76 to .90,
and internal consistency estimates ranged from .61 to .78.


7
In the second well-known structured interview format,
the Patterned Behavior Description Interview (PBDI),
applicants are asked to recall specific past experiences, and
to report their actual behavior when they were in those
situations. This format is based on the theory of behavioral
consistency, or the idea that past behavior will predict
future behavior (Wernimont and Campbell, 1968). Janz (1989)
states that behavior descriptions provided by job applicants
reveal specific choices made by those individuals, and the
circumstances under which they made those choices. He argues
that this type of information reveals behavioral patterns,
rather than opinions or impressions, and the more long
standing the applicant's behavior pattern, the more likely it
will predict future behavior. The behavioral dimensions
tapped by the PBDI questions are derived from the results of
a critical incidents job analysis.
There have been two published studies of the validity of
the PBDI. The first, by Janz (1982), involved fifteen
teaching assistants who were interviewed twice by
undergraduate students. Interviewers were divided into two
groups. One group received training for the PBDI, and the
other group received general instruction on establishing
rapport, active listening, etc. The traditionally trained
interviewers exhibited greater interrater agreement, but the
PBDI-trained interviewers' ratings were significantly
correlated, at .54 (p< .001), with an independent rating of
the teaching assistants' effectiveness in class. The


8
traditionally trained interviewers' ratings only correlated
.07 (n.s.) with the criterion. It is important to note that
in Janz's study interviewers were not randomly assigned to a
training condition, and the sample size was small. These two
weaknesses cast speculation on the accuracy of these results.
In response, in a study by Orpen (1985), interviewers
were randomly assigned to two conditions of behavior
description training and traditional training. Nineteen real
applicants for an insurance sales position were each
interviewed by at least four of the sixteen total
interviewers. Supervisory ratings and the value of insurance
sales in one year were both used as criteria. Orpen (1985)
reported a correlation of .48 (p<.01) between supervisory
performance ratings and the ratings made by interviewers
trained in the behavioral description technique, versus a
nonsignificant validity coefficient of .08 (n.s.) for the
traditionally trained interviewers. For the criterion of the
value of insurance sold, the PBDI interviewers' ratings
validity was .61 (pc.Ol), and the traditional interviewers'
ratings validity was .10 (n.s.).
The mean validity coefficient for the Janz (1982) and
Orpen (1985) studies is .55, weighted by sample size.
However, the small total sample size (N=34), again, calls
into questions the precision of these results. The test-
retest reliability in Orpen's study was .72 and did not
differ significantly from that of the traditional
unstructured interview. In Janz's study the standard


9
interview had a greater interobserver reliability than that
of the patterned behavior interview, .71 and .46,
respectively.
Lastly, the Structured Behavioral Interview (SBI),
developed by Motowidlo et al. (1992), consolidates some
aspects of both the SI and PBDI techniques, while adding some
unique features. The SBI is similar to both the SI and PBDI
in that it derives its behavioral dimensions from the results
of critical incident job analysis. The questions in the SBI
elicit answers representing one or more of the interview
dimensions by asking how interviewees behaved in past
situations that are similar to situations encountered on the
job for which they are applying. Therefore, the SBI
questions are similar to, but more structured than the PBDI,
since this format requires interviewers to ask the same
questions. Additionally, the interviewer using the SBI not
only asks a standard set of questions, but also is trained to
probe for details of the situation, the interviewee's
behavior in that situation, and the outcome that resulted
from that behavior. Like the SI, after the interview is
completed, the interviewer using the SBI rates the
interviewee on behaviorally anchored scales for each
dimension.
Motowidlo and his colleagues (1992) reported the SBI's
criterion validity, construct validity, and reliability. In
three studies using eight telecommunications companies, with
a total validation sample of approximately 500 interviewees,


10
the uncorrected mean estimate of the criterion-related
validity of the SBI is .22. In one study they reported
concurrent validities ranging from .15 (p<.05) to .32
(pc.Ol), with a mean of .25 weighted by sample size varying
from 139-146, depending on missing data. In another study,
predictive validity coefficients were reported between .13
(p<.05) and .25 (pc.Ol), with a mean of .18, weighted by a
sample size of 192-195. In a third study, they reported a
predictive validity coefficient of .15 (n.s.) to .45(pc.Ol),
with a mean correlation of .33, weighted by a sample size of
30-33. These three studies involved an interview format that
measured dimensions important for management jobs. In the
third study, however, another format designed for marketing
jobs, was also tested. The concurrent validity of the
marketing position interview ranged from .05 (n.s.) to .32
(pc.Ol), with a mean of .20, weighted by a sample size of
124-159.
Support for the construct validity of the SBI was based
on three results. First, correlations between ratings by
interviewers and subjects who listened to tapes of the
interviews, and ratings by interviewers and supervisors, were
higher for same dimensions (i.e. convergent validity) than
for different dimensions (i.e. discriminant validity).
Second, SBI ratings were significantly correlated with
ratings made with another interview format designed to
measure the same, or similar, dimensions. And, finally, the
SBI interview ratings were not strongly, or significantly,


11
correlated with other measures, such as an aptitude test,
college grade point averages, or rank in college class, that
rely heavily on cognitive ability.
The reliability of the SBI was determined in the first
study conducted by Motowidlo et al. (1992) and was based on
(1) the correlation between ratings by different interviewers
who interviewed the same applicants on different occasions,
and (2) the correlation between ratings by pairs of listeners
of audiotapes of those interviews. Those reliability
estimates were .64 and .63, respectively.
In addition to evidence of validity and reliability of
these three particular interview techniques, there are two
additional criteria that should be taken into account
namely, freedom from bias and practicality. For the
situational interview (Campion et al., 1988; Latham, 1989)
and the structured behavioral interview (Motowidlo, et al.,
1992) there is significant evidence that these techniques are
not biased in favor of race or sex of the applicant. There
is no reported evidence regarding the degree of bias in the
patterned behavior description interview (Janz, 1982; Janz,
1989).
The practicality of these three interview techniques is
evidenced by indicators such as their usefulness for making
selection decisions, interviewers' and applicants'
perceptions of fairness, and the feasibility of their use.
The most apparent test of an interview's practicality may be


12
its continued use and acceptance by recruiters and managers
who use the technique to make important hiring decisions.
In one study, by Latham and Finnegan (1987),
interviewers and applicants were asked to report their
perceptions of and preferences for the unstructured,
patterned, and situational interview formats. Two groups of
managers reported that they preferred the patterned to the
unstructured interview. They did, however, consider the
situational interview significantly better than the patterned
on aspects such as the opportunity to compare applicants
objectively, and to hire or reject applicants on job related
grounds. The SI, however, was perceived as low on ease of
preparation. Employees who were recently hired using the
three formats did not view one interview method as better, or
more preferable, than another. College students, however,
who were preparing for a job search, preferred the
unstructured interview over the other two formats, because
the unstructured format allowed them to sell themselves more
effectively, and gave them more freedom to say what they
wanted to say.
In summary, for users, in this case, managers, the
consensus seems to be in favor of some structure, rather than
none. But the jury is still out regarding what format
applicants prefer, or whether one particular structured
format is more preferable or practical than another to users.
Because the SBI was not included in Latham and
Finnegan's (1987) study since it had not yet been developed,


13
there is a need to conduct a more current survey of users'
and applicants' perceptions of the practicality of each
interview method for meeting their objectives. Although, if
the popularity and widespread use of the structured,
behaviorally-based interviews in corporate America is any
indication of the practicality of these techniques, then it
seems reasonable to argue that they are indeed perceived as
useful, feasible, and fair.
Convincing evidence has been presented of not only the
overall favorability of structured interviews, but also the
results of validity and reliability research of three
specific structured interview formats. Additionally, support
has been given for the SI and SBI's freedom from bias.
Finally, the structured techniques seem more practical than
the unstructured interview to interviewers, but evidence of
overall practicality is still officially undetermined. One
question not yet addressed, however, with regard to the
success of the structured interview, is "Why does it work?".
In order to try to answer this question theoretical
perspectives of interviewing itself must be considered.
Theoretical Perspectives on the Effectiveness of the
Structured Interview
The Validation Model
In order to discuss the possible reasons why structured
interviews are more valid and reliable than the traditional,


14
unstructured interview it must be explained why the latter
have had poorer results. According to a model developed by
Schwab (1980), when considering the criterion-related
validity (or empirical validity) of the interview, it is also
necessary to be concerned with the construct validity of the
predictor and the criterion used (See Figure 1.1).
Independent
Variable
Dependent
Variable
Construct
Validity

I' ^
t
Empirical Validity
Figure 1.1. An illustration of construct and empirical
validity in the employment interview.(Adapted from Schwab,
1980)
The validity correlations reported by researchers are between
interview ratings (I') and some type of job performance
criterion rating (C) These are indicators of the real
constructs of I, performance in the interview, and C,
performance on the job. When a significant correlation is
found between I' and C it suggests a significant
relationship between I and C. But, there must also be a high
correlation between I and I' and C and C to make that
assumption. Therefore, both construct and empirical validity


15
are necessary to make inferences from the research data
(Cronshaw and Wiesner, 1989).
In the unstructured interview, the indicator I' (i.e.
interview ratings) may lack construct validity as a measure
of I in the structured interview because of the failure of
the traditional interviewer to obtain relevant, job-related
information. Janz (1989) suggested that, in the unstructured
interview, the questions interviewers actually ask, and the
information for which they probe, have little to do with the
constructs that are important for predicting job performance.
Necessary and relevant information may not be consistently
uncovered in an unstructured interview (Mayfield, 1964).
Also, I' may lack construct validity as a measure of I
because of the influence of interviewer biases (such as
similar-to-me and contrast effects). Interviewers who use
unstructured interviews have much self discretion, thereby
allowing individual differences, such as differential
attention and weighting of information, to come into play.
These biases and individual differences can interfere with
the collection of a relevant sample of the true domain of
information about the applicant (I). Likewise, interviewers
who are not guided by any specific rules or structure tend to
focus on how the applicant responds in the limited context of
the interview session, rather on long term patterns of
behavior. This allows the impression management strategies
of the interviewee to influence judgments to a greater degree
(Dipboye, 1992; Janz, 1989).


16
Therefore, the lack of construct validity of I' may
attenuate the criterion-related validity coefficient between
I' and C. In response to the low reliabilities and low
validities of unstructured interview techniques arose the
development of structured interview formats.
There is not one widely accepted theory regarding why
structured interviews work. The advantage of the structured
interview developed by Janz (1982), Latham et al. (1980) and
Motowidlo et al. (1992) may be due to the fact that the
questions are job-related because they were systematically
derived using critical incidents job analysis. If questions
are more job-related, then applicants can provide more
relevant information in their answers for interviewers to use
for predicting effective job performance. Therefore,
structured interview ratings (I') that are based on those
relevant answers would have greater construct validity,
because they would more accurately reflect the true predictor
of I (see Figure 1.1). Similarly, the structured interview
format may have greater validity results because
interviewers' judgments are more reliable. The extensive
training typically involved in the use of structured formats,
the standardization of questions across interviewers, and the
provision of behaviorally anchored rating scales may all
contribute to increased interrater reliability. Overall, the
methodological aspects of structured formats seem to improve
the I' I linkage, resulting in improved reliability and
construct validity of the interview ratings, and subsequently


17
strengthen the I' C linkage, reported as the criterion-
related validity (Cronshaw and Wiesner, 1989).
Aspects of a structured format, such as the job
relatedness of the questions, the presence of predetermined
rules for conducting the interview, and the use of
behaviorally anchored scales to make ratings, may each
contribute to the construct and empirical validity of the
ratings. This explanation, however, may be only part of a
more comprehensive explanation of the advantages of the
structured interview. One can not forget that between the
time the interview questions are asked and the interviewer
makes a rating or judgement, an important phenomenon occurs
the processing of information. The structure of the
interview, particularly the methodologies employed, may
improve the effectiveness of the interviewers' information
processing capabilities, that, in turn, affect the validity
of the interview (Eder, Kacmar and Ferris,1989).
The Information Processing Model
The interviewer processes information by progressing
through five steps (Lord, 1985). The first three steps
constitute the input of information, including (1) selective
attention to informational cues, (2) the comprehension and
encoding of those cues, and (3) storage and retention into
memory. After all information has been collected, at some
later point, the judge must retrieve the information (step 4)


18
from memory and translate it into the required judgment or
decision (step 5) (Lord, 1985).
The methodology of a structured format may affect each
step of the information processing system. First, the
interviewer must obtain a sample of information from the
population of positive and negative information available
about the job applicant (Motowidlo, 1986). This sample of
information is obtained through interviewers' automatic
and/or controlled attentional mechanisms (Ilgen and Feldman,
1983; Feldman, 1981; Schneider and Shiffrin, 1977; Shiffrin
and Schneider, 1977). The automatic process of attention
occurs without conscious monitoring or awareness. Relevant
information must be detected within the context of other,
irrelevant pieces of information. When under controlled
attentional conditions, individuals are aware of their
cognitive processes and consciously seek out relevant
applicant information. Both the automatic and controlled
attention mechanisms are influenced by the salience of the
informational cues. The salience of the cues determines
whether or not they are utilized by interviewers (Ilgen and
Feldman, 1983; Feldman, 1981; Schneider and Shiffrin, 1977;
Shiffrin and Schneider, 1977) .
In the structured interview the interviewers are
typically trained to attend to information that is relevant
to the dimensions on which they will rate the applicant. For
example, in the Situational Interview (Latham et al., 1980)
raters are aware of the dimensions that each question is


19
intended to tap, and they are also provided with a scoring
guide that gives them examples of a good, moderate, and poor
response for each question. Motowidlo et al. (1992) also
trained interviewers using the Structured Behavioral
Interview format to identify information provided by the
applicant that was relevant to the dimension to be measured.
The interviewers made ratings on each dimension that were
anchored with specific descriptions of behaviors at high,
moderate and low levels. This training and the tools
provided to interviewers (specific dimensions, structured
questions, scoring guides) make their attentional processes
more controlled. Additionally, by providing interviewers
with carefully developed tools and predetermined rules to
follow they are relieved of the responsibility of making
those decisions themselves. They then have more time and
freedom to attend to interviewees' responses, rather than
worry about what question to ask next, or how to score it.
Overall, the controlled attention of interviewers using a
structured interview format enables them to distinguish
relevant, from irrelevant, pieces of information more
readily.
Second, the rules and tools of the structured format
make it easier for interviewers to encode the information to
which they have attended. Encoding occurs when an external
stimulus, such as applicants' verbal and nonverbal responses
to interview questions, is translated into an symbolic code
within the mind of the perceiver (Lord, 1985). Each piece of


20
information is not encoded independently, but instead, is
matched with more general, preexisting categories.
Information that is incongruent with existing categories
takes longer to encode, and may require the development of a
new category for novel stimuli (Lord, 1985). Ilgen and
Feldman (1983) stated that the categories that judges use to
process information are a function of their experience and
education. Accordingly, the structured interview may improve
interviewers' encoding process because they are provided with
behavioral dimensions (i.e. categories), trained to use them,
and gain more experience with using those same dimensions
over time. The dimensional scoring guides that use
behaviorally-anchored scales give them a relevant bases upon
which they can identify and categorize interviewees'
responses. Therefore, they are better able to make sense of
and integrate the wealth of information presented to them
during the interview by matching it with predetermined
behavioral categories.
After information is encoded it is stored in short-term
memory, or a "workspace" (Wyer and Srull, 1980). In many
cases of social perception, that information may not be
needed until some period of time has elapsed. In those
situations the information is eventually transferred from
short-term to long-term memory until retrieval. In the
context of the interview, however, there is very little time,
often a matter of minutes or, at most, hours, between when
the information is received and when it is retrieved for


21
evaluation. Therefore, we will assume that, under most
interviewing conditions, it does not enter long-term memory.
The short retention period helps to minimize the loss of
detailed information, and the interviewer is not limited to
using only the prototypes of the encoded categories, for
information output.
For information output, the interviewer must retrieve
and integrate encoded information, and then formulate a
judgment of the applicant based on that information. These
steps often occur contiguously (Lord, 1985). The information
recalled could be both behavioral and dispositional (Feldman,
1981). There has been much criticism about using traits to
make personnel decisions, rather than behaviors, due to the
subjective assessment of personality attributes and judges'
tendencies to define traits differently Instead, more
objective, behavioral information is recommended for
personnel decisions. When making hiring decisions, the
behaviors of the job candidate are of greatest interest,
since these should predict how they will perform on the job.
In the structured interview, since the scoring guides with
which interviewers make their ratings are based on specific
behaviors, their ability to recall and rate behavioral
information may be improved.
Overall, the rules and methods used in structured
interviews have the potential to influence each step of the
interviewers' information processing system. Motowidlo
(1986) noted the importance of the information processing


22
system for making personnel decisions and stated that "the
accuracy of an evaluative judgment depends upon how well the
input sample of impressions represents the population of
information, how well the retrieved sample of impressions
represents the input sample of impressions, and how well the
judgment represents the retrieved sample of impressions" (p.
6). If a structured format results in more efficient
processing of information by the interviewer, then the
validity of those decisions is improved.
Within the context of both an information processing
model and a validation model, we have theoretically implied
reasons for the advantage of structured interview formats
over unstructured formats. It would be infeasible, if not
impossible, to demonstrate all of these implications at once.
Instead we would like to narrow our focus for this study to
one stage of the information processing systemthat of
attention and the utilization of cues. In order to do this
we turn to another model, by Brunswik (1956), that limits
itself exclusively to the process of cue utilization.
The Brunswik Lens Model
The Brunswik lens model provides an approach for
researchers to examine (1) the influence of applicant
attributes on interviewers judgments (cue utilization), (2)
the actual relationship between each attribute and the
criterion (ecological validity), and (3) the overall


23
relationship of interviewers' judgments of the applicant to
the criterion (achievement).
Hierarchy of Cues
Achievement
Figure 1.2. A modified version of the Brunswik lens model.
The level of achievement is a function of ecological
validity and cue utilization. In other words, the accuracy
of an interviewers' judgment varies with whether he or she
utilizes valid cues, and the consistency with which cues are
utilized (Dipboye, 1992). If an interviewer has knowledge
about which pieces of verbal and nonverbal information
presented during the interview are relevant for predicting
the criterion, and uses those cues to make hiring decisions,
then he or she has identified valid cues and is utilizing
them appropriately.


24
Few studies in the employment interview literature have
used the Brunswik lens model. In their 1982 review, Arvey
and Campion encouraged more use of the lens model, yet ten
years later, there has been only one known application of
this model by Gifford et al. (1985) for interview research.
Borkenau and Liebler (1992) claimed they were the second to
use the entire lens model in a study of person perception.
Although they focused on situations where targets and raters
are strangers, much like an interview, they did not
explicitly use an employment interview setting. Furthermore,
though many studies have investigated interviewers'
utilization of nonverbal cues, or variables that correspond
to only the right side of the lens model, only one study,
conducted by Anderson and Shackleton (1990), explicitly used
the Brunswik lens model. This body of literature will now be
reviewed.
Attention to and Utilization of Nonverbal Cues in the
Interview
The interview is, by definition, a face-to-face
discussion between the applicant and the interviewer, but
interviewers do not attend only to what applicants say. Much
evidence indicates that interviewers also attend to and
evaluate nonverbal cues presented by interviewees (Gifford et
al., 1985; Imada and Hakel, 1977; McGovern and Tinsley, 1978;
Raza and Carpenter, 1987; Young and Beier, 1977). Several


25
researchers have investigated whether those cues provide
information that influences hiring decisions, above and
beyond that provided by verbal and more objective (i.e.
resume) information. Schmitt (1976) suggested that nonverbal
sources of information were more important than verbal cues,
and a combination of both verbal and nonverbal information
had the greatest influence on differences in interviewers'
ratings of job applicants. Amabile and Rabat (1982) go so
far as to suggest that when subjects' verbal responses
conflict with their behavior, interviewers tend to base their
evaluations more on actions than words. Even when there is
no conflict, the variance accounted for by nonverbal cues has
exceeded that of verbal content in some studies. Young and
Beier (1977) found that eye contact, smiling and head
movement accounted for 87% of the variance in interviewers
ratings of applicant qualifications. Sigelman and Davis
(1978) found that nonverbal behavior accounted for 56% of the
variance in the interviewers' evaluations. In two other
studies (Argyle, Salter, Nicholson, Williams and Burgess,
1970; Walker, 1977), researchers reported that nonverbal cues
accounted for 10.3 and 10 times more variance, respectively,
than that due to verbal content.
Systematic research on the effect of nonverbal behavior
on social interaction has been conducted in only the last
thirty to thirty-five years, and specifically within the
context of the interview only in the last twenty years.
Before reviewing this body of literature different types of


26
nonverbal behaviors will be identified and operationally
defined.
Identifying and Defining Nonverbal Cues
There are three specific types of nonverbal cues that
have been studied as having an effect on interviewers'
employment decisionsdynamic, static and paralinguistic
cues. Dynamic cues are those that involve some type of
movement that can be changed from moment to moment. Examples
of dynamic cues include smiling, gesturing, gaze, head
movement or nodding, body orientation, and posture. Static
cues are characteristics of an individual that cannot readily
be altered in a given situation. Age, gender, physical
attractiveness, dress, and cleanliness are examples of static
cues. Obviously the latter three can be altered over time,
but, for example, in a job interview the applicant has the
same clothes, hairstyle, scent, etc. for the duration of the
interview. Paralinguistic cues refer to characteristics of
vocalizations. The rate, volume and tone with which someone
speaks, their ability to articulate words, as well as the
time spent talking and length of pauses before answers, are
examples of paralinguistic cues.
There is not a consensus regarding which nonverbal
behaviors are important for predicting interviewers'
judgments. Edinger and Patterson (1983) identified eleven
"nonverbal involvement behaviors" that determine the degree


27
of involvement between individuals in social settings. These
behaviors include interpersonal distance, gaze, touch, body
orientation lean, facial expressiveness, talking duration,
interruptions, postural openness, gestures of relational
nature, head nods, and paralinguistic cues (volume, speech
rate, and intonation). Within the context of an interview,
where the applicant's behavioral strategy is designed to
create some positive impression on the rater, Edinger and
Patterson noted that the most important nonverbal involvement
behaviors seemed to be divided, depending on the criterion.
First, gaze and facial expressions (i.e., smiling, eye
contact) were the most influential on perceptions of
likability, interest, pleasantness, credibility, and the
favorability of the applicant. Second, interpersonal
distance and touch were most influential on perceptions of
assertiveness, social activity, and favorability.
Another way to determine the possible importance of cues
may be to simply identify which cues are being studied. A
review of 19 studies (Anderson, 1960; Anderson and
Shackleton, 1990; Brunswik, 1956; Cann et al., 1981; Cash and
Kilcullen, 1985; Forbes and Jackson, 1980; Gifford et al.,
1985; Hollandsworth et al., 1979; Imada and Hakel, 1977;
Kinicki and Lockwood, 1985; Kinicki et al., 1990; McGovern et
al., 1979; Parsons and Liden, 1984; Rasmussen, 1984; Raza and
Carpenter, 1987; Sterrett, 1978; Wexley et al., 1975; Young
and Beier, 1977; Zuckerman et al., 1990), in which at least
one nonverbal cue was found to have an effect on


28
interviewer's judgments, shows that some researchers study
only one nonverbal cue, others study several, but rarely ever
are the same combination of cues studied. Eleven of these 19
studies measured or manipulated eye contact, making it the
most commonly studied dynamic cue. Smiling, gesturing, and
posture have also been frequently studied (7, 5, and 5
studies, respectively). Of the static cues, physical
attractiveness has received the most attention (7 of the 19
studies), with gender and appropriateness of dress also of
interest to researchers (4 and 3 studies, respectively).
Paralinguistic cues of voice articulation and modulation have
been included in three studies each, and voice loudness,
pauses before answering, and time spent talking have been
investigated twice.
This review of 19 studies only reveals what cues
researchers have identified as worthy of investigation. It
cannot determine from this information which cues are the
most significant. Also, it is unclear whether two
researchers who both studied the effects of gesturing, for
example, defined "gesturing" in the same way. Few of these
researchers explicitly defined the cues under study. Many
researchers rely on the assumption that behaviors such as eye
contact, smiling, and head nodding are commonly defined and
understood. As Burgoon and Baesler (1991) stated, "The
result is that many measurement decisions in the nonverbal
arena are governed more by happenstance, history, or cost
than by traditional measurement criteria" (p. 57).


29
Other researchers prefer to use the definitions set
forth by others, such as Mehrabian (1972), a psychologist
studying nonverbal behaviors in various social settings.
Mehrabian set forth scoring criteria for several categories
of nonverbal and implicit verbal behaviors. He noted that
these scoring criteria were derived from a variety of
experimental findings, and included only those cues that
yielded significant findings. He divided the behaviors into
five dimensions that he identified as the immediacy
dimension, the relaxation dimension, movements, facial
expressions, and vocalizations. The immediacy dimension
included behaviors such as touching, physical distance,
forward lean, eye contact, observation and orientation. The
relaxation dimension included arm position asymmetry,
sideways lean, leg position asymmetry, hand relaxation, neck
relaxation, and reclining angle. The movement dimension
included head nodding, head shaking, gesticulation, trunk
swivel, rocking, self-manipulation, object-manipulation, leg
movement, foot movement, and duration walking. The facial
expression dimension included such behaviors as facial
pleasantness, facial activity, and facial dominance. And,
finally, the verbalization dimension included speech error
rate, halting quality, speech volume, length and number of
statements, number of questions, verbal reinforcers,
pleasantness, positive and negative verbal content, speech
rate, and vocal activity.


30
Mehrabian (1972) operationally defined these behaviors.
For example, eye contact was defined as occurring when the
communicator and the addressee look into each other's eyes,
and would be measured as the duration of time that the
behavior occurs. Or, as another example, gesticulation was
defined as the number of movements of the hands or fingers,
cyclical, side-to-side, forward-back, and up-and-down
movements, scored as one unit each.
Rasmussen (1984) was one of the few researchers who gave
a detailed description of how the nonverbal cues of interest
were measured. He investigated five nonverbal cueseye
contact, smiling, hand gestures, head nodding, and tone of
voice. He defined and quantified them in the following way:
Eye contact: any period during which the interviewee
looked directly at the interviewer (i.e., camera),
quantified as a percentage of total time.
Smiling: not specifically defined, but quantified as a
percentage of total time.
Hand gesture: a back and forth movement of the hands
equals one occurrence of a gesture, quantified as the
number of occurrences.
Head nodding: an up and down movement of the head equals
one occurrence of a nod, quantified as the number of
occurrences.
Tone of voice: an enthusiastic versus flat tone,
quantified dichotomously.
Not only have researchers failed to explicitly indicate
how the nonverbal cues were operationally defined, but they
also often failed to explain why they chose to take either a
macroscopic or microscopic approach to the measurement or


31
manipulation of those cues. Some researchers combined a
number of cues together in a macroscopic approach (Imada and
Hakel, 1977; Kinicki et al., 1990; McGovern et al., 1979;
Rasmussen, 1984; Wexley et al., 1975). Multiple behaviors
were combined into a single variable called nonverbal
"involvement", "immediacy", "enthusiasm" or other terms.
Other researchers have taken a microscopic approach by using
single, discrete nonverbal cues in order to identify their
individual effects on the criterion of interest (Gifford et
al., 1985; Hollandsworth et al., 1979; Parsons and Liden,
1984; Raza and Carpenter, 1987; Sterrett, 1978). The
microscopic approach usually measures behaviors as frequency
counts, durations or judgments within brief time frames, by
using highly reliable coder observations, or a physical
apparatus (Burgoon and Baesler, 1991). These latter studies,
however, are few, and more emphasis on the effects of
specific cues has been encouraged. Imada and Hakel (1977)
suggested that additional research was needed to "tease out
the effects of specific nonverbal cues as well as different
combinations of cues on selection decisions" (p. 300).
McGovern, Jones, and Morris (1979) also suggested "further
research needs to be done to identify the weightings given to
specific visual and vocal components of interviewees
nonverbal behavior" (p.178). These challenges must still be
met.


32
Research of Nonverbal Cues Presented in the Interview
A handful of studies have focused mainly on the effect
of physical attractiveness, a static cue, on hiring
decisions. A few other studies have exclusively investigated
paralinguistic cues. The bulk of the nonverbal cue
literature, however, is focused on the effects of dynamic
cues, or some combination of the three types. First, studies
of dynamic and combination cues will be reviewed and
discussed. Next, research that has been done on solely
physical attractiveness and paralinguistic cues will be
presented. Finally, contrary findings will be presented.
Studies of dynamic and combination cues in the interview
In many of the studies that have investigated dynamic
cues, or a combination of cues, researchers have used
videotapes of simulated job applicants and manipulated
nonverbal behaviors presented in those videos. A study by
Imada and Hakel (1977) provided the impetus for more
laboratory research using videotaped applicants when they
found no significant difference in hiring decisions between
live interviewers and observers of recorded interviews.
Imada and Hakel (1977) were not only interested in the the
medium through which judges observed nonverbal cues, but also
the effect of those nonverbal cues on interview impressions
and decisions. They manipulated nonverbal cues by training a
female applicant to vary her nonverbal behavior as either


33
high ("immediate") or low ("nonimmediate") while verbally
responding in a consistent manner to the interviewer's
questions. In the immediate condition, the applicant
exhibited behaviors such as greater eye contact, more
smiling, more attentive posture, less interpersonal distance,
and a direct body orientation. In the nonimmediate condition
the applicant had no eye contact, no smiling, a slouched body
posture, greater interpersonal distance, and and indirect
body orientation. Seventy-two subject were assigned to either
the immediate or nonimmediate condition, and to one of three
conditions of either participating in a live interview as the
interviewer, observing the live interview from the same room,
or observing the live interview on a television monitor from
another room. The main effects for the three conditions of
rater proximity, and interaction effects were not
significant. However, results indicated that nonverbal cues
had a significant effect on interviewers impressions and
decision to hire. Particularly, the immediate applicant was
rated as being more likely to be accepted, more successful,
more qualified, better liked, having more desirable
characteristics, more motivated, more competent, more
satisfied if given the position, and, as a result, was
recommended more often for the position. Nonverbal
information accounted for an average of 43% of the variance.
McGovern (1976; McGovern and Tinsley,1978) conducted a
study in which 52 professional personnel representatives
rated one of four videotaped employment interviews. McGovern


34
manipulated the level of nonverbal behaviors and the sex of
the job applicant in each videotape, while keeping verbal
content the same. Low levels of nonverbal behaviors were
defined as minimal eye contact, low energy, lack of affect
and voice modulation, lack of speech fluency, and frequent
speech disturbances. A high level of nonverbal cues included
maximal eye contact, high energy, exhibited affect and voice
modulation, fluid speech and no speech disturbances. The 10
factors identified by the researchers as critical for the
interviewer's judgment were the applicant's ability to
communicate, aggressiveness and initiative, self-confidence,
enthusiasm and motivation, intelligence, leadership
potential, maturity, persuasiveness, pleasant personality and
sociability, and positive attitude. The level of nonverbal
involvement had a significant and favorable effect on ratings
made by the judges on all 10 dimensions measured, but
particularly on ratings of applicants' enthusiasm and
motivation, self-confidence, persuasiveness, and pleasantness
of personality. Eighty-eight percent (23 of 26) of those who
saw the high nonverbal applicant reported that they would
have asked him or her back for a second interview. One
hundred percent (all 26) of the subjects who saw the low
nonverbal candidate reported that they would not have
recommended inviting the applicant for a second interview.
McGovern et al.'s (1979) replication of the prior study
confirmed these findings using students rather than
professional personnel representatives as observers.


35
Although students were more lenient, of those who viewed the
interviewee with a high level of nonverbal behaviors, 87%
reported that they would accept him or her. Of those who
rated the interviewee exhibiting low levels of nonverbal
behaviors, 70% reported that they would have rejected the
applicant.
Wexley, Fugita, and Malone (1975) used videotaped,
simulated loan application interviews in their study of
nonverbal cue utilization. They manipulated two levels of
nonverbal enthusiasm, represented by either high or low eye
contact, gesturing, smiling, and appropriateness of voice
tone, on the tapes. Three levels of suitability to receive a
loan (high, average, or low) was also manipulated through the
provision of objective loan application information.
Seventy-eight student raters read the loan applications,
observed the videotapes, and rated applicants' suitability to
receive a loan. A significant main effect was found for both
nonverbal enthusiasm and suitability. Those applicants who
exhibited the high levels of nonverbal behaviors received
more favorable evaluations by raters.
In another study by Young and Beier (1977), applicants
in a simulated, videotaped employment interview varied their
nonverbal behaviors in response to instructions from the
researcher to either exhibit more eye contact; more eye
contact and smiling; more eye contact, smiling and head
movement; or minimal eye contact, smiling and head movement.
Applicants followed scripts to control verbal content. Those


36
who were rated by independent judges as actually engaging in
more eye contact, smiling, and head movement were evaluated
by a different set of judges as more deserving of the job.
An independent rating of physical attractiveness was not
found to be a significant predictor of hiring evaluations.
In response to the popularity of using videotaped
interviews to manipulate nonverbal behavior Rasmussen (1984)
argued that the problem with the these studies was that
nonverbal behaviors were isolated, thereby researchers were
ignoring other important variables, such as verbal behavior
and resume credentials. Rasmussen used simulated interviews
recorded on videotapes in order to vary the levels of both
verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Four tapes were created to
represent either appropriate and relevant, or inappropriate
and irrelevant scripts for verbal responses, and either high
or low levels of nonverbal behaviors. Nonverbal behaviors
which were manipulated included the degree of eye contact,
smiling, hand gesturing, head nodding, and tone or modulation
of voice. In addition to viewing the videotapes, subjects
were provided with simulated resumes that included either
excellent academic achievement and highly relevant work
experience (high) or low academic achievement and little
previous work experience (low). Eighty subjects rated the
applicant on the videotape on their qualifications for the
job, on a scale from poor (1) to superior (25). Resume
credentials accounted for the greatest amount of variance,
and both resume information and verbal content had


37
significant main effects on the criteria. The nonverbal
behaviors alone had a relatively small effect. Rasmussen
concluded that these findings are not necessarily contrary to
prior research of the effects of nonverbal cues, but merely
indicate that when there is variability in resume credentials
and verbal responses then the additional information provided
by nonverbal cues may not be relevant. On the other hand,
when members of an applicant pool are relatively similar in
regard to verbal content and credentials, nonverbal behaviors
could have an important impact on interviewers' decisions, as
other studies that control for those variables have
indicated. In addition to those main effects, Rasmussen
reported a significant and interesting interaction effect
between verbal content and nonverbal behavior. When verbal
content was good, high levels of nonverbal behavior resulted
in even higher ratings, but when verbal content was poor,
high levels of nonverbal behavior produced lower ratings. In
other words, the presence of more nonverbal behaviors seemed
to enhance the magnitude of the effect of verbal content, not
the direction.
These six laboratory studies using videotaped, simulated
interviews have received some criticism for their lack of
generalizability to a real interview situation
(Hollandsworth, Kazelskis, Stevens, Dressel,1979; Parsons and
Liden, 1984) The variance in nonverbal behaviors
manipulated in those taped interviews may have been


38
artificially inflated by the researcher in comparison to how
real job applicants behave when interviewed.
One important field study that addressed this criticism
was conducted by Parsons and Liden (1984). These researchers
investigated the effect of nonverbal cues within the context
of an actual, structured employment interview. Eight
interviewers rated a total of 517 applicants on both
nonverbal cues and a final judgment of overall
qualifications. The eight cues included poise, clothing
neatness, personal cleanliness, posture, articulation of
speech, voice audibility and understandability, pauses before
answers, and eye contact. Two separate scales were used to
make the judgment, or final rating. For the interviews in
which the first scale was utilized, interviewers rated
applicants on a scale from not qualified (1) to highly
qualified (5). The other applicants were rated on a 3-point
scale as rejected, accepted, or conditionally accepted.
There was substantial multicollinearity among ratings of
nonverbal cues, with correlations ranging from .54 to .90.
The correlations between nonverbal cues and interviewer
ratings of applicant qualifications ranged from .64 to
,81(N=251). These researchers also found that nonverbal
variables of articulation and eye contact were significant
predictors of each type of hiring decision on the independent
samples (N=251, N=266). Clothing and cleanliness were the
least influential cues. Furthermore, nonverbal cues added
significantly to the rating of applicant qualifications, even


39
after accounting for variance of objective data, such as
application blank information, and applicants' verbal
responses to questions regarding their scholastic
performance, extracurricular activities, and previous job
experiences (N=232). Nonverbal information alone predicted
73% of the variance of interviewers judgments and, when
subsequently added, objective information increased the
variance accounted for by only 2%. Parsons and Liden's
(1984) findings are similar to those of another field study,
previously conducted by Forbes and Jackson (1980), who used
real job applicants, and found that they were most favorably
rated when they engaged in more eye contact, smiling, and
head movement.
Slightly different results were reported by
Hollandsworth et al. (1979) who also conducted a field study,
and included verbal content information as well as nonverbal
behaviors as variables of interest. Eighteen on-campus
college recruiters were asked to rate real candidates (N=338;
mean per recruiter =4.6) on six nonverbal behaviors, the
appropriateness of the content of their verbal responses to
questions, and to indicate whether they would hire the
candidate (l=not a chance, 4=definitely hire). The six
nonverbal cues included eye contact, appropriate loudness of
voice, body posture, speech fluency, personal appearance, and
composure. Hollandsworth et al. reported that the content of
the verbal responses was the single most important variable
in a discriminant analysis. The applicants' fluency of


40
speech and composure were second and third in importance,
respectively. Body posture, eye contact, loudness of voice,
and personal appearance were also significant, in that order.
These findings are not totally contrary to the literature
supportive of the favorable effects of nonverbal cues. They
do suggest, however, that it is the verbal content, not the
nonverbal behaviors, on which interviewers primarily base
their judgments.
Overall, these laboratory and field studies provide
overwhelming evidence that several types of nonverbal
behaviors may influence interviewers' judgments. Next,
research studies that have exclusively studied one type of
cue will be reviewed. First, research on the effects of
physical attractiveness on interviewers' impressions and
decisions will be presented, then research on only
paralinguistic cues.
A closer look at physical attractiveness
As defined earlier, physical attractiveness is a static
cue that the applicant does not, or possibly can not, vary
during the course of the interview. Much of the research
conducted on the effect of static nonverbal cues on
interviewer decisions has focused mainly on the variable of
physical attractiveness.
One of the earliest studies of the effect of appearance
or attractiveness on others' judgments was conducted in 1956
by Brunswik. He used 25 psychology students to rate


41
photographs of 46 Army personnel on variables of
intelligence, energy, likability, and good looks. The
students rated the soldiers, and the soldiers rated each
other. Brunswik investigated, but found no support for, the
mediating effect of external facial characteristics (i.e.
nose height, forehead height, and overall body height) on the
relationship between actual intelligence and student raters'
estimated intelligence and personality.
As mentioned previously, an early study by Young and
Beier (1977) failed to find support for the effect of
physical attractiveness on interviewers' decisions to hire.
Those researchers noted that this finding was interesting,
considering previous, supportive results (Dipboye, Fromkin,
and Wiback, 1975; Dipboye, Arvey, and Terpstra, 1977; Cash,
Gillen, and Burns, 1977). Young and Beier suggested that
perhaps when nonverbal behaviors were present that physical
appearance was less important as a source of information for
the interviewer.
In more recent studies, Kinicki and Lockwood (1985) did
find support for the effects of physical attractiveness.
They had 24 professional recruiters conduct 3 to 4 real
interviews of 91 students as part of an interviewing skills
workshop. The recruiters rated interviewees on five
variables, including occupational knowledge, personal drive,
ability to express ideas, appearance, and attractiveness.
The first four ratings were combined into an overall
"interview impression" score, based on a subsequent factor


42
analysis. Other predictors of work experience,
extracurricular activities, professional objective, college
major and grade point average, and honors received, were
collected using personal data sheets filled in by applicants.
These were also reduced to two predictorswork experience
and academic achievementas the result of the factor
analysis. The same recruiters also indicated applicants'
suitability for hire and interviewing skills, that were
treated as the criterion variables. Recruiters' interview
impressions of applicants significantly correlated .69
(p<.05) with suitability for hire and .75 (p<.05) with
interviewing skill. The independent variable of attraction
also correlated significantly with the criteria, .66 and .65
(p<.05), respectively. Relevant work experience and academic
achievement correlated significantly, however less strongly,
with just one criterion, interviewing skill, .27 (p<.05) and
.20 (p<.05), respectively. Therefore, Kinicki and Lockwood
concluded that recruiters were relying more on subjective
information of interview impressions and attraction, rather
than concrete, objective information, when making their
employment decisions.
Another study by Kinicki, Lockwood, Horn, and Griffeth
(1990) supported the previous findings. These researchers
reported that 3 nursing directors' judgments of 186 nursing
applicants relied more on interview impressions, including
applicants' appearance, attitude, job interest, and
communication skills, than resume credentials. In this study


43
the independent variable of attraction was not included.
Interview impressions combined with interviewers' perceptions
of applicants' work experience and education explained 42%
(p<.05) of the variance in hiring recommendations, whereas
resume data only accounted for 1%. With regard to the effect
of that information on the validity of the interview, Kinicki
et al. found that resume credentials did not predict
performance any better than interview impressions, even
though the resume cues predicted 14% (p<.05) of the variance
in performance.
Many other studies have investigated the effect of
attractiveness on interviewers' decisions, two of which are
Cash and Kilcullen (1985) and Cann, Siegfried and Pearce
(1981). Cash and Kilcullen found that applicants who were
attractive, well-qualified for the job, and male were most
preferred when judges made hiring decisions from their
fictitious resumes and attached photographs. Cann et al.
also found that the attractiveness and sex (males preferred)
of the applicant positively affected the hiring decision made
by raters. The sex of the applicant, sex of the rater, and
the sex-stereotype of the job for which they are interviewing
all seem to moderate that relationship (Cash, Gillen, and
Burns, 1977; Heilman and Saruwatari, 1979; Jackson, 1983).
One of the few field studies that investigated the
effects of applicant attractiveness on actual employment
interviews of 171 applicants for a variety of different jobs
was conducted by Raza and Carpenter (1987). These


44
researchers collected demographic information (i.e.,
interviewer age and sex, applicant age and sex, job) for each
interview, as well as having 8 professional interviewers rate
applicants on physical attractiveness, intelligence,
likability, skill level for the job, hirability and
acceptability of the applicant as an employee. Hirability
and employability were the criterion variables. These two
hiring decision variables correlated significantly with
ratings of intelligence, physical attractiveness, likability,
and skill level. Hirability was most strongly related to
perceived skill level, and employability was most strongly
associated with intelligence and likability.
Overall, these studies provide evidence that the
physical attractiveness of the applicant can influence
ratings made by interviewers. However, whether or not
physical attractiveness has the same impact when relevant
verbal content is taken into account is still unclear. These
researchers were mainly interested in studying only one
static nonverbal cue, that of physical attractiveness, much
like researchers who are only interested in studying a single
paralinguistic cue.
A closer look at paralinguistic cues
A rather different paralinguistic complement to the
research on physical attractiveness has been recently
introduced by Zuckerman, Hodgins, and Miyake (1990) who
investigated the effects of vocal attractiveness on


45
interviewers' judgments. They found strong support for the
notion of vocal attractiveness between judges who agreed on
what characteristics constitute attractive versus
unattractive voices. These researchers reported that
applicants rated as vocally attractive received more
favorable personality ratings than vocally unattractive
applicants. Thirty years earlier, Anderson (1960)
investigated the effect of a very different type of
paralinguistic characteristic on an interviewer's decision to
hire. He was interested in whether the amount of time that
the interviewer or interviewee each spent talking had any
effect on interviewer judgments. Anderson reported that in
the interviews where applicants were selected for the job
(N=70), the interviewer spent significantly more time
talking, and there was significantly less silent time, when
no one spoke, than in interviews where applicants were
rejected (N=45). Applicants who were selected also spent
less time talking and the total duration of the interview was
less than for rejected applicants, but those differences were
not statistically significant.
Contrary findings
Up until this point we have presented research that
confirms that nonverbal cues, whether they be dynamic,
static, or paralinguistic, have a favorable and significant
impact on employment decisions or judgments of applicant
suitability made by interviewers. One study in which


46
researchers reported evidence to the contrary was by Sterrett
(1978). This researcher created eight videotapes of a male
job applicant displaying high and low levels of eye contact,
hand gestures, formality of dress, and length of pause before
answering. The verbal content of the applicant's answers was
held constant. One hundred and sixty managers from the
insurance industry observed these tapes and rated the
applicant on eight traits that Sterrett claimed were typical
traits considered in the hiring process. These traits
included ambition, motivation, self confidence, self
organization, responsibility, verbal ability, intelligence,
and sincerity. No significant relationships were found
between the nonverbal cues and traits assessed. It should be
noted that the criteria in this study differed from much of
the other nonverbal cue research that used specific
employment criteria, such as decision to hire or
qualifications for the job. Here, observers of the videos
assessed several traits that may, or may not, have been
related to the job to be filled.
Issues of Concern and Future Directions
A careful look at the body of research on nonverbal cues
has helped to illustrate some gaps that must be filled by
further research in this area. There are three particular
issues that will be discussed here. First, the effect of
nonverbal cues on interview validity, rather than only


47
favorability, must be investigated. Second, ratings of
nonverbal behaviors must be made by independent, unbiased
judges. Third, the measurement of nonverbal cues should take
place at a microscopic level. These matters will
subsequently be addressed in the current study.
Validity vs. Favorability
First, the research reviewed has had as its criterion of
interest the favorability of hiring decisions. The main
issue has been whether or not applicants are hired, are
recommended for hire, are more suitable for the job, or
whether they possess attributes that are deemed important to
be successful on the job. This research has shown that
nonverbal cues have a significant impact on the favorability
of interview judgments. But, favorability is only one of two
important properties of the decision to hire an job
applicant. The other property is the accuracy of the
decision. Favorability is the degree to which the job
applicant is positively evaluated. Accuracy is the
correctness of the judgment (Motowidlo, 1986). It is
appropriate to consider the accuracy of the selection
decision since it requires a cognitive estimation of
probability, or behavioral prediction, rather than simply an
evaluative judgment of favorability. If we treat performance
ratings as "true scores", then accuracy is how well the
decision to hire corresponds with how the applicant


48
eventually performs on the job. A necessary condition for
accuracy is validity (Sulsky and Balzer, 1988). Therefore,
the interest here is not on an actual measure of accuracy,
but rather on validity. In other words, what effect do
nonverbal cues have on interview validity?
Only Gifford, Fan Ng, and Wilkinson (1985) have
investigated interview validity, rather than the favorability
of interviewers judgments. They videotaped 38 interviews for
a real job opening of a temporary, part-time position as a
research assistant in a university. The tapes were viewed
and applicants evaluated on motivation and social skill by 18
judges who had training and experience in interviewing.
Applicants completed a questionnaire to measure their
perceptions of their own motivation and social skill. The
applicant's self-reports were the criteria assessed in this
study. Motivation and social skill were chosen because they
were considered important for this job. Seven dynamic
nonverbal cues were measured by two trained raters and
included the time spent talking, facial regard, smiling,
gesturing, trunk recline, self-manipulation, and object-
manipulation. Static nonverbal cues also recorded included
age, sex, formality of dress and physical attractiveness.
Using the Brunswik lens model, Gifford et al. computed a
correlation coefficient, or ecological validity coefficient,
between applicant's self-assessed qualities of motivation and
social skill and the static and dynamic nonverbal cues.
Applicants who perceived themselves as very motivated were


49
mostly males, dressed more formally, and reclined more during
the interview. Applicants who perceived themselves as more
socially skilled also dressed more formally, gestured more,
and spent more time talking. These applicants were also
mostly male and older.
Interviewer cue utilization was computed as the
correlation between the nonverbal cues and the judges'
ratings of the applicants' motivation and social skill.
Applicants who smiled, gestured, and talked more were
perceived to be more motivated to work. Those who dressed
more formally, gestured more often, and talked more were
perceived as having more social skill by the judges.
The accuracy of the judges' attributions, as a
correlation of those ratings with applicants' self-assessed
qualities, was not significant for motivation (r=.09), but
was for social skill (r=.29, p=.05). In other words, raters
were not using relevant cues when assessing applicants'
motivation, but were using the correct cues to assess social
skill, and, as a result, were more accurate in their ratings
of social skill.
The primary shortcoming of this study by Gifford et al.
(1985) is that the measure of accuracy, or achievement score,
uses self-reported trait data as a "true" score. Judges were
not attempting to predict applicants' behavioral performance
on the job. Alternatively, instead of using self-reported
traits as the true score, researchers should use the
criterion (variable C in Figure 1.1) that interviewers are


50
actually trying to predict when they make a decision to hire
that is performance on the job.
Kinicki et al. (1990) also addressed the issue of
interview validity using performance and other job-related
criteria. This study also had many shortcomings, however.
They investigated whether interview trait impression
predicted actual job success less accurately than did resume
credentials, by assessing interviewers' ability to identify
interviewee job performance, as well as attitudinal and
withdrawal predispositions. As mentioned, the interview
ratings consisted of an overall "interview impression" score
that included ratings on interviewee attitude, job interest,
job-related experience, job-related training or education,
communication skill, and the only nonverbal cue assessed,
appearance. Performance and retention information was
obtained from personnel files, and job satisfaction and
organizational commitment was measured using a survey
completed by subjects after their third week of employment.
The combined interview impression score was used for all the
regression analyses in this study. Therefore, no evidence
was reported regarding the unique effects of each individual
factor. However, correlations between all variables were
reported, and ratings of appearance significantly, and
negatively, correlated with self-reported job satisfaction
(r=-.15, p<.05), but not the other criteria.
Although Kinicki and his colleagues addressed the issue
of validity, it is deficient at meeting the present concerns


51
First, they only studied one nonverbal cue, appearance, that
was buried within the macroscopic variable of "interview
impression". Second, the measure of performance used was not
independently collected, and it suffered from range
restriction. Third, the attitudinal measures were self-
reported and taken after only three weeks on the job.
In a recent study, Ambady and Rosenthal (1993)
recognized the importance of using an ecologically valid
criterion. They found that ratings made by judges exposed to
only small clips of teachers' nonverbal behavior were
significantly related to student evaluations of college
teachers' and principal's evaluations of high school
teachers' effectiveness. This study, however, was not
concerned with selection, and ratings did not take place in
the context of a selection interview. Rather, clips of
nonverbal behaviors were taken from silent videotapes of
subjects teaching classes in a university or high school
setting.
In another study which addressed interview validity and
the relevance of nonverbal cues, Motowidlo et al. (1992)
concluded that the information obtained from visual nonverbal
behaviors was not necessary for the interview's validity. In
other words, the content of applicants' answers was a
significant source of validity, since judgments by
interviewers who did not have access to nonverbal cues were
at least as valid as judgments by interviewers who did. This
finding does not entirely contradict previous research that


52
has supported the importance of nonverbal cues, since it has
also been reported that when appropriate and relevant verbal
information is available that it is the primary, but not
only, influence on interviewers' decisions (Hollandsworth et
al., 1979; Parsons and Liden, 1984; Rasmussen, 1984). Of
course, additional research is necessary to determine the
direction of the effect of nonverbal cues when they are
present.
Nonverbal cues may act as either enhancers or
suppressors of the interview's validity. If cues are
utilized that are irrelevant, in the sense that they do not
correspond with the interviewees' true scores on the
criterion of interest, then interviewers' judgments will be
biased and distorted. If certain nonverbal cues affect
interview outcomes, but do not predict job performance, then
those cues are a source of invalidity and interviewers must
be trained to be less influenced by them when making
judgments (Rasmussen, 1984). Schuh (1980) stated "...any
preoccupation of the interviewer with non-task relevant cues
could clutter primary memory and interfere with the
perception of the applicants verbal report...and thereby
change the applicant's information before it is needed for
recall and prediction" (p. 125). Prevailing practices
support this position, because interviewers are often trained
to attend only to the content of applicants' responses,
thereby ignoring nonverbal characteristics of the applicant
when making interview ratings (e.g. Motowidlo et al.,1992).


53
Conversely, if certain cues legitimately represent the
interviewees' true score on dimensions of performance,
interviewers may be justified and encouraged to use those
cues, in that validity will be enhanced (Arvey and Campion,
1982; Harris, 1989; Motowidlo et al., 1992; Rasmussen, 1984).
Especially if certain information cannot, or will not, be
explicitly verbally expressed in the interview, then it is
legitimate for interviewers to seek and utilize relevant cues
to determine the true character of the applicant (Edinger and
Patterson, 1983; Schlenker, 1980).
There is a real need to investigate the effect of
nonverbal cues on the validity of the interview, using
relevant performance, or other job-related, criteria. By
doing so one can get at the core of the purpose of the
interviewthat of selecting applicants who will be good
performers on the job.
Measurement of Nonverbal Cues
The second issue of concern is the precision and
accuracy with which nonverbal cues are measured. More than a
decade ago Hollandsworth et al. (1979) criticized researchers
of nonverbal behavior for using artificial rather than real
interview settings. Researchers were criticized for
artificially inflating the variability of cues displayed by
applicants in laboratory settings. Researchers who were
anxious to get out of the laboratory and conduct real


54
selection interviews were willing to discard that "control"
for more generalizable results, but failed to take into
consideration how to measure the nonverbal cues in the real
setting. Parsons and Liden (1984) noted in the conclusion of
their field study that caution should be used in the
interpretation of their results since the nonverbal cues of
applicants were not controlled, as they are in the
laboratory, nor was an independent measurement taken of those
cues.
One year after Parsons and Liden's (1984) study, Gifford
et al. (1985) addressed this problem. They trained two
independent judges to score occurrences of applicants'
nonverbal behaviors and evaluate static cues. For example,
gesturing, manipulation of objects, and facial orientation
were measured as the proportion of time spent displaying
these behaviors. Physical attractiveness and formality of
dress were scored on 7-point and 3-point scales,
respectively.
Unfortunately, other field researchers did not take the
lead from Gifford and his colleagues. It is more common to
find studies in which the same person who is making the
hiring decision, or judging the appropriateness of verbal
responses, is also the one rating the applicant on nonverbal
behavior (Hollandsworth et al., 1979; Kinicki and Lockwood,
1985; Kinicki et al., 1990; Parsons and Liden, 1984; Raza and
Carpenter, 1987) .


55
Scherer (1982), in discussing the requirements for
applying the Brunswik lens model to the study of nonverbal
communication, emphasized the need for independent
measurement of variables. He noted the necessity of
obtaining independent measures of the criterion, the
nonverbal cues, and the judgments of observers. Accordingly,
independent judges should be trained to accurately identify
and measure specific nonverbal cues, in order to obtain more
reliable and unbiased measures of those cues.
Level of Measurement and Analysis of Nonverbal Cues
The third issue of concern is the level of measurement
and analysis of nonverbal behavior. Nonverbal behavior may
be measured at either the microscopic or macroscopic level.
At the microscopic level each nonverbal cue is measured
individually. At the macroscopic level individual cues are
clustered together to define a general variable of nonverbal
behavior. Individual cues are often not defined for a
macroscopic analysis.
For example, Imada and Hakel (1977) operationally
defined nonverbal "immediacy", a macroscopic variable, as
greater eye contact, smiling, attentive posture, gestures,
smaller interpersonal distance and a direct body orientation.
Wexley et al. (1975) defined their macroscopic nonverbal
variable of "enthusiasm" as high or low amounts of eye
contact, gesturing, smiling, and appropriate tone of voice.


56
In both cases, individual cues were neither individually
defined, nor individually measured. Since macro-level
variables do not necessitate the careful and specific
definition of each nonverbal cue, analyses can only take
place at the macroscopic level.
With the measurement of microscopic cues, both the
individual cues and some combination of those cues can be
analyzed. This level of measurement is essential to
determine not only whether nonverbal behavior, as a whole, is
utilized in the interview and related to performance, but
also to determine which particular cues are the most
relevant. For example, an interviewee's hand movement may
not be related to performance, but the time they spend
smiling is related to performance. These findings would have
important implications for training interviewers.
Interviewers could be taught which relevant cues to attend to
and utilize when making interview judgments, rather than
being taught to ignore all nonverbal cues and attend only to
verbal content. These distinctions can only be determined by
measuring and analyzing each cue separately.
Even when nonverbal cues are measured individually, it
is the combination of these cues which is of greatest
interest. Knapp and Hall (1992) suggested that it is the
combination of individual parts of the nonverbal behavioral
system which provides the best understanding of the system's
purpose. People do not only smile, or only move their hands.
Rather, their behavior consists of multiple signals which


57
together contribute to the message sent to the receiver of
those cues.
Van Hooff (1982) suggested that in order to interpret
nonverbal behavior we should use larger functional units of
behavior rather than molecular behavioral elements or acts.
These molar units, he suggested, enable researchers to record
and compile more meaningful, complex behavioral processes.
He cautioned that the connections between behavioral
elements, or acts, tend to get lost if a molecular
description of the behavior is used (Van Hooff, 1982).
Brunswik's (1956) lens model also indicates that a
combination of nonverbal cues, rather than individual cues,
influence person perceptions and judgments. Brunswik's
hierarchy of cues (see Figure 1.2) suggests that certain cues
are more important than others, or, if combined, individual
cues would carry different weights.
In summary, it is important to recognize that
naturalistic nonverbal behavior is not exhibited in
unconnected parts, but rather as an orchestrated whole.
Measuring individual nonverbal cues at the microscopic level
allows for analyses of both composite and molecular nonverbal
cues.
Summary of Issues to be Addressed in the Current Study
In reaction to the research that has been conducted thus
far, three issues have been presented regarding the purpose


58
of these studies and the methodologies used to achieve those
purposes. These three issues highlight (1) the need to
investigate the effects of nonverbal cues on interview
validity rather than favorability, (2) the need to use
independent ratings of those cues for analysis, and (3) the
need to measure nonverbal behavior at the microscopic level.
In the current study these needs will be met.


PRELIMINARY STUDIES AND
THE CURRENT STUDY RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In preparation for the current study it was necessary to
conduct three preliminary studies. In the first study, the
structured interview was developed, actual interviews were
collected on videotape, and the interview was validated.
This study provided evidence of the soundness of the
interview questions for predicting management effectiveness.
Second, a sample of the taped interviews was used to
determine if visual cues, in general, provide sufficient
information for raters to make valid judgments of
interviewees. The results of this study were quite
compelling, in that, raters who were exposed to only visual
cues were able to make valid ratings, and that the sex of the
interviewee seemed to play some role in the relationship
between interview and performance ratings (Motowidlo and
Burnett, 1992).
A third study was conducted to identify which specific
nonverbal cues are most likely to be related to behavioral
dimensions of management effectiveness. Related literature
was reviewed, and empirical evidence was collected. These
two sources helped to identify nonverbal cues for
investigation in the current study.
After each preliminary study is presented here, their
implications for the current study will be discussed. Next,
59


60
the research questions for the current study will be
presented, as well as reasons why the answers to those
research questions are both interesting and important.
Study #1; The Development and Validation of the Interview
A structured selection interview will be used as the
context of the current dissertation research. The interview
dimensions, questions, and format for use in the current
study were developed as part of the first preliminary study.
Supervisory ratings of performance will be the criterion for
the current dissertation research. The measures needed to
collect those supervisory ratings were also developed as part
of this first study. Additionally, in this preliminary
study, interviews were conducted and recorded on videotape,
interviewees were rated by the interviewer, and supervisory
ratings were collected. The collection of this data allowed
for a preliminary validation of the interview.
A Structured Selection Interview
development of interview questions and dimensions
An interview system was developed to measure general
managerial skills for entry-level managers. Performance
dimensions of managerial skill were identified according to
prior research (Motowidlo et al., 1992). They included:
leadership, forcefulness, teamwork, open-mindedness,
consideration, planning and organization, thoroughness,
drive, and results orientation. These nine dimensions were


61
then combined to form four dimensions. This was accomplished
by having three doctoral management students carefully read
each dimension definition, and then sort the nine dimensions
into fewer, meaningful categories based on their similarities
and degree of overlap. The four new dimensions are:
Leadership (leadership + forcefulness), Teamwork (teamwork +
open-mindedness + consideration), Drive (drive + results
orientation), and Planning and Organizing (planning and
organization + thoroughness).
Rating scales were developed for each dimension. These
scales were behaviorally anchored with general behavioral
descriptions at the High, Moderate, and Low level of each
scale. These were 7-point scales, where 7 and 6 are at the
High level, 5, 4, and 3 at the Moderate level, and 2 and 1 at
the Low level. These anchors went through several revisions
before arriving at the final scales (see Appendix A).
Next, interview questions were developed to tap each
behavioral dimension. As discussed previously, in the
structured interview literature there are two basic types of
interview questions. Janz (1982) introduced past-oriented
questions where interviewees are asked, "Tell me about a time
when...". Another type of question, developed by Latham et
al. (1980), is oriented toward future behavior and
interviewees are asked, "Tell me what you would do if...".
There is no sufficient evidence regarding whether one type of
question is better than another. As a result, in this study,
both types of questions were included. A total of eight


62
interview questions were developed. Two questions, one of
each type (i.e., past-oriented and hypothetical), were
developed for each of the four dimensions.
The interview questions were pilot tested using
undergraduate students in an elective human resource
management class at a large Southeastern university. Twelve
students participated in the first pilot test, where two
doctoral management students, including this researcher,
acted as the interviewers. Questions were revised as a
result of the first pilot. The same interviewers conducted a
second pilot with 14 different students from the same class.
Additional revisions were made before arriving at the final
eight interview questions (See Appendix A).
Collection of interviews
In order to collect interviews of real managers the
cooperation of four utility and telecommunications companies
was solicited. Company representatives contacted
interviewees to obtain their participation, and schedule the
interview appointments. Seventy-three interviews were
collected.
Interviews were conducted in three day periods in each
company. Approximately eight people were interviewed each
day, at hour intervals. Interviews took, on the average,
thirty to forty minutes. Each interview was videotaped.
At the beginning of the interview session, before the
videotaping began, the interviewer briefly described the


63
research project and the purpose for which the videotapes
would be used. Interviewees were asked to imagine that the
session was a real job interview, and to provide real and
truthful answers. The videocamera was then turned on.
At this point, the interviewer told the interviewee
about the types of questions that they would be asked (past
versus future). The interviewer then asked the eight
interview questions, as well as probing questions. Half of
the interviewees were asked the past-oriented questions
first, and the other half were asked the future-oriented
questions first.
At the conclusion of each interview the interviewer
collected demographic information and asked the interviewee
if they had a preference for one or another type of question.
Demographic information was obtained by directly asking the
interviewee for their job title, job tenure, organizational
tenure, a brief description of their job duties, and their
age. Additional demographics recorded by the interviewer
included race and sex.
Interviewees were also asked to compare the two types of
questions, past- versus future-oriented. The actual
questions were: "As you know we used two types of questions
in this interview, past-oriented and the hypothetical. Which
type do you think applicants would prefer? Which type seemed
more relevant to your job?". Responses were recorded as
either past, future, both, or none (see Appendix A).


64
Interview ratings
The interviewer rated interviewees using the four
behaviorally anchored rating scales of leadership, teamwork,
drive, and planning and organizing, for each type of
question. This resulted in eight ratings for each
interviewee.
Supervisory Ratinas of Job Performance
Development of performance rating scales
The same four dimensions and accompanying scales used
for the interview were also used for the supervisors' ratings
of their subordinate's performance on their current job. The
supervisors' form has a more narrative format for the
behavioral anchors on each scale, than the bullet-type
sentences on the interview form. The supervisors' form also
includes a brief description of the project and detailed
instructions on how to fill-out the form .
In addition to the four dimensions of Leadership,
Teamwork, Drive, and Planning and Organizing, supervisors
were asked to rate individuals on a dimension of Overall
Performance. They also provided information regarding how
important they felt each dimension was for the job that their
subordinate performs (see Appendix B).
Collection of performance ratings
Each company representative distributed the performance
rating forms to the appropriate supervisor of each


65
interviewee. The forms were accompanied by instructions that
they be returned directly to the researchers. Sixty-five
supervisory ratings, or 89% of the original 73 interviews,
were returned.
Supervisors reported, on average, that Leadership skills
were "important" (mean=3.2, s.d.=1.13), Teamwork was "very
important" (mean=4.2, s.d.=0.72), Drive was "very important"
(mean=4.2, s.d.=0.67), and Planning and Organizing was "very
important" (mean=4.0, s.d.=0.78). None of the four
dimensions was rated "not at all important" by any
supervisor. These responses indicated that these dimensions
were appropriate for assessing the general effectiveness of
entry-level managers.
Validation of the Interview
In order to determine the validity of the entire
interview, and of each type of question, interview ratings by
the interviewer were correlated with supervisory ratings.
First, the four dimension ratings were correlated within
question type. The average correlation for past-oriented
questions was .40 and for hypothetical questions was .39.
This justified the combination of dimension ratings into
total scores for each type of question. Also, an interview
total score was computed across question type. This involved
averaging the past-oriented and future-oriented score on each
dimension, and then summing the four averages.


66
Next, the total scores for each type of question and the
overall interview totals were correlated with performance.
The correlation of performance with past-oriented questions
was .31 (p<.01), with future-oriented questions r=.22 (p<.05)
and with the total interview score r=.30 (p<.01). These
results should be interpreted with caution since the
interview ratings were made by only one rater.
Summary of Preliminary Study #1
The development and collection of interview and
performance ratings for 65 interviewees were described here.
The correlational analysis of interview ratings with
performance ratings indicated that both past-oriented and
future-oriented questions are significantly correlated with
performance.
Study #2; Aural and Visual Sources of Validity
(Motowidlo and Burnett, 1992)
The current dissertation research study will investigate
the effect of nonverbal cues on the validity of the
structured interview. But first, it was necessary to
determine what, if any, effect visually-based information had
on interview ratings. The results of this second preliminary
study legitimized the further investigation of the role of
nonverbal cues on the validity of the interview.


67
Purpose of Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this second preliminary study was to
determine the effect of visual cues on the validity of a
structured interview. The primary research question was:
How valid are judgments based only on visual cues for
predicting job performance? Secondary research questions
included: What is the relationship between judgments made
when only visual cues are available and when both aural and
visual cues are available?; and, What is the relationship
between aurally based judgments and visually based judgments?
Methods and Procedures
The videotaped interviews, described in Study #1, were
the stimulus in this study and the criterion was the
supervisory performance ratings. Interview ratings were
collected from 194 undergraduate students. These student
raters either a) watched and listened, b) only listened
(with no picture), or c) only watched (with no sound) to 40
of the 65 videotaped interviews. Additionally, raters either
saw and/or heard the portion of the original interview where
interviewees responded to past-oriented question, or to the
responses to future-oriented questions. This design resulted
in 6 (3 forms of cue availability x 2 types of questions)
different conditions.


68
There were an average of 32 raters per condition. All
40 interviews, combined into 10 sets of 4 interviews, were
presented in each condition. Each rater rated 4 interviews
and each interview was rated by an average of 3.2 raters in
each condition.
Summary of Results
The correlations between interview ratings of the past-
oriented questions and performance for the aural/visual,
aural only, and visual only conditions were .45 (p<.05), .32
(p<.05), and .27 (p<.05), respectively. The correlations
between the hypothetical questions and performance for the
aural/visual, aural only, and visual only conditions were .16
(n.s.), .24 (n.s.),and .29 (p<.05), respectively. Pooled
ratings, across question type also correlated significantly
with performance for the aural/visual (r=.36, p<.05), aural
only (.33, p<.05), and visual only (.32, p<.05) conditions.
These results address the primary research question, and
confirm that visually based interview judgments can be valid
predictors of performance.
Second, significant correlations were found between
visually based judgments and judgments made when both visual
and aural cues are available. This was true for both ratings
based on past-oriented questions (r=.51, p<.01) and future-
oriented questions (r=.46, p<.01). The pooled visually based
ratings correlated significantly (r=.68, p<.01) with the


69
pooled ratings made when both visual and aural cues were
available. Furthermore, both visual and aural cues
contributed independently to the variance explained in
ratings made when both types of cues were available. These
results address the second research question, and indicate
that there is a strong positive relationship between visually
based ratings and ratings made from both aural and visual
information.
Third, judgments made by raters who were presented with
only visual cues and those presented with only aural cues
were significantly correlated for the past-oriented questions
(r=.49, p<.01) and marginally significant for the future-
oriented questions (r=.25, p=.06). The pooled ratings of
raters who only watched the interviews correlated .53 (p<.01)
with pooled ratings of those who only heard the interviews.
This result addresses the third research question and may
indicate that there exists some redundancy between these two
types of cues.
As an exploratory analysis, the sex, age and race of
interviewees were examined as potential influences on the
validity findings. Although age and race were not related to
performance or interview ratings, the sex of the interviewee
had a significant relationship with both performance (r=-.33,
p<.05) and visually based interview ratings (r=-.40, p<.05).
This may indicate that sex differences play some role in
correlations between interview and performance ratings,
particularly when visual cues are available.


70
Summary of Preliminary Study #2
The results of this study were quite intriguing. First,
raters who were exposed to only interviewees' visual cues
were able to make valid ratings. It was concluded that
visual cues play a potentially important role in interview
validity.
Second, visually based ratings and aurally based ratings
were highly related. One explanation for this finding may be
that similar personality traits underlie both sets of
judgments. In this case, aural and visual cues would share
common variance. Alternatively, it may be systematic error
variance which is shared by raters of these two types of
cues.
Third, the sex of the interviewee seemed to play an
important role in the relationship between interview and
performance ratings. One possibility for this result may be
that women exhibit different visual cues than do men. The
nonverbal cues women tend to show may be judged negatively by
raters who are assessing potential management effectiveness.
On the other hand, men and women may be behaving in similar
ways, but interpretations of those behaviors by raters may
differ by sex.


71
Study #3: Identifying Important Nonverbal Behaviors
Before conducting the current study of the effect of
nonverbal cues on the validity of the interview, the specific
nonverbal cues had to be chosen. This third preliminary
study served to identify those nonverbal behaviors that were
the most relevant for the purpose of the current study.
Overview
In order to choose the specific cues for the current
study those cues must be identified which are considered the
most likely to be relevant for predicting job performance.
Rather than associating the actual nonverbal behaviors
directly with performance, it is presumed that nonverbal
behaviors reflect personality traits which, in turn, are
related to managerial performance. In other words, rather
than stating that effective managers smile more often than
ineffective managers, one can state that smiling is
associated with agreeableness, a trait considered important
for effective management.
To justify the choice of certain dynamic, static, and
paralinguistic cues for the current study, traits believed to
underlie the four job-related dimensions leadership,
teamwork, drive, and planning and organizing must be linked
to cues that existing research indicates are relevant
reflections of those same traits.


72
Linking Performance Dimensions with the Big Five Personality;
Traits
Researchers who have investigated the co-occurence of
behaviors and traits have mainly used a five factor model of
trait assessment. These five factors were derived in several
studies across different samples that found five fairly
strong factors of personality assessment (see Tupes and
Christal, 1992). These factors are Extroversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and
Intellect.
Extroversion, or Surgency, is defined by traits such as
talkativeness, frankness, adventurousness, assertiveness,
sociability, energetic, composed, interest in opposite sex,
and cheerfulness. The second factor, Agreeableness, is
defined by several traits including good-natured, not
jealous, emotionally mature, mildness, cooperativeness,
trustfulness, adaptability, kindliness, attentiveness to
people, and self-sufficiency. Traits that load negatively on
the Agreeableness factor include assertiveness, talkativeness
and orderliness. The third factor, called Conscientiousness
or Dependability, is defined by traits of orderliness,
responsibility, perseverance, and conventionality, as well as
smaller loadings on the variables cooperativeness, mildness
and emotional stability. The fourth factor is called
Emotional Stability or the opposite label used is
Neuroticism. If using the first label the variables that


73
load highest on this factor include placid, poised, non-
hypochondriacal, calm, and self-sufficient. Secondary
variables on this factor are lack of jealousy, emotional
maturity, cooperativeness, trustfulness, adaptability,
responsibility, perseverance, and independent-mindedness. The
fifth factor is called Culture or Intellect and is defined by
traits such as intellectual, imaginative, artistically
sensitive, openness and polishedness.
To link these five personality factors with the job-
related dimensions six doctoral students were asked to
determine which traits seemed most indicative of each
dimension of leadership, teamwork, drive, and planning and
organizing. Each judge was provided with a list of 34 trait
adjectives which have been used to define the Big Five
personality factors (Tupes and Christal, 1992). The order of
the traits was scrambled. Judges were asked to rate the
degree of association between each trait for each of the four
performance dimensions on a 5-point scale (5=definitely
related to l=not at all related) (see Appendix C).
There were a different number of trait adjectives
representing each personality factor. For each personality
factor, mean scores were calculated by averaging the ratings
made by judges on those trait adjectives within each
performance dimension. For example, for the Leadership
dimension nine trait adjective ratings were averaged to form
a score for Extraversin. This resulted in five personality


74
factors scores within each of the four performance dimensions
for each of the six judges.
To determine the reliability of judges, intraclass
correlations were computed according to the model by Shrout
and Fleiss (1979) The corrected intraclass correlation
(ICC) for Leadership was .68, for Teamwork .59, for Drive
.68, and for Planning and Organizing .72. Based on these
estimates of reliability, it was concluded that there was
agreement and consistency among judges when they indicated
their perception of the relationship between personality
traits and performance dimensions.
Additionally, a two-way analysis of variance was
computed. The dependent variable was the mean scores on each
personality factor within each dimension for each judge
(5x4x6=120). The two independent variables were the
personality factors and the judges. There was a main effect
for the personality factors analyzed separately for each of
the four dimensions, as well as overall. This indicates that
there is a significant difference in the pattern of means
among personality factors within each performance dimension.
Next, a cut-off was established at 3.0. The top two
mean scores within each performance dimension which were
greater than or equal to 3.0 would be considered
representative of that dimension. The mean scores for each
personality factor on each dimension are presented in Table
2.1.


75
Leadership was most related to Extroversion and
Conscientiousness; Teamwork was highly related to
Agreeableness, and less so to Conscientiousness; Drive was
related to Conscientiousness and Extroversion; and Planning
and Organizing was highly related to Conscientiousness, as
well as Agreeableness. Note the mean scores for the factors
of Emotional Stability and Culture/Intellect were the lowest
Table 2.1. Means and standard deviations of judges' ratings
of personality factors across performance dimensions.
Performance Dimensions
Personality Planning/
Factors Leadership Teamwork Drive Organizing
Extroversion
3.91
(0.81)
3.20
(1.00)
3.70
(1.14)
2.83
(0.99)
Agreeableness
3.55
(1.10)
4.02
(1.06)
3.12
(1.13)
3.30
(1.23)
Conscientious
3.77
(1.01)
3.40
(1.22)
3.87
(1.22)
4.27
(0.98)
Emotional
Stability
3.53
(1.16)
3.14
(1.15)
3.09
(1.24)
3.11
(1.30)
Culture/
Intellect
2.92
(1.02)
2.80
(1.06)
2.75
(1.07)
2.85
(1.01)
for each dimension, and did not meet the cut-off criteria for
any of the dimensions.
After the performance dimensions were linked to the
traits, the next task was to link the traits to nonverbal
cues. The outcome is the list of nonverbal cues that will be
investigated in this study.


76
Linking the Big Five Personality Traits with Nonverbal
Behaviors
Strong relationships are frequently found between
judgments of personality and objectively measured behaviors
or physical attributes (Albright, Kenny, and Malloy, 1988;
Borkenau and Liebler, 1992; Dion, Berscheid, and Walster,
1972; Funder, 1983; Funder and Colvin, 1988; Funder and
Sneed, 1993; Gangestad, Simpson, DiGeronimo, and Biek, 1992;
Kenny, Horner, Kashy, and Chu, 1992). Even when the only
information available to judges is the target's physical
attributes, trait assessments have been found to be accurate
and consensus exists among judges (Cleeton and Knight, 1924;
Hunt and Lin, 1967; Norman and Goldberg, 1966; Passini and
Norman, 1966) This context, where there is no interaction
between judges and targets, and no prior knowledge of one
another, is called "zero acquaintance" (Albright et al.,
1988). Evidence indicates that judgments made at zero
acquaintance are stable even after the judge and target have
interacted (Kenny et al., 1992), and the accuracy of trait
assessments increases directly with the degree of
acquaintanceship (Paunonen, 1989).
While the degree of acquaintance in the context of a
selection interview is not zero, it is low. Before the
applicant walks through the door for the interview the only
information an interviewer typically has is the individual's
resume.
Interaction between the interviewer and applicant


77
takes place within a limited period of time, typically 30
minutes. During that brief period the interviewer must
obtain adequate information in order to make judgments
regarding the applicant's potential to perform on the job.
The interviewer is initially presented with the physical
attributes of the applicant (attractiveness, dress, etc.) but
as the interview progresses the applicant provides dynamic
behavioral and audible cues. All of these cues, researchers
have argued, influence the assessment of personality traits,
and those traits seem to underlie the behavioral dimensions
upon which the interviewer makes ratings.
In order to make these inferences between traits and
cues it is essential to measure the behaviors or cues that
are indicative of relevant traits (Gangestad et al., 1992).
Researchers are only beginning to understand the cues that
judges use to make trait assessments, and, therefore, there
are no specific guidelines for defining the co-occurrences
between traits and behaviors, or as Borkenau called it, "what
goes with what" (1992, pp. 297-298). A summary of related
literature is presented here which has identified the
relation between certain nonverbal cues and three of the big
five personality factors of Extroversion, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness. These relations are illustrated in Figure
2.1.
First, dynamic cues such as smiling, eye contact and
gaze, and rapid body movement seem to reflect Extroversion.
Kenny et al. (1992) noted that rapid body movement was


78
correlated at .47 (p<.005) with Extroversion. They also
reported a correlation of .49 (p<.005) between smiling and
this factor. Borkenau and Liebler (1992) reported
significant correlations between Extroversion and extensive
smiling (r=.33, p<.01) and friendly expression (r=.39,
p<.01). These researchers also found less eye contact to be
negatively, and significantly correlated with this factor
(r=-.33, p<.01). (Argyle, 1988) noted that smiling, gaze, and
spatial proximity were correlates of Extroversion. Static
Performance Personality
Dimensions Trait Factors
Nonverbal Cues
Gaze/Eye Contact
Smiling
Body Movement
Hand Gestures
Spatial Proximity
Posture
Physical
Attractiveness
Appearance
Aspects of Dress
Vocal
Characteristics
Amount of Speech
Figure 2.1. Associations between nonverbal cues, traits and
performance dimensions.


79
cues that seem to be related to Extroversion include
attractiveness and appropriateness of dress. Borkenau and
Liebler (1992) found that attractiveness correlated .37
(p<.01) with Extroversion, and Albright et al. (1988)
reported a correlation of .74 (p<.05) between the same
variables. Kenny et al. (1992) replicated and confirmed
Albright et al.'s findings. Borkenau and Liebler (1992) also
found that Extroversion was significantly related to an
unrefined appearance (-.28, p<.01), showy dress (.34, p<.01),
and unfashionable dress (-.27, p<.01). Two paralinguistic
cues seems to also reflect Extroversion. Borkenau and Liebler
(1992) found a significant correlation between this factor
and softness of voice (-.26, p<.01), and (Argyle, 1988)
identified amount of speech as a correlate of Extroversion.
Second, dynamic cues that have been found to be related
to the second factor, Agreeableness, include smiling, hand
movements, and rapid body movement. Kenny et al. (1992)
reported a significant correlation of .66 (p<.005) between
smiling and Agreeableness, and Borkenau and Liebler (1992)
found a relationship between friendly expression and this
factor (r=.23, p<.05). In the study by Borkenau and Liebler
(1992) a significant relationship was also found between
Agreeableness and frequency of hand movement (r=-.23, p<.05).
Rapid body movement was reported by Kenny et al. (1992) as
related to this factor (r=-.35, p<.005). The Agreeableness
factor is also related to paralinguistic cues, including
effortful reading (r=.31, p<.01), easy to understand (r=.28,


80
p<.01), and hectic speaking (r=-.25, p<.01) (Borkenau and
Liebler, 1992).
One dynamic cue has been found to be related to the
third factor, Conscientiousness. Borkenau and Liebler (1992)
reported a significant, negative correlation between relaxed
posture and Conscientiousness (r=-.29, p<.01). Static cues
related to this factor are associated with dress. Borkenau
and Liebler (1992), Kenny et al. (1992) and Albright et al.
(1988) all noted significant correlations between dress
formality and the Conscientiousness factor (r=-.25, p<.05
reversed scored; r=.44, p<.005; and r=.76, p<.05
respectively). Albright et al. (1988) also found that
neatness of dress was related to this factor (r=.73, p<.05).
Borkenau and Liebler (1992) found one paralinguistic cue,
effortful reading, was significantly related to
Conscientiousness (r=.32, p<.01).
Summary of Preliminary Study #3
Evidence and research have been presented regarding
"what goes with what". More specifically, judges' ratings
indicate what traits go with what performance dimensions, and
existing research has been used to indicate what cues go with
what traits. These linkages will be used to justify the
choice of nonverbal cues for investigation in the current
study.


81
Implications of Preliminary Studies on the Current Study
These three studies had important implications for the
current study. As a result of each preliminary study,
important decisions were made regarding the variables of
interest and methods of the current study.
Decision Based on Study #1: Use of the Structured Interview
The structured behavioral interview format developed in
Study #1 will be used in the current study. First, the
training and tools provided to interviewers using this type
of format make the processes of cue attention and utilization
more controlled, thereby enabling interviewers to more
readily distinguish relevant from irrelevant cues. Second,
the validation results confirm the soundness of the interview
questions developed to predict general managerial
effectiveness. Accordingly, the structured behavioral
interview is the appropriate context for this study.
Decisions Based on Study #2: Type of Interview Question and
Sex Differences
First, the results of Study #2 indicated differences in
validity of past-oriented and future-oriented types of
interview questions. Similar differences were found between
interview and performance ratings in Study #1. In both
cases, correlations with performance were lower for future-
oriented questions than for past-oriented questions. As a


82
result, it was decided that only the portion of the original
interviews where interviewees responded to the past-oriented
questions would be included in the current study.
Second, the results of Study #2 imply that the sex of
the interviewee may play an important role in the validity of
the interview. Accordingly, sex differences will be explored
in the current study. The detailed information which will be
collected regarding interviewees' nonverbal behavior may help
to explain why sex differences were found in Study #2.
Decision Based on Study #3: The Choice of Nonverbal Cues
The nonverbal cues that will be investigated in the
current study are based on the findings in Study #3 and are
presented in Table 2.2. The four dynamic and two static cues
were found to be significantly correlated with at least one
of the personality factors determined to underlie the
behavioral dimensions of leadership, teamwork, drive, and
planning and organizing. The paralinguistic cue chosen for
investigation, vocal attractiveness, is more global than the
paralinguistic cues noted previously (i.e. softness of voice,
effortful reading, easy to understand, and hectic speaking).
However, Zuckerman, Hodgins, and Miyake (1990) found vocal
attractiveness to be significantly related to the
favorability of personality ratings. Accordingly, vocal
attractiveness is considered, by this researcher, to be more
appropriate for the interests of the current study.


83
Table 2.2. Nonverbal cues of interest in the current study.
Dynamic Static Paralinguistic
Gaze Physical attractiveness Vocal attractiveness
Smiling Dress
Hand movement
Back/side lean
Body orientation
It is assumed that all of these nonverbal cues if
exhibited by an interviewee would be considered favorable by
interviewers, except for back/side lean. This dynamic cue is
often interpreted as a sign of relaxation or boredom (Argyle,
1988; Mehrabian, 1969; Mehrabian, 1972). A relaxed posture
also communicates dominance in interpersonal interaction
(Argyle, 1988; Mehrabian, 1972). These characteristics are
not considered appropriate, nor judged favorably in the
context of a selection interview. Alternatively, when an
interviewee leans forward they appear attentive, interested,
and involved in the interviewers' questions (Bull, 1987;
Mehrabian, 1972). Attentiveness and involvement are more
appropriate behaviors in an interview. Accordingly, the
variable of back/side lean will be reverse scored for
analyses in the current study.
Summary of the Implications of the Preliminary Studies on the
Current Study
As a result of the three preliminary studies the
videotaped interviews of the 65 interviewees responding to


84
the four past-oriented structured interview questions will be
used in the current study. Furthermore, the nonverbal cues
to be measured in the current study were identified.
Finally, sex differences will be investigated as possible
influences on the validity of the interview.
Current Research Study
The focus of the current study is the effect of
nonverbal cues on the validity with which interviewers make
predictions of interviewees' job performance. The specific
research questions of this study will be stated in this
section. Also, the reasons for why this study is both
interesting and important to researchers and practitioners
will be discussed.
Current Research Questions
Four specific research questions will be asked to
determine how nonverbal cues affect interview validity. The
first question asks: Do raters of interviewees attend to and
utilize nonverbal cues in the interview? This question
corresponds to the right side of the Brunswik lens model (see
Figure 1.2), or the utilization of nonverbal cues. Cue
utilization has been the focus of several research studies on
the effect of nonverbal cues on the favorability of interview
ratings, but investigating this question in the context of a
structured interview is unique. As part of structuring an


85
interview, researchers and practitioners have emphasized the
importance of focusing interviewers' attention exclusively on
the content of applicants' answers. This implies that visual
cues do not carry important information and should be
ignored. The answer to this first research question will
help to determine whether or not interview ratings, made
using a structured format, are based on information carried
by nonverbal cues as well as verbal content.
The second research question asks: Are nonverbal cues
associated with performance on the job? This question
corresponds to the left side of the Brunswik lens model, or
the ecological validity of nonverbal cues. As discussed in
the previous chapter, only three research studies by Gifford
et al. (1985), Kiniki et al.(1990), and Ambady and Rosenthal
(1993) have addressed whether nonverbal cues are related to
job performance. However, there were several deficiencies
in those studies which will be overcome in the current study.
The third and fourth research questions ask: Do
nonverbal cues contribute incrementally to validity after
interview ratings are taken into account?; and do interview
ratings contribute incrementally to validity after nonverbal
cues are taken into account? These two questions correspond
to Brunswik's concept of achievement. Both questions are
necessary because there is no existing evidence regarding
these relations. Again, the issue of how nonverbal cues
influence interview validity has not yet been sufficiently


86
addressed, and these research questions are an attempt to
confront that issue.
Important and Interesting Implications of the Current Study
Results of this study can contribute to the increasing
research effort to improve the interview as a selection
device. The structured techniques that have been studied,
and are now being marketed in various forms, should not be
treated as the only way to improve the interview. We cannot
ignore a history of research that has shown that other
factors, including nonverbal cues, influence interviewers'
judgments.
The investigation of the effect of nonverbal cues on
interviewer validity is itself important because, until now,
research has only used criteria such as the favorability of
ratings or personality traits. This study will take an
important step further by using job-related criteria (i.e.,
supervisory ratings of performance on the job) to assess the
overall effect of nonverbal cues. The issue of validity is
important to managers and practitioners, as well. They are
interested in significant ways to improve interview validity,
since validation is the primary criteria used when
establishing the defensibility and appropriateness of
selection procedures (Cronshaw and Wiesner, 1989).
Last, by independently measuring microlevel nonverbal
cues we will be able to "tease out" the individual and


87
combined effects of those behaviors on validity. Researchers
and practitioners are interested in knowing not only whether
nonverbal cues are appropriately utilized, but also exactly
which cues are used to make valid judgments. Findings of
this study could have an important impact on the training of
interviewers.


HYPOTHESES, METHODS AND PROCEDURES
This chapter begins with a statement of the research
hypotheses and ends by describing the data analysis which
will be used to test those hypotheses. Additionally, methods
and procedures will be carefully explained, and the
reliabilities of interview, performance, and nonverbal cue
ratings will be reported.
Research Hypotheses
Hypotheses will be presented here which are derived from
the previously stated research questions. The four research
questions to be investigated are: (1) Do raters of
interviewees attend to and utilize nonverbal cues in the
interview?, (2) Are nonverbal cues associated with
performance on the job? (3) Do nonverbal cues contribute
incrementally to validity after interview ratings are taken
into account?; and (4) Do interview ratings contribute
incrementally to validity after nonverbal cues are taken into
account? These research questions correspond to Brunswik's
concepts of cue utilization, ecological validity, and
achievement, respectively.
88


89
Cue Utilization
With regard to the first research question, it is
expected that raters will attend to and utilize nonverbal
cues when making interview ratings. This expectation is
consistent with the findings in the nonverbal cue literature
that interviewers attend to and utilize cues, and that their
use affects the favorability of their judgments (Forbes and
Jackson, 1980; Gifford et al., 1985; Hollandsworth et al.,
1989; Imada and Hakel, 1977; McGovern, 1976; McGovern and
Tinsley, 1978; Parsons and Liden, 1984; Young and Beier,
1977).
Arvey and Campion (1982) suggested that interviewers may
not view verbal and nonverbal variables as independent. In
fact, researchers who have investigated the effect of both
verbal and nonverbal information on rating favorability have
not suggested that nonverbal information be eliminated
completely. Rasmussen (1984) and Hollandsworth et al. (1979)
found that verbal content was the primary source of
information used by interviewers, but nonverbal behavior
still had a significant, albeit smaller effect in both
studies. Therefore, it is expected that interviewers will
use both types of information cues. Accordingly, the first
hypothesis is:


90
Hypothesis 1. Interviewees' nonverbal cues will be
significantly and positively correlated with interview
ratings.
Ecological Validity
Not only is it expected that interviewers will use
nonverbal cues, but also that these cues will be related to
performance ratings. According to recent research, visual
cues can be remarkably accurate indicators of personality
traits. If these same traits are important for job
performance, then nonverbal cues may be correlated with
supervisory ratings of performance. Motowidlo and Burnett
(1992, preliminary study #2) found that raters who were
exposed to only visual sources of information were able to
make valid interview ratings. Ambady and Rosenthal (1993)
reported similar results where judgments of college
teachers', based on only teachers' nonverbal behavior, were
significant predictors of student evaluations of teacher
effectiveness. Thus, information communicated through
nonverbal behavior seems to be an important indicator of job
performance, and should not be ignored. The specific
hypothesis is stated as follows:
Hypothesis 2. Interviewees' nonverbal cues will be
significantly and positively correlated with supervisory
ratings of job performance.


Full Text
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08396 396 6



PAGE 1

87,/,=$7,21 $1' 9$/,',7< 2) 1219(5%$/ &8(6 ,1 7+( 6758&785(' ,17(59,(: %< -(11,)(5 5 %851(77 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ 'LYHUVLW\ 9DULHV

PAGE 2

&RS\ULJKW E\ -HQQLIHU 5 %XUQHWW

PAGE 3

7KLV ZRUN LV GHGLFDWHG WR P\ VXSSRUWLYH SDWLHQW DQG HYHU ORYLQJ KXVEDQG 7RP ZKR KDV KHOSHG PH EHFRPH DOO WKDW DP DQG DOO WKDW ZLOO HYHU EH WR P\ ZRQGHUIXO DQG FDULQJ SDUHQWV ZKR DOZD\V EHOLHYHG LQ PH DQG ZKR LQVWLOOHG LQ PH WKH DPELWLRQ DQG VWUHQJWK WR UHDFK IRU P\ JRDOV DQG WR P\ WZR EURWKHUV IRU WKHLU FRQVWDQW HQFRXUDJHPHQW DQG LQVSLUDWLRQ

PAGE 4

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

PAGE 5

)LQDOO\ QRQH RI WKLV ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ SRVVLEOH ZLWKRXW P\ KXVEDQG 7RP 7KH ORQJ KRXUV GRXEWV DQG IUHTXHQW REVWDFOHV FRXOG QRW KDYH EHHQ RYHUFRPH ZLWKRXW KLV XQG\LQJ SDWLHQFH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG VWURQJ EHOLHI LQ PH 0\ DFFRPSOLVKPHQWV DUH D GLUHFW UHVXOW RI KLV ORYH DQG HQFRXUDJHPHQW Y

PAGE 6

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

PAGE 7

&RQWULEXWLRQV DQG /LPLWDWLRQV 6XPPDU\ DQG &RQFOXVLRQV $33(1',; $ ,17(59,(: 35272&2/ $1' ,17(59,(: ',0(16,216 $33(1',; % 683(59,625< 5$7,1* )2506 $33(1',; & 75$,76 $662&,$7(' :,7+ %(+$9,25$/ ',0(16,216 $33(1',; 1219(5%$/ &8( 5$7,1* )2506 5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ YLL

PAGE 8

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f ZDWFKHG WKH YLGHRWDSHG LQWHUYLHZV DQG UDWHG VXEMHFWV RQ GLPHQVLRQV RI PDQDJHULDO HIIHFWLYHQHVV (LJKW QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRUV LQFOXGLQJ JD]H VPLOLQJ KDQG PRYHPHQW EDFNVLGH OHDQ ERG\ RULHQWDWLRQ SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV GUHVV DQG YRFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV ZHUH VFRUHG E\ LQGHSHQGHQW MXGJHV 1RQYHUEDO FXHV LQ FRPELQDWLRQ ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK ERWK LQWHUYLHZ U Sf DQG SHUIRUPDQFH YLLL

PAGE 9

U Sf UDWLQJV *D]H ZDV WKH RQO\ QRQYHUEDO FXH ZKLFK ZDV QRW RQO\ XWLOL]HG E\ LQWHUYLHZ UDWHUV EXW DOVR ZDV D YDOLG LQGLFDWRU RI SHUIRUPDQFH ,QGHSHQGHQW PHDVXUHV RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV GLG QRW FRQWULEXWH LQFUHPHQWDOO\ WR WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW LQWHUYLHZ UDWHUV ZHUH XWLOL]LQJ FXHV VXIILFLHQWO\ 5HVXOWV GLIIHUHG DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH VH[ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHH $OWKRXJK QRQYHUEDO FXHV FRUUHODWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV IRU ERWK PHQ U S 1 f DQG ZRPHQ U S 1 f FRUUHODWLRQV ZLWK SHUIRUPDQFH VXEVWDQWLDOO\ GLIIHUHG E\ VH[ PHQ U QV ZRPHQ U Sf )RU ZRPHQ RQO\ FRPELQHG G\QDPLF FXHV ZHUH ERWK XWLOL]HG E\ LQWHUYLHZ UDWHUV U Sf DQG VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK VXSHUYLVRU\ UDWLQJV RI SHUIRUPDQFH U Sf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

PAGE 10

,1752'8&7,21 $1' /,7(5$785( 5(9,(: ,QWURGXFWLRQ 'HVSLWH \HDUV RI FULWLFLVP DERXW WKH LQWHUYLHZnV ORZ UHOLDELOLW\ DQG YDOLGLW\ LW KDV SUHYDLOHG DV RQH RI WKH PRVW SRSXODU PHWKRGV RI VHOHFWLRQ 5HFHQWO\ GHYHORSHG VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ WHFKQLTXHV KDYH OLIWHG VRPH RI WKH QHJDWLYLW\ VXUURXQGLQJ WKH XVH RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ 6WXGLHV WKDW KDYH WHVWHG VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ IRUPDWV KDYH SURYLGHG IDYRUDEOH UHSRUWV RI WKHLU XVH WR LQFUHDVH WKH YDOLGLW\ DQG UHOLDELOLW\ RI LQWHUYLHZHUnV MXGJPHQWV 0 &DPSLRQ 3XUVHOO DQG %URZQ -DQ] /DWKDP 6DDUL 3XUVHOO DQG 0 &DPSLRQ 0RWRZLGOR &DUWHU 'XQQHWWH 7LSSLQV :HUQHU %XUQHWW DQG 9DXJKDQ f 5HVHDUFKHUV PXVW FRQWLQXH WR LQYHVWLJDWH KRZ WR LPSURYH WKH VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ LQ RUGHU WR REWDLQ DFFXUDWH UDWLQJV WKDW LGHQWLI\ TXDOLILHG MRE FDQGLGDWHV 7KLV VWXG\ ZLOO IRFXV RQ D VHW RI IDFWRUV WKDW UHVHDUFK KDV VKRZQ DIIHFWV WKH IDYRUDELOLW\ RI LQWHUYLHZHUnV MXGJPHQWV 7KHVH IDFWRUV DUH QRQYHUEDO FXHV 7KH VSHFLILF IRFXV KHUH LV RQ WKH HIIHFW RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV HJ ERG\ SRVLWLRQLQJ JHVWXUHV IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQV YRLFH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DSSHDUDQFH DQG DWWUDFWLYHQHVVf RQ WKH YDOLGLW\ ZLWK ZKLFK LQWHUYLHZHUV PDNH SUHGLFWLRQV RI DSSOLFDQWVn IXWXUH MRE SHUIRUPDQFH

PAGE 11

,Q RUGHU WR HVWDEOLVK WKH GLUHFWLRQ DQG FRQWULEXWLRQ RI WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ UHODWHG OLWHUDWXUH ZLOO EH UHYLHZHG )LUVW DQ RYHUYLHZ RI VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZLQJ ZLOO EH SUHVHQWHG LQFOXGLQJ DQ H[SODQDWLRQ RI ZKDW LV PHDQW E\ VWUXFWXUHG DQG D GHVFULSWLRQ RI GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ WHFKQLTXHV 6HFRQG VLQFH LW KDV EHHQ VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH VWUXFWXUH RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ PD\ DIIHFW LQWHUYLHZHUVn DELOLW\ WR SURFHVV LQIRUPDWLRQ SUHVHQWHG GXULQJ WKH LQWHUYLHZ D FORVHU ORRN ZLOO EH WDNHQ RI HDFK VWHS RI WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ V\VWHP DQG KRZ WKH VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ IRUPDW FDQ DIIHFW WKRVH VWHSV 7KH VWHS RI JUHDWHVW LQWHUHVW LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ LV WKH SURFHVV RI DWWHQGLQJ WR DQG XWLOL]LQJ FXHV SDUWLFXODUO\ QRQYHUEDO FXHV 7KLV IRFXV ZLOO OHDG WR D UHYLHZ RI VWXGLHV WKDW KDYH LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH HIIHFW RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV RQ UDWHUVn MXGJPHQWV :KDW W\SHV RI FXHV DUH LPSRUWDQW KRZ GR WKH\ DIIHFW LQWHUYLHZHUVn MXGJPHQWV DQG WR ZKDW GHJUHH GR WKH\ LQIOXHQFH MXGJPHQWV EH\RQG WKDW RI YHUEDO LQIRUPDWLRQ" )LQDOO\ LPSRUWDQW LVVXHV ZKLFK QHHG WR EH DGGUHVVHG E\ IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK LQ WKLV DUHD ZLOO EH GLVFXVVHG 6WUXFWXUHG ,QWHUYLHZV 7KH 0HDQLQJ RI 6WUXFWXUH 6WUXFWXULQJ DQ LQWHUYLHZ PD\ PHDQ GLIIHUHQW WKLQJV WR GLIIHUHQW SHRSOH 6WUXFWXUH LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH VHOHFWLRQ

PAGE 12

LQWHUYLHZ PHDQV WKDW WKH LQWHUYLHZHU IROORZV V\VWHPDWLF DQG SUHGHWHUPLQHG UXOHV WR REVHUYH DQG HYDOXDWH DSSOLFDQWV 6WUXFWXULQJ PD\ DOVR PHDQ WKDW WKHVH UXOHV DUH DSSOLHG LQ WKH VDPH ZD\ IRU DOO DSSOLFDQWV RI D SRVLWLRQ 7KHVH UXOHV PD\ GHVLJQDWH WKH W\SH RI TXHVWLRQV DVNHG E\ WKH LQWHUYLHZHU WKH HOHPHQWV RI DQ DSSOLFDQWnV DQVZHU WR ZKLFK WKH LQWHUYLHZHU VKRXOG DWWHQG DQGRU WKH VFRULQJ V\VWHP XVHG E\ WKH LQWHUYLHZHUV WR PDNH MXGJPHQWV EDVHG RQ WKH DSSOLFDQWn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

PAGE 13

EHKDYLRU LJQRULQJ LUUHOHYDQW EHKDYLRU DQG V\QWKHVL]LQJ DOO LQIRUPDWLRQ LQWR D YDOLG SUHGLFWLRQ RI VXFFHVV :DJQHU f ,Q IDFW :DJQHU QRWHG WKDW DQRWKHU UHVHDUFKHU 0F0XUUD\ f GHYHORSHG D SDWWHUQHG LQWHUYLHZ WKDW DFFRPSOLVKHG WKHVH REMHFWLYHV 8VLQJ 0F0XUUD\nV IRUPDW LQWHUYLHZHUV f ZHUH WUDLQHG LQ WKH WHFKQLTXHV RI LQWHUYLHZLQJ f DWWHQGHG WR GHILQLWH MRE VSHFLILFDWLRQV f KDG D SODQ DQG NQHZ EHIRUH WKH LQWHUYLHZ ZKDW TXHVWLRQV WKH\ ZRXOG DVN RI DSSOLFDQWV f KDG FOLQLFDO FRQFHSWV WR XVH ZKHQ LQWHUSUHWLQJ DQG HYDOXDWLQJ DSSOLFDQWnV UHVSRQVHV f FKHFNHG RXWVLGH UHIHUHQFHV SULRU WR WKH LQWHUYLHZ DQG f ZHUH DVVHVVHG IRU WKHLU RZQ GHJUHH RI HPRWLRQDO DGMXVWPHQW DQG LQWHOOLJHQFH 0F0XUUD\ IRXQG D VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQ U f EHWZHHQ LQWHUYLHZHUVn UDWLQJV RI IDFWRU\ ZRUNHUV DQG VXSHUYLVRUnV HYDOXDWLRQV RI WKHLU ZRUN ,Q DQRWKHU VWXG\ KH IRXQG D FRUUHODWLRQ RI EHWZHHQ LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV DQG WUXFN GULYHUVn WHQXUH RQ WKH MRE 7KHVH VXJJHVWLRQV E\ :DJQHU DQG WKH HDUO\ ILQGLQJV E\ 0F0XUUD\ f VRXQG YHU\ VLPLODU WR WKH UXOHV DQG IRUPDWV XVHG DQG UHVXOWV UHSRUWHG RI PDQ\ VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ WHFKQLTXHV RI WRGD\ (PSLULFDO HYLGHQFH RI WKH DGYDQWDJH RI PRUH VWUXFWXUH ZDV SUHVHQWHG PRUH UHFHQWO\ E\ :LHVQHU DQG &URQVKDZ f ZKR UHSRUWHG DQ XQFRUUHFWHG YDOLGLW\ FRHIILFLHQW RI IRU VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZV EXW RQO\ IRU XQVWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZV LQ D PHWDDQDO\VLV RI YDOLGLW\ VWXGLHV RI VHOHFWLRQ LQWHUYLHZV $FFRUGLQJO\ WKH LQWHUHVW DQG

PAGE 14

SRSXODULW\ RI WKH VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ LV EDVHG RQ ERWK ORQJ KHOG EHOLHIV 0D\ILHOG 0F0XUUD\ 6FKPLWW 8OULFK DQG 7UXPER :DJQHU :ULJKW f DQG UHFHQW HYLGHQFH +DNHO -DQ] /DWKDP 6DDUL 3XUVHOO DQG 0 &DPSLRQ 0RWRZLGOR &DUWHU 'XQQHWWH 7LSSLQV :HUQHU %XUQHWW DQG 9DXJKDQ :LHVQHU DQG &URQVKDZ f WKDW VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZV KDYH DQ DGYDQWDJH RYHU XQVWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZV 7\SHV RI 6WUXFWXUHG ,QWHUYLHZ )RUPDWV 7ZR ZHOO NQRZQ VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ IRUPDWV DUH WKH 6LWXDWLRQDO ,QWHUYLHZ 6,f GHYHORSHG E\ /DWKDP HW DO f DQG WKH 3DWWHUQHG %HKDYLRUDO 'HVFULSWLRQ ,QWHUYLHZ 3%',f GHYHORSHG E\ -DQ] -DQ] +HOOHUYLN DQG *LOPRUH f $QRWKHU PRUH UHFHQWO\ GHYHORSHG VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ IRUPDW LV WKH 6WUXFWXUHG %HKDYLRUDO ,QWHUYLHZ GHYHORSHG E\ 0RWRZLGOR HW DO f 6LPLODULWLHV DQG GLIIHUHQFHV LQ IRUPDW RI HDFK RI WKHVH LQWHUYLHZ WHFKQLTXHV DQG HYLGHQFH RI WKH YDOLGLW\ DQG UHOLDELOLW\ RI HDFK W\SH RI VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ SURYLGH LQVLJKW LQWR WKH DGYDQWDJHV RI VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZV RYHU WUDGLWLRQDO LQWHUYLHZV )LUVW LQ WKH VLWXDWLRQDO LQWHUYLHZ 6,f TXHVWLRQV DUH SUHVHQWHG DV K\SRWKHWLFDO VLWXDWLRQV DQG DVN DSSOLFDQWV ZKDW WKH\ ZRXOG GR LI WKH\ ZHUH LQ WKDW VLWXDWLRQ 7KH 6, TXHVWLRQV DUH EDVHG RQ JRDO WKHRU\ RU WKH EHOLHI WKDW EHKDYLRUDO LQWHQWLRQV DUH VWURQJO\ OLQNHG ZLWK VXEVHTXHQW

PAGE 15

EHKDYLRU 6, TXHVWLRQV DUH GHULYHG IURP D FULWLFDO LQFLGHQWV MRE DQDO\VLV RI WKH MRE WR EH ILOOHG 7KH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH VLWXDWLRQDO LQWHUYLHZ KDV UHFHLYHG VXSSRUW /DWKDP HW DO f UHSRUWHG WKUHH VWXGLHV ZLWK FRQFXUUHQW YDOLGLW\ FRHIILFLHQWV RI S 1 f DQG S 1 f ZLWK LQFXPEHQWV DQG SUHGLFWLYH YDOLGLWLHV RI S 1 f ZLWK DSSOLFDQWV 7KH FULWHULRQ LQ DOO FDVHV ZDV VXSHUYLVRUnV FRPSRVLWH SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJV RI ZRUNHUV 7ZR DGGLWLRQDO VWXGLHV E\ /DWKDP DQG 6DDUL f DOVR VXSSRUW WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH VLWXDWLRQDO LQWHUYLHZ ,Q RQH VWXG\ WKH\ UHSRUWHG FRUUHODWLRQV RI LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV ZLWK FRQFXUUHQW VXSHUYLVRU\ UDWLQJV DW Sf DQG ZLWK SHHU UDWLQJV DW Sf1 f ,Q DQRWKHU VWXG\ WKH\ UHSRUWHG D SUHGLFWLYH YDOLGLW\ FRHIILFLHQW RI S 1 f EHWZHHQ LQWHUYLHZ VFRUHV DQG FRPSRVLWH VXSHUYLVRU\ UDWLQJV :HHNOH\ DQG *LHU f JDYH HYLGHQFH RI WKH SUHGLFWLYH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH VLWXDWLRQDO IRUPDW ZKHQ WKH\ UHSRUWHG D FRUUHODWLRQ RI Sf EHWZHHQ LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV RI LQGLYLGXDOV DSSO\LQJ IRU D UHWDLO VDOHV SRVLWLRQ DQG WKHLU VDOHV SURGXFWLYLW\ QLQH PRQWKV ODWHU $FURVV VL[ VWXGLHV YDOLGLW\ HVWLPDWHV IRU WKH VLWXDWLRQDO LQWHUYLHZ UDQJHG IURP WR DOO VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH S OHYHOf ZLWK D WRWDO VDPSOH RI LQWHUYLHZHHV 7KLV UHVXOWV LQ D PHDQ YDOLGLW\ RI ZHLJKWHG E\ VDPSOH VL]H 5HOLDELOLW\ HVWLPDWHV IURP WKHVH VDPH VHYHQ VWXGLHV DUH DGHTXDWH ,QWHUREVHUYHU UHOLDELOLWLHV UDQJHG IURP WR DQG LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ HVWLPDWHV UDQJHG IURP WR

PAGE 16

,Q WKH VHFRQG ZHOONQRZQ VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ IRUPDW WKH 3DWWHUQHG %HKDYLRU 'HVFULSWLRQ ,QWHUYLHZ 3%',f DSSOLFDQWV DUH DVNHG WR UHFDOO VSHFLILF SDVW H[SHULHQFHV DQG WR UHSRUW WKHLU DFWXDO EHKDYLRU ZKHQ WKH\ ZHUH LQ WKRVH VLWXDWLRQV 7KLV IRUPDW LV EDVHG RQ WKH WKHRU\ RI EHKDYLRUDO FRQVLVWHQF\ RU WKH LGHD WKDW SDVW EHKDYLRU ZLOO SUHGLFW IXWXUH EHKDYLRU :HUQLPRQW DQG &DPSEHOO f -DQ] f VWDWHV WKDW EHKDYLRU GHVFULSWLRQV SURYLGHG E\ MRE DSSOLFDQWV UHYHDO VSHFLILF FKRLFHV PDGH E\ WKRVH LQGLYLGXDOV DQG WKH FLUFXPVWDQFHV XQGHU ZKLFK WKH\ PDGH WKRVH FKRLFHV +H DUJXHV WKDW WKLV W\SH RI LQIRUPDWLRQ UHYHDOV EHKDYLRUDO SDWWHUQV UDWKHU WKDQ RSLQLRQV RU LPSUHVVLRQV DQG WKH PRUH ORQJn VWDQGLQJ WKH DSSOLFDQWnV EHKDYLRU SDWWHUQ WKH PRUH OLNHO\ LW ZLOO SUHGLFW IXWXUH EHKDYLRU 7KH EHKDYLRUDO GLPHQVLRQV WDSSHG E\ WKH 3%', TXHVWLRQV DUH GHULYHG IURP WKH UHVXOWV RI D FULWLFDO LQFLGHQWV MRE DQDO\VLV 7KHUH KDYH EHHQ WZR SXEOLVKHG VWXGLHV RI WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH 3%', 7KH ILUVW E\ -DQ] f LQYROYHG ILIWHHQ WHDFKLQJ DVVLVWDQWV ZKR ZHUH LQWHUYLHZHG WZLFH E\ XQGHUJUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV ,QWHUYLHZHUV ZHUH GLYLGHG LQWR WZR JURXSV 2QH JURXS UHFHLYHG WUDLQLQJ IRU WKH 3%', DQG WKH RWKHU JURXS UHFHLYHG JHQHUDO LQVWUXFWLRQ RQ HVWDEOLVKLQJ UDSSRUW DFWLYH OLVWHQLQJ HWF 7KH WUDGLWLRQDOO\ WUDLQHG LQWHUYLHZHUV H[KLELWHG JUHDWHU LQWHUUDWHU DJUHHPHQW EXW WKH 3%',WUDLQHG LQWHUYLHZHUVn UDWLQJV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG DW S f ZLWK DQ LQGHSHQGHQW UDWLQJ RI WKH WHDFKLQJ DVVLVWDQWVn HIIHFWLYHQHVV LQ FODVV 7KH

PAGE 17

WUDGLWLRQDOO\ WUDLQHG LQWHUYLHZHUVn UDWLQJV RQO\ FRUUHODWHG QVf ZLWK WKH FULWHULRQ ,W LV LPSRUWDQW WR QRWH WKDW LQ -DQ]nV VWXG\ LQWHUYLHZHUV ZHUH QRW UDQGRPO\ DVVLJQHG WR D WUDLQLQJ FRQGLWLRQ DQG WKH VDPSOH VL]H ZDV VPDOO 7KHVH WZR ZHDNQHVVHV FDVW VSHFXODWLRQ RQ WKH DFFXUDF\ RI WKHVH UHVXOWV ,Q UHVSRQVH LQ D VWXG\ E\ 2USHQ f LQWHUYLHZHUV ZHUH UDQGRPO\ DVVLJQHG WR WZR FRQGLWLRQV RI EHKDYLRU GHVFULSWLRQ WUDLQLQJ DQG WUDGLWLRQDO WUDLQLQJ 1LQHWHHQ UHDO DSSOLFDQWV IRU DQ LQVXUDQFH VDOHV SRVLWLRQ ZHUH HDFK LQWHUYLHZHG E\ DW OHDVW IRXU RI WKH VL[WHHQ WRWDO LQWHUYLHZHUV 6XSHUYLVRU\ UDWLQJV DQG WKH YDOXH RI LQVXUDQFH VDOHV LQ RQH \HDU ZHUH ERWK XVHG DV FULWHULD 2USHQ f UHSRUWHG D FRUUHODWLRQ RI Sf EHWZHHQ VXSHUYLVRU\ SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJV DQG WKH UDWLQJV PDGH E\ LQWHUYLHZHUV WUDLQHG LQ WKH EHKDYLRUDO GHVFULSWLRQ WHFKQLTXH YHUVXV D QRQVLJQLILFDQW YDOLGLW\ FRHIILFLHQW RI QVf IRU WKH WUDGLWLRQDOO\ WUDLQHG LQWHUYLHZHUV )RU WKH FULWHULRQ RI WKH YDOXH RI LQVXUDQFH VROG WKH 3%', LQWHUYLHZHUVn UDWLQJV YDOLGLW\ ZDV SF2Of DQG WKH WUDGLWLRQDO LQWHUYLHZHUVn UDWLQJV YDOLGLW\ ZDV QVf 7KH PHDQ YDOLGLW\ FRHIILFLHQW IRU WKH -DQ] f DQG 2USHQ f VWXGLHV LV ZHLJKWHG E\ VDPSOH VL]H +RZHYHU WKH VPDOO WRWDO VDPSOH VL]H 1 f DJDLQ FDOOV LQWR TXHVWLRQV WKH SUHFLVLRQ RI WKHVH UHVXOWV 7KH WHVW UHWHVW UHOLDELOLW\ LQ 2USHQnV VWXG\ ZDV DQG GLG QRW GLIIHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ IURP WKDW RI WKH WUDGLWLRQDO XQVWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ ,Q -DQ]nV VWXG\ WKH VWDQGDUG

PAGE 18

LQWHUYLHZ KDG D JUHDWHU LQWHUREVHUYHU UHOLDELOLW\ WKDQ WKDW RI WKH SDWWHUQHG EHKDYLRU LQWHUYLHZ DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\ /DVWO\ WKH 6WUXFWXUHG %HKDYLRUDO ,QWHUYLHZ 6%,f GHYHORSHG E\ 0RWRZLGOR HW DO f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nV EHKDYLRU LQ WKDW VLWXDWLRQ DQG WKH RXWFRPH WKDW UHVXOWHG IURP WKDW EHKDYLRU /LNH WKH 6, DIWHU WKH LQWHUYLHZ LV FRPSOHWHG WKH LQWHUYLHZHU XVLQJ WKH 6%, UDWHV WKH LQWHUYLHZHH RQ EHKDYLRUDOO\ DQFKRUHG VFDOHV IRU HDFK GLPHQVLRQ 0RWRZLGOR DQG KLV FROOHDJXHV f UHSRUWHG WKH 6%,nV FULWHULRQ YDOLGLW\ FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ DQG UHOLDELOLW\ ,Q WKUHH VWXGLHV XVLQJ HLJKW WHOHFRPPXQLFDWLRQV FRPSDQLHV ZLWK D WRWDO YDOLGDWLRQ VDPSOH RI DSSUR[LPDWHO\ LQWHUYLHZHHV

PAGE 19

WKH XQFRUUHFWHG PHDQ HVWLPDWH RI WKH FULWHULRQUHODWHG YDOLGLW\ RI WKH 6%, LV ,Q RQH VWXG\ WKH\ UHSRUWHG FRQFXUUHQW YDOLGLWLHV UDQJLQJ IURP Sf WR SF2Of ZLWK D PHDQ RI ZHLJKWHG E\ VDPSOH VL]H YDU\LQJ IURP GHSHQGLQJ RQ PLVVLQJ GDWD ,Q DQRWKHU VWXG\ SUHGLFWLYH YDOLGLW\ FRHIILFLHQWV ZHUH UHSRUWHG EHWZHHQ Sf DQG SF2Of ZLWK D PHDQ RI ZHLJKWHG E\ D VDPSOH VL]H RI ,Q D WKLUG VWXG\ WKH\ UHSRUWHG D SUHGLFWLYH YDOLGLW\ FRHIILFLHQW RI QVf WR SF2Of ZLWK D PHDQ FRUUHODWLRQ RI ZHLJKWHG E\ D VDPSOH VL]H RI 7KHVH WKUHH VWXGLHV LQYROYHG DQ LQWHUYLHZ IRUPDW WKDW PHDVXUHG GLPHQVLRQV LPSRUWDQW IRU PDQDJHPHQW MREV ,Q WKH WKLUG VWXG\ KRZHYHU DQRWKHU IRUPDW GHVLJQHG IRU PDUNHWLQJ MREV ZDV DOVR WHVWHG 7KH FRQFXUUHQW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH PDUNHWLQJ SRVLWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ UDQJHG IURP QVf WR SF2Of ZLWK D PHDQ RI ZHLJKWHG E\ D VDPSOH VL]H RI 6XSSRUW IRU WKH FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH 6%, ZDV EDVHG RQ WKUHH UHVXOWV )LUVW FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ UDWLQJV E\ LQWHUYLHZHUV DQG VXEMHFWV ZKR OLVWHQHG WR WDSHV RI WKH LQWHUYLHZV DQG UDWLQJV E\ LQWHUYLHZHUV DQG VXSHUYLVRUV ZHUH KLJKHU IRU VDPH GLPHQVLRQV LH FRQYHUJHQW YDOLGLW\f WKDQ IRU GLIIHUHQW GLPHQVLRQV LH GLVFULPLQDQW YDOLGLW\f 6HFRQG 6%, UDWLQJV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK UDWLQJV PDGH ZLWK DQRWKHU LQWHUYLHZ IRUPDW GHVLJQHG WR PHDVXUH WKH VDPH RU VLPLODU GLPHQVLRQV $QG ILQDOO\ WKH 6%, LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV ZHUH QRW VWURQJO\ RU VLJQLILFDQWO\

PAGE 20

FRUUHODWHG ZLWK RWKHU PHDVXUHV VXFK DV DQ DSWLWXGH WHVW FROOHJH JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJHV RU UDQN LQ FROOHJH FODVV WKDW UHO\ KHDYLO\ RQ FRJQLWLYH DELOLW\ 7KH UHOLDELOLW\ RI WKH 6%, ZDV GHWHUPLQHG LQ WKH ILUVW VWXG\ FRQGXFWHG E\ 0RWRZLGOR HW DO f DQG ZDV EDVHG RQ f WKH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ UDWLQJV E\ GLIIHUHQW LQWHUYLHZHUV ZKR LQWHUYLHZHG WKH VDPH DSSOLFDQWV RQ GLIIHUHQW RFFDVLRQV DQG f WKH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ UDWLQJV E\ SDLUV RI OLVWHQHUV RI DXGLRWDSHV RI WKRVH LQWHUYLHZV 7KRVH UHOLDELOLW\ HVWLPDWHV ZHUH DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\ ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR HYLGHQFH RI YDOLGLW\ DQG UHOLDELOLW\ RI WKHVH WKUHH SDUWLFXODU LQWHUYLHZ WHFKQLTXHV WKHUH DUH WZR DGGLWLRQDO FULWHULD WKDW VKRXOG EH WDNHQ LQWR DFFRXQWf§ QDPHO\ IUHHGRP IURP ELDV DQG SUDFWLFDOLW\ )RU WKH VLWXDWLRQDO LQWHUYLHZ &DPSLRQ HW DO /DWKDP f DQG WKH VWUXFWXUHG EHKDYLRUDO LQWHUYLHZ 0RWRZLGOR HW DO f WKHUH LV VLJQLILFDQW HYLGHQFH WKDW WKHVH WHFKQLTXHV DUH QRW ELDVHG LQ IDYRU RI UDFH RU VH[ RI WKH DSSOLFDQW 7KHUH LV QR UHSRUWHG HYLGHQFH UHJDUGLQJ WKH GHJUHH RI ELDV LQ WKH SDWWHUQHG EHKDYLRU GHVFULSWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ -DQ] -DQ] f 7KH SUDFWLFDOLW\ RI WKHVH WKUHH LQWHUYLHZ WHFKQLTXHV LV HYLGHQFHG E\ LQGLFDWRUV VXFK DV WKHLU XVHIXOQHVV IRU PDNLQJ VHOHFWLRQ GHFLVLRQV LQWHUYLHZHUVn DQG DSSOLFDQWVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI IDLUQHVV DQG WKH IHDVLELOLW\ RI WKHLU XVH 7KH PRVW DSSDUHQW WHVW RI DQ LQWHUYLHZnV SUDFWLFDOLW\ PD\ EH

PAGE 21

LWV FRQWLQXHG XVH DQG DFFHSWDQFH E\ UHFUXLWHUV DQG PDQDJHUV ZKR XVH WKH WHFKQLTXH WR PDNH LPSRUWDQW KLULQJ GHFLVLRQV ,Q RQH VWXG\ E\ /DWKDP DQG )LQQHJDQ f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nV f VWXG\ VLQFH LW KDG QRW \HW EHHQ GHYHORSHG

PAGE 22

WKHUH LV D QHHG WR FRQGXFW D PRUH FXUUHQW VXUYH\ RI XVHUVn DQG DSSOLFDQWVn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n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

PAGE 23

XQVWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ LW PXVW EH H[SODLQHG ZK\ WKH ODWWHU KDYH KDG SRRUHU UHVXOWV $FFRUGLQJ WR D PRGHO GHYHORSHG E\ 6FKZDE f ZKHQ FRQVLGHULQJ WKH FULWHULRQUHODWHG YDOLGLW\ RU HPSLULFDO YDOLGLW\f RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ LW LV DOVR QHFHVVDU\ WR EH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH SUHGLFWRU DQG WKH FULWHULRQ XVHG 6HH )LJXUH f ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOH 'HSHQGHQW 9DULDEOH &RQVWUXFW 9DOLGLW\  ,n A W (PSLULFDO 9DOLGLW\ )LJXUH $Q LOOXVWUDWLRQ RI FRQVWUXFW DQG HPSLULFDO YDOLGLW\ LQ WKH HPSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZ$GDSWHG IURP 6FKZDE f 7KH YDOLGLW\ FRUUHODWLRQV UHSRUWHG E\ UHVHDUFKHUV DUH EHWZHHQ LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV ,nf DQG VRPH W\SH RI MRE SHUIRUPDQFH FULWHULRQ UDWLQJ &f 7KHVH DUH LQGLFDWRUV RI WKH UHDO FRQVWUXFWV RI SHUIRUPDQFH LQ WKH LQWHUYLHZ DQG & SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH MRE :KHQ D VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQ LV IRXQG EHWZHHQ ,n DQG & LW VXJJHVWV D VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DQG & %XW WKHUH PXVW DOVR EH D KLJK FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ DQG ,n DQG & DQG & WR PDNH WKDW DVVXPSWLRQ 7KHUHIRUH ERWK FRQVWUXFW DQG HPSLULFDO YDOLGLW\

PAGE 24

DUH QHFHVVDU\ WR PDNH LQIHUHQFHV IURP WKH UHVHDUFK GDWD &URQVKDZ DQG :LHVQHU f ,Q WKH XQVWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ WKH LQGLFDWRU ,n LH LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJVf PD\ ODFN FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ DV D PHDVXUH RI LQ WKH VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ EHFDXVH RI WKH IDLOXUH RI WKH WUDGLWLRQDO LQWHUYLHZHU WR REWDLQ UHOHYDQW MREUHODWHG LQIRUPDWLRQ -DQ] f VXJJHVWHG WKDW LQ WKH XQVWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ WKH TXHVWLRQV LQWHUYLHZHUV DFWXDOO\ DVN DQG WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ IRU ZKLFK WKH\ SUREH KDYH OLWWOH WR GR ZLWK WKH FRQVWUXFWV WKDW DUH LPSRUWDQW IRU SUHGLFWLQJ MRE SHUIRUPDQFH 1HFHVVDU\ DQG UHOHYDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ PD\ QRW EH FRQVLVWHQWO\ XQFRYHUHG LQ DQ XQVWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ 0D\ILHOG f $OVR ,n PD\ ODFN FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ DV D PHDVXUH RI EHFDXVH RI WKH LQIOXHQFH RI LQWHUYLHZHU ELDVHV VXFK DV VLPLODUWRPH DQG FRQWUDVW HIIHFWVf ,QWHUYLHZHUV ZKR XVH XQVWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZV KDYH PXFK VHOI GLVFUHWLRQ WKHUHE\ DOORZLQJ LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV VXFK DV GLIIHUHQWLDO DWWHQWLRQ DQG ZHLJKWLQJ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ WR FRPH LQWR SOD\ 7KHVH ELDVHV DQG LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV FDQ LQWHUIHUH ZLWK WKH FROOHFWLRQ RI D UHOHYDQW VDPSOH RI WKH WUXH GRPDLQ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH DSSOLFDQW ,f /LNHZLVH LQWHUYLHZHUV ZKR DUH QRW JXLGHG E\ DQ\ VSHFLILF UXOHV RU VWUXFWXUH WHQG WR IRFXV RQ KRZ WKH DSSOLFDQW UHVSRQGV LQ WKH OLPLWHG FRQWH[W RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ VHVVLRQ UDWKHU RQ ORQJ WHUP SDWWHUQV RI EHKDYLRU 7KLV DOORZV WKH LPSUHVVLRQ PDQDJHPHQW VWUDWHJLHV RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHH WR LQIOXHQFH MXGJPHQWV WR D JUHDWHU GHJUHH 'LSER\H -DQ] f

PAGE 25

7KHUHIRUH WKH ODFN RI FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI ,n PD\ DWWHQXDWH WKH FULWHULRQUHODWHG YDOLGLW\ FRHIILFLHQW EHWZHHQ ,n DQG & ,Q UHVSRQVH WR WKH ORZ UHOLDELOLWLHV DQG ORZ YDOLGLWLHV RI XQVWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ WHFKQLTXHV DURVH WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ IRUPDWV 7KHUH LV QRW RQH ZLGHO\ DFFHSWHG WKHRU\ UHJDUGLQJ ZK\ VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZV ZRUN 7KH DGYDQWDJH RI WKH VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ GHYHORSHG E\ -DQ] f /DWKDP HW DO f DQG 0RWRZLGOR HW DO f PD\ EH GXH WR WKH IDFW WKDW WKH TXHVWLRQV DUH MREUHODWHG EHFDXVH WKH\ ZHUH V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ GHULYHG XVLQJ FULWLFDO LQFLGHQWV MRE DQDO\VLV ,I TXHVWLRQV DUH PRUH MREUHODWHG WKHQ DSSOLFDQWV FDQ SURYLGH PRUH UHOHYDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ LQ WKHLU DQVZHUV IRU LQWHUYLHZHUV WR XVH IRU SUHGLFWLQJ HIIHFWLYH MRE SHUIRUPDQFH 7KHUHIRUH VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV ,nf WKDW DUH EDVHG RQ WKRVH UHOHYDQW DQVZHUV ZRXOG KDYH JUHDWHU FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ EHFDXVH WKH\ ZRXOG PRUH DFFXUDWHO\ UHIOHFW WKH WUXH SUHGLFWRU RI VHH )LJXUH f 6LPLODUO\ WKH VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ IRUPDW PD\ KDYH JUHDWHU YDOLGLW\ UHVXOWV EHFDXVH LQWHUYLHZHUVn MXGJPHQWV DUH PRUH UHOLDEOH 7KH H[WHQVLYH WUDLQLQJ W\SLFDOO\ LQYROYHG LQ WKH XVH RI VWUXFWXUHG IRUPDWV WKH VWDQGDUGL]DWLRQ RI TXHVWLRQV DFURVV LQWHUYLHZHUV DQG WKH SURYLVLRQ RI EHKDYLRUDOO\ DQFKRUHG UDWLQJ VFDOHV PD\ DOO FRQWULEXWH WR LQFUHDVHG LQWHUUDWHU UHOLDELOLW\ 2YHUDOO WKH PHWKRGRORJLFDO DVSHFWV RI VWUXFWXUHG IRUPDWV VHHP WR LPSURYH WKH ,n OLQNDJH UHVXOWLQJ LQ LPSURYHG UHOLDELOLW\ DQG FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV DQG VXEVHTXHQWO\

PAGE 26

VWUHQJWKHQ WKH ,n & OLQNDJH UHSRUWHG DV WKH FULWHULRQ UHODWHG YDOLGLW\ &URQVKDZ DQG :LHVQHU f $VSHFWV RI D VWUXFWXUHG IRUPDW VXFK DV WKH MREn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f§ WKH SURFHVVLQJ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KH VWUXFWXUH RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ SDUWLFXODUO\ WKH PHWKRGRORJLHV HPSOR\HG PD\ LPSURYH WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHUVn LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ FDSDELOLWLHV WKDW LQ WXUQ DIIHFW WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ (GHU .DFPDU DQG )HUULVf 7KH ,QIRUPDWLRQ 3URFHVVLQJ 0RGHO 7KH LQWHUYLHZHU SURFHVVHV LQIRUPDWLRQ E\ SURJUHVVLQJ WKURXJK ILYH VWHSV /RUG f 7KH ILUVW WKUHH VWHSV FRQVWLWXWH WKH LQSXW RI LQIRUPDWLRQ LQFOXGLQJ f VHOHFWLYH DWWHQWLRQ WR LQIRUPDWLRQDO FXHV f WKH FRPSUHKHQVLRQ DQG HQFRGLQJ RI WKRVH FXHV DQG f VWRUDJH DQG UHWHQWLRQ LQWR PHPRU\ $IWHU DOO LQIRUPDWLRQ KDV EHHQ FROOHFWHG DW VRPH ODWHU SRLQW WKH MXGJH PXVW UHWULHYH WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ VWHS f

PAGE 27

IURP PHPRU\ DQG WUDQVODWH LW LQWR WKH UHTXLUHG MXGJPHQW RU GHFLVLRQ VWHS f /RUG f 7KH PHWKRGRORJ\ RI D VWUXFWXUHG IRUPDW PD\ DIIHFW HDFK VWHS RI WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ V\VWHP )LUVW WKH LQWHUYLHZHU PXVW REWDLQ D VDPSOH RI LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP WKH SRSXODWLRQ RI SRVLWLYH DQG QHJDWLYH LQIRUPDWLRQ DYDLODEOH DERXW WKH MRE DSSOLFDQW 0RWRZLGOR f 7KLV VDPSOH RI LQIRUPDWLRQ LV REWDLQHG WKURXJK LQWHUYLHZHUVn DXWRPDWLF DQGRU FRQWUROOHG DWWHQWLRQDO PHFKDQLVPV ,OJHQ DQG )HOGPDQ )HOGPDQ 6FKQHLGHU DQG 6KLIIULQ 6KLIIULQ DQG 6FKQHLGHU f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f ,Q WKH VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ WKH LQWHUYLHZHUV DUH W\SLFDOO\ WUDLQHG WR DWWHQG WR LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDW LV UHOHYDQW WR WKH GLPHQVLRQV RQ ZKLFK WKH\ ZLOO UDWH WKH DSSOLFDQW )RU H[DPSOH LQ WKH 6LWXDWLRQDO ,QWHUYLHZ /DWKDP HW DO f UDWHUV DUH DZDUH RI WKH GLPHQVLRQV WKDW HDFK TXHVWLRQ LV

PAGE 28

LQWHQGHG WR WDS DQG WKH\ DUH DOVR SURYLGHG ZLWK D VFRULQJ JXLGH WKDW JLYHV WKHP H[DPSOHV RI D JRRG PRGHUDWH DQG SRRU UHVSRQVH IRU HDFK TXHVWLRQ 0RWRZLGOR HW DO f DOVR WUDLQHG LQWHUYLHZHUV XVLQJ WKH 6WUXFWXUHG %HKDYLRUDO ,QWHUYLHZ IRUPDW WR LGHQWLI\ LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLGHG E\ WKH DSSOLFDQW WKDW ZDV UHOHYDQW WR WKH GLPHQVLRQ WR EH PHDVXUHG 7KH LQWHUYLHZHUV PDGH UDWLQJV RQ HDFK GLPHQVLRQ WKDW ZHUH DQFKRUHG ZLWK VSHFLILF GHVFULSWLRQV RI EHKDYLRUV DW KLJK PRGHUDWH DQG ORZ OHYHOV 7KLV WUDLQLQJ DQG WKH WRROV SURYLGHG WR LQWHUYLHZHUV VSHFLILF GLPHQVLRQV VWUXFWXUHG TXHVWLRQV VFRULQJ JXLGHVf PDNH WKHLU DWWHQWLRQDO SURFHVVHV PRUH FRQWUROOHG $GGLWLRQDOO\ E\ SURYLGLQJ LQWHUYLHZHUV ZLWK FDUHIXOO\ GHYHORSHG WRROV DQG SUHGHWHUPLQHG UXOHV WR IROORZ WKH\ DUH UHOLHYHG RI WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ RI PDNLQJ WKRVH GHFLVLRQV WKHPVHOYHV 7KH\ WKHQ KDYH PRUH WLPH DQG IUHHGRP WR DWWHQG WR LQWHUYLHZHHVn UHVSRQVHV UDWKHU WKDQ ZRUU\ DERXW ZKDW TXHVWLRQ WR DVN QH[W RU KRZ WR VFRUH LW 2YHUDOO WKH FRQWUROOHG DWWHQWLRQ RI LQWHUYLHZHUV XVLQJ D VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ IRUPDW HQDEOHV WKHP WR GLVWLQJXLVK UHOHYDQW IURP LUUHOHYDQW SLHFHV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ PRUH UHDGLO\ 6HFRQG WKH UXOHV DQG WRROV RI WKH VWUXFWXUHG IRUPDW PDNH LW HDVLHU IRU LQWHUYLHZHUV WR HQFRGH WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ WR ZKLFK WKH\ KDYH DWWHQGHG (QFRGLQJ RFFXUV ZKHQ DQ H[WHUQDO VWLPXOXV VXFK DV DSSOLFDQWVn YHUEDO DQG QRQYHUEDO UHVSRQVHV WR LQWHUYLHZ TXHVWLRQV LV WUDQVODWHG LQWR DQ V\PEROLF FRGH ZLWKLQ WKH PLQG RI WKH SHUFHLYHU /RUG f (DFK SLHFH RI

PAGE 29

LQIRUPDWLRQ LV QRW HQFRGHG LQGHSHQGHQWO\ EXW LQVWHDG LV PDWFKHG ZLWK PRUH JHQHUDO SUHH[LVWLQJ FDWHJRULHV ,QIRUPDWLRQ WKDW LV LQFRQJUXHQW ZLWK H[LVWLQJ FDWHJRULHV WDNHV ORQJHU WR HQFRGH DQG PD\ UHTXLUH WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI D QHZ FDWHJRU\ IRU QRYHO VWLPXOL /RUG f ,OJHQ DQG )HOGPDQ f VWDWHG WKDW WKH FDWHJRULHV WKDW MXGJHV XVH WR SURFHVV LQIRUPDWLRQ DUH D IXQFWLRQ RI WKHLU H[SHULHQFH DQG HGXFDWLRQ $FFRUGLQJO\ WKH VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ PD\ LPSURYH LQWHUYLHZHUVn HQFRGLQJ SURFHVV EHFDXVH WKH\ DUH SURYLGHG ZLWK EHKDYLRUDO GLPHQVLRQV LH FDWHJRULHVf WUDLQHG WR XVH WKHP DQG JDLQ PRUH H[SHULHQFH ZLWK XVLQJ WKRVH VDPH GLPHQVLRQV RYHU WLPH 7KH GLPHQVLRQDO VFRULQJ JXLGHV WKDW XVH EHKDYLRUDOO\DQFKRUHG VFDOHV JLYH WKHP D UHOHYDQW EDVHV XSRQ ZKLFK WKH\ FDQ LGHQWLI\ DQG FDWHJRUL]H LQWHUYLHZHHVn UHVSRQVHV 7KHUHIRUH WKH\ DUH EHWWHU DEOH WR PDNH VHQVH RI DQG LQWHJUDWH WKH ZHDOWK RI LQIRUPDWLRQ SUHVHQWHG WR WKHP GXULQJ WKH LQWHUYLHZ E\ PDWFKLQJ LW ZLWK SUHGHWHUPLQHG EHKDYLRUDO FDWHJRULHV $IWHU LQIRUPDWLRQ LV HQFRGHG LW LV VWRUHG LQ VKRUWWHUP PHPRU\ RU D ZRUNVSDFH :\HU DQG 6UXOO f ,Q PDQ\ FDVHV RI VRFLDO SHUFHSWLRQ WKDW LQIRUPDWLRQ PD\ QRW EH QHHGHG XQWLO VRPH SHULRG RI WLPH KDV HODSVHG ,Q WKRVH VLWXDWLRQV WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ LV HYHQWXDOO\ WUDQVIHUUHG IURP VKRUWWHUP WR ORQJWHUP PHPRU\ XQWLO UHWULHYDO ,Q WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ KRZHYHU WKHUH LV YHU\ OLWWOH WLPH RIWHQ D PDWWHU RI PLQXWHV RU DW PRVW KRXUV EHWZHHQ ZKHQ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ LV UHFHLYHG DQG ZKHQ LW LV UHWULHYHG IRU

PAGE 30

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f 7KH LQIRUPDWLRQ UHFDOOHG FRXOG EH ERWK EHKDYLRUDO DQG GLVSRVLWLRQDO )HOGPDQ f 7KHUH KDV EHHQ PXFK FULWLFLVP DERXW XVLQJ WUDLWV WR PDNH SHUVRQQHO GHFLVLRQV UDWKHU WKDQ EHKDYLRUV GXH WR WKH VXEMHFWLYH DVVHVVPHQW RI SHUVRQDOLW\ DWWULEXWHV DQG MXGJHVn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n LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ V\VWHP 0RWRZLGOR f QRWHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ

PAGE 31

V\VWHP IRU PDNLQJ SHUVRQQHO GHFLVLRQV DQG VWDWHG WKDW WKH DFFXUDF\ RI DQ HYDOXDWLYH MXGJPHQW GHSHQGV XSRQ KRZ ZHOO WKH LQSXW VDPSOH RI LPSUHVVLRQV UHSUHVHQWV WKH SRSXODWLRQ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ KRZ ZHOO WKH UHWULHYHG VDPSOH RI LPSUHVVLRQV UHSUHVHQWV WKH LQSXW VDPSOH RI LPSUHVVLRQV DQG KRZ ZHOO WKH MXGJPHQW UHSUHVHQWV WKH UHWULHYHG VDPSOH RI LPSUHVVLRQV S f ,I D VWUXFWXUHG IRUPDW UHVXOWV LQ PRUH HIILFLHQW SURFHVVLQJ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ E\ WKH LQWHUYLHZHU WKHQ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKRVH GHFLVLRQV LV LPSURYHG :LWKLQ WKH FRQWH[W RI ERWK DQ LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ PRGHO DQG D YDOLGDWLRQ PRGHO ZH KDYH WKHRUHWLFDOO\ LPSOLHG UHDVRQV IRU WKH DGYDQWDJH RI VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ IRUPDWV RYHU XQVWUXFWXUHG IRUPDWV ,W ZRXOG EH LQIHDVLEOH LI QRW LPSRVVLEOH WR GHPRQVWUDWH DOO RI WKHVH LPSOLFDWLRQV DW RQFH ,QVWHDG ZH ZRXOG OLNH WR QDUURZ RXU IRFXV IRU WKLV VWXG\ WR RQH VWDJH RI WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ V\VWHPf§WKDW RI DWWHQWLRQ DQG WKH XWLOL]DWLRQ RI FXHV ,Q RUGHU WR GR WKLV ZH WXUQ WR DQRWKHU PRGHO E\ %UXQVZLN f WKDW OLPLWV LWVHOI H[FOXVLYHO\ WR WKH SURFHVV RI FXH XWLOL]DWLRQ 7KH %UXQVZLN /HQV 0RGHO 7KH %UXQVZLN OHQV PRGHO SURYLGHV DQ DSSURDFK IRU UHVHDUFKHUV WR H[DPLQH f WKH LQIOXHQFH RI DSSOLFDQW DWWULEXWHV RQ LQWHUYLHZHUV MXGJPHQWV FXH XWLOL]DWLRQf f WKH DFWXDO UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ HDFK DWWULEXWH DQG WKH FULWHULRQ HFRORJLFDO YDOLGLW\f DQG f WKH RYHUDOO

PAGE 32

UHODWLRQVKLS RI LQWHUYLHZHUVn MXGJPHQWV RI WKH DSSOLFDQW WR WKH FULWHULRQ DFKLHYHPHQWf +LHUDUFK\ RI &XHV $FKLHYHPHQW )LJXUH $ PRGLILHG YHUVLRQ RI WKH %UXQVZLN OHQV PRGHO 7KH OHYHO RI DFKLHYHPHQW LV D IXQFWLRQ RI HFRORJLFDO YDOLGLW\ DQG FXH XWLOL]DWLRQ ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV WKH DFFXUDF\ RI DQ LQWHUYLHZHUVn MXGJPHQW YDULHV ZLWK ZKHWKHU KH RU VKH XWLOL]HV YDOLG FXHV DQG WKH FRQVLVWHQF\ ZLWK ZKLFK FXHV DUH XWLOL]HG 'LSER\H f ,I DQ LQWHUYLHZHU KDV NQRZOHGJH DERXW ZKLFK SLHFHV RI YHUEDO DQG QRQYHUEDO LQIRUPDWLRQ SUHVHQWHG GXULQJ WKH LQWHUYLHZ DUH UHOHYDQW IRU SUHGLFWLQJ WKH FULWHULRQ DQG XVHV WKRVH FXHV WR PDNH KLULQJ GHFLVLRQV WKHQ KH RU VKH KDV LGHQWLILHG YDOLG FXHV DQG LV XWLOL]LQJ WKHP DSSURSULDWHO\

PAGE 33

)HZ VWXGLHV LQ WKH HPSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZ OLWHUDWXUH KDYH XVHG WKH %UXQVZLN OHQV PRGHO ,Q WKHLU UHYLHZ $UYH\ DQG &DPSLRQ HQFRXUDJHG PRUH XVH RI WKH OHQV PRGHO \HW WHQ \HDUV ODWHU WKHUH KDV EHHQ RQO\ RQH NQRZQ DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKLV PRGHO E\ *LIIRUG HW DO f IRU LQWHUYLHZ UHVHDUFK %RUNHQDX DQG /LHEOHU f FODLPHG WKH\ ZHUH WKH VHFRQG WR XVH WKH HQWLUH OHQV PRGHO LQ D VWXG\ RI SHUVRQ SHUFHSWLRQ $OWKRXJK WKH\ IRFXVHG RQ VLWXDWLRQV ZKHUH WDUJHWV DQG UDWHUV DUH VWUDQJHUV PXFK OLNH DQ LQWHUYLHZ WKH\ GLG QRW H[SOLFLWO\ XVH DQ HPSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZ VHWWLQJ )XUWKHUPRUH WKRXJK PDQ\ VWXGLHV KDYH LQYHVWLJDWHG LQWHUYLHZHUVn XWLOL]DWLRQ RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV RU YDULDEOHV WKDW FRUUHVSRQG WR RQO\ WKH ULJKW VLGH RI WKH OHQV PRGHO RQO\ RQH VWXG\ FRQGXFWHG E\ $QGHUVRQ DQG 6KDFNOHWRQ f H[SOLFLWO\ XVHG WKH %UXQVZLN OHQV PRGHO 7KLV ERG\ RI OLWHUDWXUH ZLOO QRZ EH UHYLHZHG $WWHQWLRQ WR DQG 8WLOL]DWLRQ RI 1RQYHUEDO &XHV LQ WKH ,QWHUYLHZ 7KH LQWHUYLHZ LV E\ GHILQLWLRQ D IDFHWRIDFH GLVFXVVLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH DSSOLFDQW DQG WKH LQWHUYLHZHU EXW LQWHUYLHZHUV GR QRW DWWHQG RQO\ WR ZKDW DSSOLFDQWV VD\ 0XFK HYLGHQFH LQGLFDWHV WKDW LQWHUYLHZHUV DOVR DWWHQG WR DQG HYDOXDWH QRQYHUEDO FXHV SUHVHQWHG E\ LQWHUYLHZHHV *LIIRUG HW DO ,PDGD DQG +DNHO 0F*RYHUQ DQG 7LQVOH\ 5D]D DQG &DUSHQWHU
PAGE 34

UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH LQYHVWLJDWHG ZKHWKHU WKRVH FXHV SURYLGH LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDW LQIOXHQFHV KLULQJ GHFLVLRQV DERYH DQG EH\RQG WKDW SURYLGHG E\ YHUEDO DQG PRUH REMHFWLYH LH UHVXPHf LQIRUPDWLRQ 6FKPLWW f VXJJHVWHG WKDW QRQYHUEDO VRXUFHV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ ZHUH PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDQ YHUEDO FXHV DQG D FRPELQDWLRQ RI ERWK YHUEDO DQG QRQYHUEDO LQIRUPDWLRQ KDG WKH JUHDWHVW LQIOXHQFH RQ GLIIHUHQFHV LQ LQWHUYLHZHUVn UDWLQJV RI MRE DSSOLFDQWV $PDELOH DQG 5DEDW f JR VR IDU DV WR VXJJHVW WKDW ZKHQ VXEMHFWVn YHUEDO UHVSRQVHV FRQIOLFW ZLWK WKHLU EHKDYLRU LQWHUYLHZHUV WHQG WR EDVH WKHLU HYDOXDWLRQV PRUH RQ DFWLRQV WKDQ ZRUGV (YHQ ZKHQ WKHUH LV QR FRQIOLFW WKH YDULDQFH DFFRXQWHG IRU E\ QRQYHUEDO FXHV KDV H[FHHGHG WKDW RI YHUEDO FRQWHQW LQ VRPH VWXGLHV
PAGE 35

QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRUV ZLOO EH LGHQWLILHG DQG RSHUDWLRQDOO\ GHILQHG ,GHQWLI\LQJ DQG 'HILQLQJ 1RQYHUEDO &XHV 7KHUH DUH WKUHH VSHFLILF W\SHV RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV WKDW KDYH EHHQ VWXGLHG DV KDYLQJ DQ HIIHFW RQ LQWHUYLHZHUVn HPSOR\PHQW GHFLVLRQVf§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n MXGJPHQWV (GLQJHU DQG 3DWWHUVRQ f LGHQWLILHG HOHYHQ QRQYHUEDO LQYROYHPHQW EHKDYLRUV WKDW GHWHUPLQH WKH GHJUHH

PAGE 36

RI LQYROYHPHQW EHWZHHQ LQGLYLGXDOV LQ VRFLDO VHWWLQJV 7KHVH EHKDYLRUV LQFOXGH LQWHUSHUVRQDO GLVWDQFH JD]H WRXFK ERG\ RULHQWDWLRQ OHDQ IDFLDO H[SUHVVLYHQHVV WDONLQJ GXUDWLRQ LQWHUUXSWLRQV SRVWXUDO RSHQQHVV JHVWXUHV RI UHODWLRQDO QDWXUH KHDG QRGV DQG SDUDOLQJXLVWLF FXHV YROXPH VSHHFK UDWH DQG LQWRQDWLRQf :LWKLQ WKH FRQWH[W RI DQ LQWHUYLHZ ZKHUH WKH DSSOLFDQWnV EHKDYLRUDO VWUDWHJ\ LV GHVLJQHG WR FUHDWH VRPH SRVLWLYH LPSUHVVLRQ RQ WKH UDWHU (GLQJHU DQG 3DWWHUVRQ QRWHG WKDW WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW QRQYHUEDO LQYROYHPHQW EHKDYLRUV VHHPHG WR EH GLYLGHG GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH FULWHULRQ )LUVW JD]H DQG IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQV LH VPLOLQJ H\H FRQWDFWf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
PAGE 37

LQWHUYLHZHUnV MXGJPHQWV VKRZV WKDW VRPH UHVHDUFKHUV VWXG\ RQO\ RQH QRQYHUEDO FXH RWKHUV VWXG\ VHYHUDO EXW UDUHO\ HYHU DUH WKH VDPH FRPELQDWLRQ RI FXHV VWXGLHG (OHYHQ RI WKHVH VWXGLHV PHDVXUHG RU PDQLSXODWHG H\H FRQWDFW PDNLQJ LW WKH PRVW FRPPRQO\ VWXGLHG G\QDPLF FXH 6PLOLQJ JHVWXULQJ DQG SRVWXUH KDYH DOVR EHHQ IUHTXHQWO\ VWXGLHG DQG VWXGLHV UHVSHFWLYHO\f 2I WKH VWDWLF FXHV SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV KDV UHFHLYHG WKH PRVW DWWHQWLRQ RI WKH VWXGLHVf ZLWK JHQGHU DQG DSSURSULDWHQHVV RI GUHVV DOVR RI LQWHUHVW WR UHVHDUFKHUV DQG VWXGLHV UHVSHFWLYHO\f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f VWDWHG 7KH UHVXOW LV WKDW PDQ\ PHDVXUHPHQW GHFLVLRQV LQ WKH QRQYHUEDO DUHQD DUH JRYHUQHG PRUH E\ KDSSHQVWDQFH KLVWRU\ RU FRVW WKDQ E\ WUDGLWLRQDO PHDVXUHPHQW FULWHULD S f

PAGE 38

2WKHU UHVHDUFKHUV SUHIHU WR XVH WKH GHILQLWLRQV VHW IRUWK E\ RWKHUV VXFK DV 0HKUDELDQ f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

PAGE 39

0HKUDELDQ f RSHUDWLRQDOO\ GHILQHG WKHVH EHKDYLRUV )RU H[DPSOH H\H FRQWDFW ZDV GHILQHG DV RFFXUULQJ ZKHQ WKH FRPPXQLFDWRU DQG WKH DGGUHVVHH ORRN LQWR HDFK RWKHUnV H\HV DQG ZRXOG EH PHDVXUHG DV WKH GXUDWLRQ RI WLPH WKDW WKH EHKDYLRU RFFXUV 2U DV DQRWKHU H[DPSOH JHVWLFXODWLRQ ZDV GHILQHG DV WKH QXPEHU RI PRYHPHQWV RI WKH KDQGV RU ILQJHUV F\FOLFDO VLGHWRVLGH IRUZDUGEDFN DQG XSDQGGRZQ PRYHPHQWV VFRUHG DV RQH XQLW HDFK 5DVPXVVHQ f ZDV RQH RI WKH IHZ UHVHDUFKHUV ZKR JDYH D GHWDLOHG GHVFULSWLRQ RI KRZ WKH QRQYHUEDO FXHV RI LQWHUHVW ZHUH PHDVXUHG +H LQYHVWLJDWHG ILYH QRQYHUEDO FXHVf§H\H FRQWDFW VPLOLQJ KDQG JHVWXUHV KHDG QRGGLQJ DQG WRQH RI YRLFH +H GHILQHG DQG TXDQWLILHG WKHP LQ WKH IROORZLQJ ZD\ (\H FRQWDFW DQ\ SHULRG GXULQJ ZKLFK WKH LQWHUYLHZHH ORRNHG GLUHFWO\ DW WKH LQWHUYLHZHU LH FDPHUDf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

PAGE 40

PDQLSXODWLRQ RI WKRVH FXHV 6RPH UHVHDUFKHUV FRPELQHG D QXPEHU RI FXHV WRJHWKHU LQ D PDFURVFRSLF DSSURDFK ,PDGD DQG +DNHO .LQLFNL HW DO 0F*RYHUQ HW DO 5DVPXVVHQ :H[OH\ HW DO f 0XOWLSOH EHKDYLRUV ZHUH FRPELQHG LQWR D VLQJOH YDULDEOH FDOOHG QRQYHUEDO LQYROYHPHQW LPPHGLDF\ HQWKXVLDVP RU RWKHU WHUPV 2WKHU UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH WDNHQ D PLFURVFRSLF DSSURDFK E\ XVLQJ VLQJOH GLVFUHWH QRQYHUEDO FXHV LQ RUGHU WR LGHQWLI\ WKHLU LQGLYLGXDO HIIHFWV RQ WKH FULWHULRQ RI LQWHUHVW *LIIRUG HW DO +ROODQGVZRUWK HW DO 3DUVRQV DQG /LGHQ 5D]D DQG &DUSHQWHU 6WHUUHWW f 7KH PLFURVFRSLF DSSURDFK XVXDOO\ PHDVXUHV EHKDYLRUV DV IUHTXHQF\ FRXQWV GXUDWLRQV RU MXGJPHQWV ZLWKLQ EULHI WLPH IUDPHV E\ XVLQJ KLJKO\ UHOLDEOH FRGHU REVHUYDWLRQV RU D SK\VLFDO DSSDUDWXV %XUJRRQ DQG %DHVOHU f 7KHVH ODWWHU VWXGLHV KRZHYHU DUH IHZ DQG PRUH HPSKDVLV RQ WKH HIIHFWV RI VSHFLILF FXHV KDV EHHQ HQFRXUDJHG ,PDGD DQG +DNHO f VXJJHVWHG WKDW DGGLWLRQDO UHVHDUFK ZDV QHHGHG WR WHDVH RXW WKH HIIHFWV RI VSHFLILF QRQYHUEDO FXHV DV ZHOO DV GLIIHUHQW FRPELQDWLRQV RI FXHV RQ VHOHFWLRQ GHFLVLRQV S f 0F*RYHUQ -RQHV DQG 0RUULV f DOVR VXJJHVWHG IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK QHHGV WR EH GRQH WR LGHQWLI\ WKH ZHLJKWLQJV JLYHQ WR VSHFLILF YLVXDO DQG YRFDO FRPSRQHQWV RI LQWHUYLHZHHV QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU Sf 7KHVH FKDOOHQJHV PXVW VWLOO EH PHW

PAGE 41

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f SURYLGHG WKH LPSHWXV IRU PRUH ODERUDWRU\ UHVHDUFK XVLQJ YLGHRWDSHG DSSOLFDQWV ZKHQ WKH\ IRXQG QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ KLULQJ GHFLVLRQV EHWZHHQ OLYH LQWHUYLHZHUV DQG REVHUYHUV RI UHFRUGHG LQWHUYLHZV ,PDGD DQG +DNHO f ZHUH QRW RQO\ LQWHUHVWHG LQ WKH WKH PHGLXP WKURXJK ZKLFK MXGJHV REVHUYHG QRQYHUEDO FXHV EXW DOVR WKH HIIHFW RI WKRVH QRQYHUEDO FXHV RQ LQWHUYLHZ LPSUHVVLRQV DQG GHFLVLRQV 7KH\ PDQLSXODWHG QRQYHUEDO FXHV E\ WUDLQLQJ D IHPDOH DSSOLFDQW WR YDU\ KHU QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU DV HLWKHU

PAGE 42

KLJK LPPHGLDWHf RU ORZ QRQLPPHGLDWHf ZKLOH YHUEDOO\ UHVSRQGLQJ LQ D FRQVLVWHQW PDQQHU WR WKH LQWHUYLHZHUn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b RI WKH YDULDQFH 0F*RYHUQ 0F*RYHUQ DQG 7LQVOH\f FRQGXFWHG D VWXG\ LQ ZKLFK SURIHVVLRQDO SHUVRQQHO UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV UDWHG RQH RI IRXU YLGHRWDSHG HPSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZV 0F*RYHUQ

PAGE 43

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nV MXGJPHQW ZHUH WKH DSSOLFDQWnV DELOLW\ WR FRPPXQLFDWH DJJUHVVLYHQHVV DQG LQLWLDWLYH VHOIFRQILGHQFH HQWKXVLDVP DQG PRWLYDWLRQ LQWHOOLJHQFH OHDGHUVKLS SRWHQWLDO PDWXULW\ SHUVXDVLYHQHVV SOHDVDQW SHUVRQDOLW\ DQG VRFLDELOLW\ DQG SRVLWLYH DWWLWXGH 7KH OHYHO RI QRQYHUEDO LQYROYHPHQW KDG D VLJQLILFDQW DQG IDYRUDEOH HIIHFW RQ UDWLQJV PDGH E\ WKH MXGJHV RQ DOO GLPHQVLRQV PHDVXUHG EXW SDUWLFXODUO\ RQ UDWLQJV RI DSSOLFDQWVn HQWKXVLDVP DQG PRWLYDWLRQ VHOIFRQILGHQFH SHUVXDVLYHQHVV DQG SOHDVDQWQHVV RI SHUVRQDOLW\ (LJKW\HLJKW SHUFHQW RI f RI WKRVH ZKR VDZ WKH KLJK QRQYHUEDO DSSOLFDQW UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG KDYH DVNHG KLP RU KHU EDFN IRU D VHFRQG LQWHUYLHZ 2QH KXQGUHG SHUFHQW DOO f RI WKH VXEMHFWV ZKR VDZ WKH ORZ QRQYHUEDO FDQGLGDWH UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG QRW KDYH UHFRPPHQGHG LQYLWLQJ WKH DSSOLFDQW IRU D VHFRQG LQWHUYLHZ 0F*RYHUQ HW DOnV f UHSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH SULRU VWXG\ FRQILUPHG WKHVH ILQGLQJV XVLQJ VWXGHQWV UDWKHU WKDQ SURIHVVLRQDO SHUVRQQHO UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV DV REVHUYHUV

PAGE 44

$OWKRXJK VWXGHQWV ZHUH PRUH OHQLHQW RI WKRVH ZKR YLHZHG WKH LQWHUYLHZHH ZLWK D KLJK OHYHO RI QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRUV b UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG DFFHSW KLP RU KHU 2I WKRVH ZKR UDWHG WKH LQWHUYLHZHH H[KLELWLQJ ORZ OHYHOV RI QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRUV b UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG KDYH UHMHFWHG WKH DSSOLFDQW :H[OH\ )XJLWD DQG 0DORQH f XVHG YLGHRWDSHG VLPXODWHG ORDQ DSSOLFDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZV LQ WKHLU VWXG\ RI QRQYHUEDO FXH XWLOL]DWLRQ 7KH\ PDQLSXODWHG WZR OHYHOV RI QRQYHUEDO HQWKXVLDVP UHSUHVHQWHG E\ HLWKHU KLJK RU ORZ H\H FRQWDFW JHVWXULQJ VPLOLQJ DQG DSSURSULDWHQHVV RI YRLFH WRQH RQ WKH WDSHV 7KUHH OHYHOV RI VXLWDELOLW\ WR UHFHLYH D ORDQ KLJK DYHUDJH RU ORZf ZDV DOVR PDQLSXODWHG WKURXJK WKH SURYLVLRQ RI REMHFWLYH ORDQ DSSOLFDWLRQ LQIRUPDWLRQ 6HYHQW\HLJKW VWXGHQW UDWHUV UHDG WKH ORDQ DSSOLFDWLRQV REVHUYHG WKH YLGHRWDSHV DQG UDWHG DSSOLFDQWVn VXLWDELOLW\ WR UHFHLYH D ORDQ $ VLJQLILFDQW PDLQ HIIHFW ZDV IRXQG IRU ERWK QRQYHUEDO HQWKXVLDVP DQG VXLWDELOLW\ 7KRVH DSSOLFDQWV ZKR H[KLELWHG WKH KLJK OHYHOV RI QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRUV UHFHLYHG PRUH IDYRUDEOH HYDOXDWLRQV E\ UDWHUV ,Q DQRWKHU VWXG\ E\
PAGE 45

ZKR ZHUH UDWHG E\ LQGHSHQGHQW MXGJHV DV DFWXDOO\ HQJDJLQJ LQ PRUH H\H FRQWDFW VPLOLQJ DQG KHDG PRYHPHQW ZHUH HYDOXDWHG E\ D GLIIHUHQW VHW RI MXGJHV DV PRUH GHVHUYLQJ RI WKH MRE $Q LQGHSHQGHQW UDWLQJ RI SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV ZDV QRW IRXQG WR EH D VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWRU RI KLULQJ HYDOXDWLRQV ,Q UHVSRQVH WR WKH SRSXODULW\ RI XVLQJ YLGHRWDSHG LQWHUYLHZV WR PDQLSXODWH QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU 5DVPXVVHQ f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f RU ORZ DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW DQG OLWWOH SUHYLRXV ZRUN H[SHULHQFH ORZf (LJKW\ VXEMHFWV UDWHG WKH DSSOLFDQW RQ WKH YLGHRWDSH RQ WKHLU TXDOLILFDWLRQV IRU WKH MRE RQ D VFDOH IURP SRRU f WR VXSHULRU f 5HVXPH FUHGHQWLDOV DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH JUHDWHVW DPRXQW RI YDULDQFH DQG ERWK UHVXPH LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG YHUEDO FRQWHQW KDG

PAGE 46

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n GHFLVLRQV DV RWKHU VWXGLHV WKDW FRQWURO IRU WKRVH YDULDEOHV KDYH LQGLFDWHG ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKRVH PDLQ HIIHFWV 5DVPXVVHQ UHSRUWHG D VLJQLILFDQW DQG LQWHUHVWLQJ LQWHUDFWLRQ HIIHFW EHWZHHQ YHUEDO FRQWHQW DQG QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU :KHQ YHUEDO FRQWHQW ZDV JRRG KLJK OHYHOV RI QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU UHVXOWHG LQ HYHQ KLJKHU UDWLQJV EXW ZKHQ YHUEDO FRQWHQW ZDV SRRU KLJK OHYHOV RI QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU SURGXFHG ORZHU UDWLQJV ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV WKH SUHVHQFH RI PRUH QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRUV VHHPHG WR HQKDQFH WKH PDJQLWXGH RI WKH HIIHFW RI YHUEDO FRQWHQW QRW WKH GLUHFWLRQ 7KHVH VL[ ODERUDWRU\ VWXGLHV XVLQJ YLGHRWDSHG VLPXODWHG LQWHUYLHZV KDYH UHFHLYHG VRPH FULWLFLVP IRU WKHLU ODFN RI JHQHUDOL]DELOLW\ WR D UHDO LQWHUYLHZ VLWXDWLRQ +ROODQGVZRUWK .D]HOVNLV 6WHYHQV 'UHVVHO 3DUVRQV DQG /LGHQ f 7KH YDULDQFH LQ QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRUV PDQLSXODWHG LQ WKRVH WDSHG LQWHUYLHZV PD\ KDYH EHHQ

PAGE 47

DUWLILFLDOO\ LQIODWHG E\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU LQ FRPSDULVRQ WR KRZ UHDO MRE DSSOLFDQWV EHKDYH ZKHQ LQWHUYLHZHG 2QH LPSRUWDQW ILHOG VWXG\ WKDW DGGUHVVHG WKLV FULWLFLVP ZDV FRQGXFWHG E\ 3DUVRQV DQG /LGHQ f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f WR KLJKO\ TXDOLILHG f 7KH RWKHU DSSOLFDQWV ZHUH UDWHG RQ D SRLQW VFDOH DV UHMHFWHG DFFHSWHG RU FRQGLWLRQDOO\ DFFHSWHG 7KHUH ZDV VXEVWDQWLDO PXOWLFROOLQHDULW\ DPRQJ UDWLQJV RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV ZLWK FRUUHODWLRQV UDQJLQJ IURP WR 7KH FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ QRQYHUEDO FXHV DQG LQWHUYLHZHU UDWLQJV RI DSSOLFDQW TXDOLILFDWLRQV UDQJHG IURP WR 1 f 7KHVH UHVHDUFKHUV DOVR IRXQG WKDW QRQYHUEDO YDULDEOHV RI DUWLFXODWLRQ DQG H\H FRQWDFW ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWRUV RI HDFK W\SH RI KLULQJ GHFLVLRQ RQ WKH LQGHSHQGHQW VDPSOHV 1 1 f &ORWKLQJ DQG FOHDQOLQHVV ZHUH WKH OHDVW LQIOXHQWLDO FXHV )XUWKHUPRUH QRQYHUEDO FXHV DGGHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ WR WKH UDWLQJ RI DSSOLFDQW TXDOLILFDWLRQV HYHQ

PAGE 48

DIWHU DFFRXQWLQJ IRU YDULDQFH RI REMHFWLYH GDWD VXFK DV DSSOLFDWLRQ EODQN LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG DSSOLFDQWVn YHUEDO UHVSRQVHV WR TXHVWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ WKHLU VFKRODVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH H[WUDFXUULFXODU DFWLYLWLHV DQG SUHYLRXV MRE H[SHULHQFHV 1 f 1RQYHUEDO LQIRUPDWLRQ DORQH SUHGLFWHG b RI WKH YDULDQFH RI LQWHUYLHZHUV MXGJPHQWV DQG ZKHQ VXEVHTXHQWO\ DGGHG REMHFWLYH LQIRUPDWLRQ LQFUHDVHG WKH YDULDQFH DFFRXQWHG IRU E\ RQO\ b 3DUVRQV DQG /LGHQnV f ILQGLQJV DUH VLPLODU WR WKRVH RI DQRWKHU ILHOG VWXG\ SUHYLRXVO\ FRQGXFWHG E\ )RUEHV DQG -DFNVRQ f ZKR XVHG UHDO MRE DSSOLFDQWV DQG IRXQG WKDW WKH\ ZHUH PRVW IDYRUDEO\ UDWHG ZKHQ WKH\ HQJDJHG LQ PRUH H\H FRQWDFW VPLOLQJ DQG KHDG PRYHPHQW 6OLJKWO\ GLIIHUHQW UHVXOWV ZHUH UHSRUWHG E\ +ROODQGVZRUWK HW DO f ZKR DOVR FRQGXFWHG D ILHOG VWXG\ DQG LQFOXGHG YHUEDO FRQWHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ DV ZHOO DV QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRUV DV YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW (LJKWHHQ RQFDPSXV FROOHJH UHFUXLWHUV ZHUH DVNHG WR UDWH UHDO FDQGLGDWHV 1 PHDQ SHU UHFUXLWHU f RQ VL[ QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRUV WKH DSSURSULDWHQHVV RI WKH FRQWHQW RI WKHLU YHUEDO UHVSRQVHV WR TXHVWLRQV DQG WR LQGLFDWH ZKHWKHU WKH\ ZRXOG KLUH WKH FDQGLGDWH O QRW D FKDQFH GHILQLWHO\ KLUHf 7KH VL[ QRQYHUEDO FXHV LQFOXGHG H\H FRQWDFW DSSURSULDWH ORXGQHVV RI YRLFH ERG\ SRVWXUH VSHHFK IOXHQF\ SHUVRQDO DSSHDUDQFH DQG FRPSRVXUH +ROODQGVZRUWK HW DO UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH FRQWHQW RI WKH YHUEDO UHVSRQVHV ZDV WKH VLQJOH PRVW LPSRUWDQW YDULDEOH LQ D GLVFULPLQDQW DQDO\VLV 7KH DSSOLFDQWVn IOXHQF\ RI

PAGE 49

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n MXGJPHQWV 1H[W UHVHDUFK VWXGLHV WKDW KDYH H[FOXVLYHO\ VWXGLHG RQH W\SH RI FXH ZLOO EH UHYLHZHG )LUVW UHVHDUFK RQ WKH HIIHFWV RI SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV RQ LQWHUYLHZHUVn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n MXGJPHQWV ZDV FRQGXFWHG LQ E\ %UXQVZLN +H XVHG SV\FKRORJ\ VWXGHQWV WR UDWH

PAGE 50

SKRWRJUDSKV RI $UP\ SHUVRQQHO RQ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHOOLJHQFH HQHUJ\ OLNDELOLW\ DQG JRRG ORRNV 7KH VWXGHQWV UDWHG WKH VROGLHUV DQG WKH VROGLHUV UDWHG HDFK RWKHU %UXQVZLN LQYHVWLJDWHG EXW IRXQG QR VXSSRUW IRU WKH PHGLDWLQJ HIIHFW RI H[WHUQDO IDFLDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV LH QRVH KHLJKW IRUHKHDG KHLJKW DQG RYHUDOO ERG\ KHLJKWf RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DFWXDO LQWHOOLJHQFH DQG VWXGHQW UDWHUVn HVWLPDWHG LQWHOOLJHQFH DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ $V PHQWLRQHG SUHYLRXVO\ DQ HDUO\ VWXG\ E\
PAGE 51

DQDO\VLV 2WKHU SUHGLFWRUV RI ZRUN H[SHULHQFH H[WUDFXUULFXODU DFWLYLWLHV SURIHVVLRQDO REMHFWLYH FROOHJH PDMRU DQG JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH DQG KRQRUV UHFHLYHG ZHUH FROOHFWHG XVLQJ SHUVRQDO GDWD VKHHWV ILOOHG LQ E\ DSSOLFDQWV 7KHVH ZHUH DOVR UHGXFHG WR WZR SUHGLFWRUVf§ZRUN H[SHULHQFH DQG DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQWf§DV WKH UHVXOW RI WKH IDFWRU DQDO\VLV 7KH VDPH UHFUXLWHUV DOVR LQGLFDWHG DSSOLFDQWVn VXLWDELOLW\ IRU KLUH DQG LQWHUYLHZLQJ VNLOOV WKDW ZHUH WUHDWHG DV WKH FULWHULRQ YDULDEOHV 5HFUXLWHUVn LQWHUYLHZ LPSUHVVLRQV RI DSSOLFDQWV VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG Sf ZLWK VXLWDELOLW\ IRU KLUH DQG Sf ZLWK LQWHUYLHZLQJ VNLOO 7KH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH RI DWWUDFWLRQ DOVR FRUUHODWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK WKH FULWHULD DQG Sf UHVSHFWLYHO\ 5HOHYDQW ZRUN H[SHULHQFH DQG DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW FRUUHODWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ KRZHYHU OHVV VWURQJO\ ZLWK MXVW RQH FULWHULRQ LQWHUYLHZLQJ VNLOO Sf DQG Sf UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KHUHIRUH .LQLFNL DQG /RFNZRRG FRQFOXGHG WKDW UHFUXLWHUV ZHUH UHO\LQJ PRUH RQ VXEMHFWLYH LQIRUPDWLRQ RI LQWHUYLHZ LPSUHVVLRQV DQG DWWUDFWLRQ UDWKHU WKDQ FRQFUHWH REMHFWLYH LQIRUPDWLRQ ZKHQ PDNLQJ WKHLU HPSOR\PHQW GHFLVLRQV $QRWKHU VWXG\ E\ .LQLFNL /RFNZRRG +RUQ DQG *ULIIHWK f VXSSRUWHG WKH SUHYLRXV ILQGLQJV 7KHVH UHVHDUFKHUV UHSRUWHG WKDW QXUVLQJ GLUHFWRUVn MXGJPHQWV RI QXUVLQJ DSSOLFDQWV UHOLHG PRUH RQ LQWHUYLHZ LPSUHVVLRQV LQFOXGLQJ DSSOLFDQWVn DSSHDUDQFH DWWLWXGH MRE LQWHUHVW DQG FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VNLOOV WKDQ UHVXPH FUHGHQWLDOV ,Q WKLV VWXG\

PAGE 52

WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH RI DWWUDFWLRQ ZDV QRW LQFOXGHG ,QWHUYLHZ LPSUHVVLRQV FRPELQHG ZLWK LQWHUYLHZHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI DSSOLFDQWVn ZRUN H[SHULHQFH DQG HGXFDWLRQ H[SODLQHG b Sf RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ KLULQJ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV ZKHUHDV UHVXPH GDWD RQO\ DFFRXQWHG IRU b :LWK UHJDUG WR WKH HIIHFW RI WKDW LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ .LQLFNL HW DO IRXQG WKDW UHVXPH FUHGHQWLDOV GLG QRW SUHGLFW SHUIRUPDQFH DQ\ EHWWHU WKDQ LQWHUYLHZ LPSUHVVLRQV HYHQ WKRXJK WKH UHVXPH FXHV SUHGLFWHG b Sf RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ SHUIRUPDQFH 0DQ\ RWKHU VWXGLHV KDYH LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH HIIHFW RI DWWUDFWLYHQHVV RQ LQWHUYLHZHUVn GHFLVLRQV WZR RI ZKLFK DUH &DVK DQG .LOFXOOHQ f DQG &DQQ 6LHJIULHG DQG 3HDUFH f &DVK DQG .LOFXOOHQ IRXQG WKDW DSSOLFDQWV ZKR ZHUH DWWUDFWLYH ZHOOTXDOLILHG IRU WKH MRE DQG PDOH ZHUH PRVW SUHIHUUHG ZKHQ MXGJHV PDGH KLULQJ GHFLVLRQV IURP WKHLU ILFWLWLRXV UHVXPHV DQG DWWDFKHG SKRWRJUDSKV &DQQ HW DO DOVR IRXQG WKDW WKH DWWUDFWLYHQHVV DQG VH[ PDOHV SUHIHUUHGf RI WKH DSSOLFDQW SRVLWLYHO\ DIIHFWHG WKH KLULQJ GHFLVLRQ PDGH E\ UDWHUV 7KH VH[ RI WKH DSSOLFDQW VH[ RI WKH UDWHU DQG WKH VH[VWHUHRW\SH RI WKH MRE IRU ZKLFK WKH\ DUH LQWHUYLHZLQJ DOO VHHP WR PRGHUDWH WKDW UHODWLRQVKLS &DVK *LOOHQ DQG %XUQV +HLOPDQ DQG 6DUXZDWDUL -DFNVRQ f 2QH RI WKH IHZ ILHOG VWXGLHV WKDW LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH HIIHFWV RI DSSOLFDQW DWWUDFWLYHQHVV RQ DFWXDO HPSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZV RI DSSOLFDQWV IRU D YDULHW\ RI GLIIHUHQW MREV ZDV FRQGXFWHG E\ 5D]D DQG &DUSHQWHU f 7KHVH

PAGE 53

UHVHDUFKHUV FROOHFWHG GHPRJUDSKLF LQIRUPDWLRQ LH LQWHUYLHZHU DJH DQG VH[ DSSOLFDQW DJH DQG VH[ MREf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f ZKR LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH HIIHFWV RI YRFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV RQ

PAGE 54

LQWHUYLHZHUVn MXGJPHQWV 7KH\ IRXQG VWURQJ VXSSRUW IRU WKH QRWLRQ RI YRFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV EHWZHHQ MXGJHV ZKR DJUHHG RQ ZKDW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV FRQVWLWXWH DWWUDFWLYH YHUVXV XQDWWUDFWLYH YRLFHV 7KHVH UHVHDUFKHUV UHSRUWHG WKDW DSSOLFDQWV UDWHG DV YRFDOO\ DWWUDFWLYH UHFHLYHG PRUH IDYRUDEOH SHUVRQDOLW\ UDWLQJV WKDQ YRFDOO\ XQDWWUDFWLYH DSSOLFDQWV 7KLUW\ \HDUV HDUOLHU $QGHUVRQ f LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH HIIHFW RI D YHU\ GLIIHUHQW W\SH RI SDUDOLQJXLVWLF FKDUDFWHULVWLF RQ DQ LQWHUYLHZHUnV GHFLVLRQ WR KLUH +H ZDV LQWHUHVWHG LQ ZKHWKHU WKH DPRXQW RI WLPH WKDW WKH LQWHUYLHZHU RU LQWHUYLHZHH HDFK VSHQW WDONLQJ KDG DQ\ HIIHFW RQ LQWHUYLHZHU MXGJPHQWV $QGHUVRQ UHSRUWHG WKDW LQ WKH LQWHUYLHZV ZKHUH DSSOLFDQWV ZHUH VHOHFWHG IRU WKH MRE 1 f WKH LQWHUYLHZHU VSHQW VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH WLPH WDONLQJ DQG WKHUH ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ OHVV VLOHQW WLPH ZKHQ QR RQH VSRNH WKDQ LQ LQWHUYLHZV ZKHUH DSSOLFDQWV ZHUH UHMHFWHG 1 f $SSOLFDQWV ZKR ZHUH VHOHFWHG DOVR VSHQW OHVV WLPH WDONLQJ DQG WKH WRWDO GXUDWLRQ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ ZDV OHVV WKDQ IRU UHMHFWHG DSSOLFDQWV EXW WKRVH GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH QRW VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW &RQWUDU\ ILQGLQJV 8S XQWLO WKLV SRLQW ZH KDYH SUHVHQWHG UHVHDUFK WKDW FRQILUPV WKDW QRQYHUEDO FXHV ZKHWKHU WKH\ EH G\QDPLF VWDWLF RU SDUDOLQJXLVWLF KDYH D IDYRUDEOH DQG VLJQLILFDQW LPSDFW RQ HPSOR\PHQW GHFLVLRQV RU MXGJPHQWV RI DSSOLFDQW VXLWDELOLW\ PDGH E\ LQWHUYLHZHUV 2QH VWXG\ LQ ZKLFK

PAGE 55

UHVHDUFKHUV UHSRUWHG HYLGHQFH WR WKH FRQWUDU\ ZDV E\ 6WHUUHWW f 7KLV UHVHDUFKHU FUHDWHG HLJKW YLGHRWDSHV RI D PDOH MRE DSSOLFDQW GLVSOD\LQJ KLJK DQG ORZ OHYHOV RI H\H FRQWDFW KDQG JHVWXUHV IRUPDOLW\ RI GUHVV DQG OHQJWK RI SDXVH EHIRUH DQVZHULQJ 7KH YHUEDO FRQWHQW RI WKH DSSOLFDQWnV DQVZHUV ZDV KHOG FRQVWDQW 2QH KXQGUHG DQG VL[W\ PDQDJHUV IURP WKH LQVXUDQFH LQGXVWU\ REVHUYHG WKHVH WDSHV DQG UDWHG WKH DSSOLFDQW RQ HLJKW WUDLWV WKDW 6WHUUHWW FODLPHG ZHUH W\SLFDO WUDLWV FRQVLGHUHG LQ WKH KLULQJ SURFHVV 7KHVH WUDLWV LQFOXGHG DPELWLRQ PRWLYDWLRQ VHOI FRQILGHQFH VHOI RUJDQL]DWLRQ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ YHUEDO DELOLW\ LQWHOOLJHQFH DQG VLQFHULW\ 1R VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLSV ZHUH IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH QRQYHUEDO FXHV DQG WUDLWV DVVHVVHG ,W VKRXOG EH QRWHG WKDW WKH FULWHULD LQ WKLV VWXG\ GLIIHUHG IURP PXFK RI WKH RWKHU QRQYHUEDO FXH UHVHDUFK WKDW XVHG VSHFLILF HPSOR\PHQW FULWHULD VXFK DV GHFLVLRQ WR KLUH RU TXDOLILFDWLRQV IRU WKH MRE +HUH REVHUYHUV RI WKH YLGHRV DVVHVVHG VHYHUDO WUDLWV WKDW PD\ RU PD\ QRW KDYH EHHQ UHODWHG WR WKH MRE WR EH ILOOHG ,VVXHV RI &RQFHUQ DQG )XWXUH 'LUHFWLRQV $ FDUHIXO ORRN DW WKH ERG\ RI UHVHDUFK RQ QRQYHUEDO FXHV KDV KHOSHG WR LOOXVWUDWH VRPH JDSV WKDW PXVW EH ILOOHG E\ IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK LQ WKLV DUHD 7KHUH DUH WKUHH SDUWLFXODU LVVXHV WKDW ZLOO EH GLVFXVVHG KHUH )LUVW WKH HIIHFW RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV RQ LQWHUYLHZ YDOLGLW\ UDWKHU WKDQ RQO\

PAGE 56

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f ,W LV DSSURSULDWH WR FRQVLGHU WKH DFFXUDF\ RI WKH VHOHFWLRQ GHFLVLRQ VLQFH LW UHTXLUHV D FRJQLWLYH HVWLPDWLRQ RI SUREDELOLW\ RU EHKDYLRUDO SUHGLFWLRQ UDWKHU WKDQ VLPSO\ DQ HYDOXDWLYH MXGJPHQW RI IDYRUDELOLW\ ,I ZH WUHDW SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJV DV WUXH VFRUHV WKHQ DFFXUDF\ LV KRZ ZHOO WKH GHFLVLRQ WR KLUH FRUUHVSRQGV ZLWK KRZ WKH DSSOLFDQW

PAGE 57

HYHQWXDOO\ SHUIRUPV RQ WKH MRE $ QHFHVVDU\ FRQGLWLRQ IRU DFFXUDF\ LV YDOLGLW\ 6XOVN\ DQG %DO]HU f 7KHUHIRUH WKH LQWHUHVW KHUH LV QRW RQ DQ DFWXDO PHDVXUH RI DFFXUDF\ EXW UDWKHU RQ YDOLGLW\ ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV ZKDW HIIHFW GR QRQYHUEDO FXHV KDYH RQ LQWHUYLHZ YDOLGLW\" 2QO\ *LIIRUG )DQ 1J DQG :LONLQVRQ f KDYH LQYHVWLJDWHG LQWHUYLHZ YDOLGLW\ UDWKHU WKDQ WKH IDYRUDELOLW\ RI LQWHUYLHZHUV MXGJPHQWV 7KH\ YLGHRWDSHG LQWHUYLHZV IRU D UHDO MRE RSHQLQJ RI D WHPSRUDU\ SDUWWLPH SRVLWLRQ DV D UHVHDUFK DVVLVWDQW LQ D XQLYHUVLW\ 7KH WDSHV ZHUH YLHZHG DQG DSSOLFDQWV HYDOXDWHG RQ PRWLYDWLRQ DQG VRFLDO VNLOO E\ MXGJHV ZKR KDG WUDLQLQJ DQG H[SHULHQFH LQ LQWHUYLHZLQJ $SSOLFDQWV FRPSOHWHG D TXHVWLRQQDLUH WR PHDVXUH WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKHLU RZQ PRWLYDWLRQ DQG VRFLDO VNLOO 7KH DSSOLFDQWn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nV VHOIDVVHVVHG TXDOLWLHV RI PRWLYDWLRQ DQG VRFLDO VNLOO DQG WKH VWDWLF DQG G\QDPLF QRQYHUEDO FXHV $SSOLFDQWV ZKR SHUFHLYHG WKHPVHOYHV DV YHU\ PRWLYDWHG ZHUH

PAGE 58

PRVWO\ PDOHV GUHVVHG PRUH IRUPDOO\ DQG UHFOLQHG PRUH GXULQJ WKH LQWHUYLHZ $SSOLFDQWV ZKR SHUFHLYHG WKHPVHOYHV DV PRUH VRFLDOO\ VNLOOHG DOVR GUHVVHG PRUH IRUPDOO\ JHVWXUHG PRUH DQG VSHQW PRUH WLPH WDONLQJ 7KHVH DSSOLFDQWV ZHUH DOVR PRVWO\ PDOH DQG ROGHU ,QWHUYLHZHU FXH XWLOL]DWLRQ ZDV FRPSXWHG DV WKH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH QRQYHUEDO FXHV DQG WKH MXGJHVn UDWLQJV RI WKH DSSOLFDQWVn PRWLYDWLRQ DQG VRFLDO VNLOO $SSOLFDQWV ZKR VPLOHG JHVWXUHG DQG WDONHG PRUH ZHUH SHUFHLYHG WR EH PRUH PRWLYDWHG WR ZRUN 7KRVH ZKR GUHVVHG PRUH IRUPDOO\ JHVWXUHG PRUH RIWHQ DQG WDONHG PRUH ZHUH SHUFHLYHG DV KDYLQJ PRUH VRFLDO VNLOO E\ WKH MXGJHV 7KH DFFXUDF\ RI WKH MXGJHVn DWWULEXWLRQV DV D FRUUHODWLRQ RI WKRVH UDWLQJV ZLWK DSSOLFDQWVn VHOIDVVHVVHG TXDOLWLHV ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW IRU PRWLYDWLRQ U f EXW ZDV IRU VRFLDO VNLOO U S f ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV UDWHUV ZHUH QRW XVLQJ UHOHYDQW FXHV ZKHQ DVVHVVLQJ DSSOLFDQWVn PRWLYDWLRQ EXW ZHUH XVLQJ WKH FRUUHFW FXHV WR DVVHVV VRFLDO VNLOO DQG DV D UHVXOW ZHUH PRUH DFFXUDWH LQ WKHLU UDWLQJV RI VRFLDO VNLOO 7KH SULPDU\ VKRUWFRPLQJ RI WKLV VWXG\ E\ *LIIRUG HW DO f LV WKDW WKH PHDVXUH RI DFFXUDF\ RU DFKLHYHPHQW VFRUH XVHV VHOIUHSRUWHG WUDLW GDWD DV D WUXH VFRUH -XGJHV ZHUH QRW DWWHPSWLQJ WR SUHGLFW DSSOLFDQWVn EHKDYLRUDO SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH MRE $OWHUQDWLYHO\ LQVWHDG RI XVLQJ VHOIUHSRUWHG WUDLWV DV WKH WUXH VFRUH UHVHDUFKHUV VKRXOG XVH WKH FULWHULRQ YDULDEOH & LQ )LJXUH f WKDW LQWHUYLHZHUV DUH

PAGE 59

DFWXDOO\ WU\LQJ WR SUHGLFW ZKHQ WKH\ PDNH D GHFLVLRQ WR KLUH WKDW LV SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH MRE .LQLFNL HW DO f DOVR DGGUHVVHG WKH LVVXH RI LQWHUYLHZ YDOLGLW\ XVLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH DQG RWKHU MREUHODWHG FULWHULD 7KLV VWXG\ DOVR KDG PDQ\ VKRUWFRPLQJV KRZHYHU 7KH\ LQYHVWLJDWHG ZKHWKHU LQWHUYLHZ WUDLW LPSUHVVLRQ SUHGLFWHG DFWXDO MRE VXFFHVV OHVV DFFXUDWHO\ WKDQ GLG UHVXPH FUHGHQWLDOV E\ DVVHVVLQJ LQWHUYLHZHUVn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f EXW QRW WKH RWKHU FULWHULD $OWKRXJK .LQLFNL DQG KLV FROOHDJXHV DGGUHVVHG WKH LVVXH RI YDOLGLW\ LW LV GHILFLHQW DW PHHWLQJ WKH SUHVHQW FRQFHUQV

PAGE 60

)LUVW WKH\ RQO\ VWXGLHG RQH QRQYHUEDO FXH DSSHDUDQFH WKDW ZDV EXULHG ZLWKLQ WKH PDFURVFRSLF YDULDEOH RI LQWHUYLHZ LPSUHVVLRQ 6HFRQG WKH PHDVXUH RI SHUIRUPDQFH XVHG ZDV QRW LQGHSHQGHQWO\ FROOHFWHG DQG LW VXIIHUHG IURP UDQJH UHVWULFWLRQ 7KLUG WKH DWWLWXGLQDO PHDVXUHV ZHUH VHOI UHSRUWHG DQG WDNHQ DIWHU RQO\ WKUHH ZHHNV RQ WKH MRE ,Q D UHFHQW VWXG\ $PEDG\ DQG 5RVHQWKDO f UHFRJQL]HG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI XVLQJ DQ HFRORJLFDOO\ YDOLG FULWHULRQ 7KH\ IRXQG WKDW UDWLQJV PDGH E\ MXGJHV H[SRVHG WR RQO\ VPDOO FOLSV RI WHDFKHUVn QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR VWXGHQW HYDOXDWLRQV RI FROOHJH WHDFKHUVn DQG SULQFLSDOnV HYDOXDWLRQV RI KLJK VFKRRO WHDFKHUVn HIIHFWLYHQHVV 7KLV VWXG\ KRZHYHU ZDV QRW FRQFHUQHG ZLWK VHOHFWLRQ DQG UDWLQJV GLG QRW WDNH SODFH LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI D VHOHFWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ 5DWKHU FOLSV RI QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRUV ZHUH WDNHQ IURP VLOHQW YLGHRWDSHV RI VXEMHFWV WHDFKLQJ FODVVHV LQ D XQLYHUVLW\ RU KLJK VFKRRO VHWWLQJ ,Q DQRWKHU VWXG\ ZKLFK DGGUHVVHG LQWHUYLHZ YDOLGLW\ DQG WKH UHOHYDQFH RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV 0RWRZLGOR HW DO f FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ REWDLQHG IURP YLVXDO QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRUV ZDV QRW QHFHVVDU\ IRU WKH LQWHUYLHZnV YDOLGLW\ ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV WKH FRQWHQW RI DSSOLFDQWVn DQVZHUV ZDV D VLJQLILFDQW VRXUFH RI YDOLGLW\ VLQFH MXGJPHQWV E\ LQWHUYLHZHUV ZKR GLG QRW KDYH DFFHVV WR QRQYHUEDO FXHV ZHUH DW OHDVW DV YDOLG DV MXGJPHQWV E\ LQWHUYLHZHUV ZKR GLG 7KLV ILQGLQJ GRHV QRW HQWLUHO\ FRQWUDGLFW SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK WKDW

PAGE 61

KDV VXSSRUWHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV VLQFH LW KDV DOVR EHHQ UHSRUWHG WKDW ZKHQ DSSURSULDWH DQG UHOHYDQW YHUEDO LQIRUPDWLRQ LV DYDLODEOH WKDW LW LV WKH SULPDU\ EXW QRW RQO\ LQIOXHQFH RQ LQWHUYLHZHUVn GHFLVLRQV +ROODQGVZRUWK HW DO 3DUVRQV DQG /LGHQ 5DVPXVVHQ f 2I FRXUVH DGGLWLRQDO UHVHDUFK LV QHFHVVDU\ WR GHWHUPLQH WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI WKH HIIHFW RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV ZKHQ WKH\ DUH SUHVHQW 1RQYHUEDO FXHV PD\ DFW DV HLWKHU HQKDQFHUV RU VXSSUHVVRUV RI WKH LQWHUYLHZnV YDOLGLW\ ,I FXHV DUH XWLOL]HG WKDW DUH LUUHOHYDQW LQ WKH VHQVH WKDW WKH\ GR QRW FRUUHVSRQG ZLWK WKH LQWHUYLHZHHVn WUXH VFRUHV RQ WKH FULWHULRQ RI LQWHUHVW WKHQ LQWHUYLHZHUVn MXGJPHQWV ZLOO EH ELDVHG DQG GLVWRUWHG ,I FHUWDLQ QRQYHUEDO FXHV DIIHFW LQWHUYLHZ RXWFRPHV EXW GR QRW SUHGLFW MRE SHUIRUPDQFH WKHQ WKRVH FXHV DUH D VRXUFH RI LQYDOLGLW\ DQG LQWHUYLHZHUV PXVW EH WUDLQHG WR EH OHVV LQIOXHQFHG E\ WKHP ZKHQ PDNLQJ MXGJPHQWV 5DVPXVVHQ f 6FKXK f VWDWHG DQ\ SUHRFFXSDWLRQ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHU ZLWK QRQWDVN UHOHYDQW FXHV FRXOG FOXWWHU SULPDU\ PHPRU\ DQG LQWHUIHUH ZLWK WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH DSSOLFDQWV YHUEDO UHSRUWDQG WKHUHE\ FKDQJH WKH DSSOLFDQWnV LQIRUPDWLRQ EHIRUH LW LV QHHGHG IRU UHFDOO DQG SUHGLFWLRQ S f 3UHYDLOLQJ SUDFWLFHV VXSSRUW WKLV SRVLWLRQ EHFDXVH LQWHUYLHZHUV DUH RIWHQ WUDLQHG WR DWWHQG RQO\ WR WKH FRQWHQW RI DSSOLFDQWVn UHVSRQVHV WKHUHE\ LJQRULQJ QRQYHUEDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH DSSOLFDQW ZKHQ PDNLQJ LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV HJ 0RWRZLGOR HW DOf

PAGE 62

&RQYHUVHO\ LI FHUWDLQ FXHV OHJLWLPDWHO\ UHSUHVHQW WKH LQWHUYLHZHHVn WUXH VFRUH RQ GLPHQVLRQV RI SHUIRUPDQFH LQWHUYLHZHUV PD\ EH MXVWLILHG DQG HQFRXUDJHG WR XVH WKRVH FXHV LQ WKDW YDOLGLW\ ZLOO EH HQKDQFHG $UYH\ DQG &DPSLRQ +DUULV 0RWRZLGOR HW DO 5DVPXVVHQ f (VSHFLDOO\ LI FHUWDLQ LQIRUPDWLRQ FDQQRW RU ZLOO QRW EH H[SOLFLWO\ YHUEDOO\ H[SUHVVHG LQ WKH LQWHUYLHZ WKHQ LW LV OHJLWLPDWH IRU LQWHUYLHZHUV WR VHHN DQG XWLOL]H UHOHYDQW FXHV WR GHWHUPLQH WKH WUXH FKDUDFWHU RI WKH DSSOLFDQW (GLQJHU DQG 3DWWHUVRQ 6FKOHQNHU f 7KHUH LV D UHDO QHHG WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH HIIHFW RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV RQ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ XVLQJ UHOHYDQW SHUIRUPDQFH RU RWKHU MREUHODWHG FULWHULD %\ GRLQJ VR RQH FDQ JHW DW WKH FRUH RI WKH SXUSRVH RI WKH LQWHUYLHZf§WKDW RI VHOHFWLQJ DSSOLFDQWV ZKR ZLOO EH JRRG SHUIRUPHUV RQ WKH MRE 0HDVXUHPHQW RI 1RQYHUEDO &XHV 7KH VHFRQG LVVXH RI FRQFHUQ LV WKH SUHFLVLRQ DQG DFFXUDF\ ZLWK ZKLFK QRQYHUEDO FXHV DUH PHDVXUHG 0RUH WKDQ D GHFDGH DJR +ROODQGVZRUWK HW DO f FULWLFL]HG UHVHDUFKHUV RI QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU IRU XVLQJ DUWLILFLDO UDWKHU WKDQ UHDO LQWHUYLHZ VHWWLQJV 5HVHDUFKHUV ZHUH FULWLFL]HG IRU DUWLILFLDOO\ LQIODWLQJ WKH YDULDELOLW\ RI FXHV GLVSOD\HG E\ DSSOLFDQWV LQ ODERUDWRU\ VHWWLQJV 5HVHDUFKHUV ZKR ZHUH DQ[LRXV WR JHW RXW RI WKH ODERUDWRU\ DQG FRQGXFW UHDO

PAGE 63

VHOHFWLRQ LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH ZLOOLQJ WR GLVFDUG WKDW FRQWURO IRU PRUH JHQHUDOL]DEOH UHVXOWV EXW IDLOHG WR WDNH LQWR FRQVLGHUDWLRQ KRZ WR PHDVXUH WKH QRQYHUEDO FXHV LQ WKH UHDO VHWWLQJ 3DUVRQV DQG /LGHQ f QRWHG LQ WKH FRQFOXVLRQ RI WKHLU ILHOG VWXG\ WKDW FDXWLRQ VKRXOG EH XVHG LQ WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKHLU UHVXOWV VLQFH WKH QRQYHUEDO FXHV RI DSSOLFDQWV ZHUH QRW FRQWUROOHG DV WKH\ DUH LQ WKH ODERUDWRU\ QRU ZDV DQ LQGHSHQGHQW PHDVXUHPHQW WDNHQ RI WKRVH FXHV 2QH \HDU DIWHU 3DUVRQV DQG /LGHQnV f VWXG\ *LIIRUG HW DO f DGGUHVVHG WKLV SUREOHP 7KH\ WUDLQHG WZR LQGHSHQGHQW MXGJHV WR VFRUH RFFXUUHQFHV RI DSSOLFDQWVn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f

PAGE 64

6FKHUHU f LQ GLVFXVVLQJ WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU DSSO\LQJ WKH %UXQVZLN OHQV PRGHO WR WKH VWXG\ RI QRQYHUEDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ HPSKDVL]HG WKH QHHG IRU LQGHSHQGHQW PHDVXUHPHQW RI YDULDEOHV +H QRWHG WKH QHFHVVLW\ RI REWDLQLQJ LQGHSHQGHQW PHDVXUHV RI WKH FULWHULRQ WKH QRQYHUEDO FXHV DQG WKH MXGJPHQWV RI REVHUYHUV $FFRUGLQJO\ LQGHSHQGHQW MXGJHV VKRXOG EH WUDLQHG WR DFFXUDWHO\ LGHQWLI\ DQG PHDVXUH VSHFLILF QRQYHUEDO FXHV LQ RUGHU WR REWDLQ PRUH UHOLDEOH DQG XQELDVHG PHDVXUHV RI WKRVH FXHV /HYHO RI 0HDVXUHPHQW DQG $QDO\VLV RI 1RQYHUEDO &XHV 7KH WKLUG LVVXH RI FRQFHUQ LV WKH OHYHO RI PHDVXUHPHQW DQG DQDO\VLV RI QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU 1RQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU PD\ EH PHDVXUHG DW HLWKHU WKH PLFURVFRSLF RU PDFURVFRSLF OHYHO $W WKH PLFURVFRSLF OHYHO HDFK QRQYHUEDO FXH LV PHDVXUHG LQGLYLGXDOO\ $W WKH PDFURVFRSLF OHYHO LQGLYLGXDO FXHV DUH FOXVWHUHG WRJHWKHU WR GHILQH D JHQHUDO YDULDEOH RI QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU ,QGLYLGXDO FXHV DUH RIWHQ QRW GHILQHG IRU D PDFURVFRSLF DQDO\VLV )RU H[DPSOH ,PDGD DQG +DNHO f RSHUDWLRQDOO\ GHILQHG QRQYHUEDO LPPHGLDF\ D PDFURVFRSLF YDULDEOH DV JUHDWHU H\H FRQWDFW VPLOLQJ DWWHQWLYH SRVWXUH JHVWXUHV VPDOOHU LQWHUSHUVRQDO GLVWDQFH DQG D GLUHFW ERG\ RULHQWDWLRQ :H[OH\ HW DO f GHILQHG WKHLU PDFURVFRSLF QRQYHUEDO YDULDEOH RI HQWKXVLDVP DV KLJK RU ORZ DPRXQWV RI H\H FRQWDFW JHVWXULQJ VPLOLQJ DQG DSSURSULDWH WRQH RI YRLFH

PAGE 65

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n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f VXJJHVWHG WKDW LW LV WKH FRPELQDWLRQ RI LQGLYLGXDO SDUWV RI WKH QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRUDO V\VWHP ZKLFK SURYLGHV WKH EHVW XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH V\VWHPnV SXUSRVH 3HRSOH GR QRW RQO\ VPLOH RU RQO\ PRYH WKHLU KDQGV 5DWKHU WKHLU EHKDYLRU FRQVLVWV RI PXOWLSOH VLJQDOV ZKLFK

PAGE 66

WRJHWKHU FRQWULEXWH WR WKH PHVVDJH VHQW WR WKH UHFHLYHU RI WKRVH FXHV 9DQ +RRII f VXJJHVWHG WKDW LQ RUGHU WR LQWHUSUHW QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU ZH VKRXOG XVH ODUJHU IXQFWLRQDO XQLWV RI EHKDYLRU UDWKHU WKDQ PROHFXODU EHKDYLRUDO HOHPHQWV RU DFWV 7KHVH PRODU XQLWV KH VXJJHVWHG HQDEOH UHVHDUFKHUV WR UHFRUG DQG FRPSLOH PRUH PHDQLQJIXO FRPSOH[ EHKDYLRUDO SURFHVVHV +H FDXWLRQHG WKDW WKH FRQQHFWLRQV EHWZHHQ EHKDYLRUDO HOHPHQWV RU DFWV WHQG WR JHW ORVW LI D PROHFXODU GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH EHKDYLRU LV XVHG 9DQ +RRII f %UXQVZLNnV f OHQV PRGHO DOVR LQGLFDWHV WKDW D FRPELQDWLRQ RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV UDWKHU WKDQ LQGLYLGXDO FXHV LQIOXHQFH SHUVRQ SHUFHSWLRQV DQG MXGJPHQWV %UXQVZLNnV KLHUDUFK\ RI FXHV VHH )LJXUH f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

PAGE 67

RI WKHVH VWXGLHV DQG WKH PHWKRGRORJLHV XVHG WR DFKLHYH WKRVH SXUSRVHV 7KHVH WKUHH LVVXHV KLJKOLJKW f WKH QHHG WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH HIIHFWV RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV RQ LQWHUYLHZ YDOLGLW\ UDWKHU WKDQ IDYRUDELOLW\ f WKH QHHG WR XVH LQGHSHQGHQW UDWLQJV RI WKRVH FXHV IRU DQDO\VLV DQG f WKH QHHG WR PHDVXUH QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU DW WKH PLFURVFRSLF OHYHO ,Q WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ WKHVH QHHGV ZLOO EH PHW

PAGE 68

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f $ WKLUG VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR LGHQWLI\ ZKLFK VSHFLILF QRQYHUEDO FXHV DUH PRVW OLNHO\ WR EH UHODWHG WR EHKDYLRUDO GLPHQVLRQV RI PDQDJHPHQW HIIHFWLYHQHVV 5HODWHG OLWHUDWXUH ZDV UHYLHZHG DQG HPSLULFDO HYLGHQFH ZDV FROOHFWHG 7KHVH WZR VRXUFHV KHOSHG WR LGHQWLI\ QRQYHUEDO FXHV IRU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ $IWHU HDFK SUHOLPLQDU\ VWXG\ LV SUHVHQWHG KHUH WKHLU LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZLOO EH GLVFXVVHG 1H[W

PAGE 69

WKH UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV IRU WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZLOO EH SUHVHQWHG DV ZHOO DV UHDVRQV ZK\ WKH DQVZHUV WR WKRVH UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV DUH ERWK LQWHUHVWLQJ DQG LPSRUWDQW 6WXG\ 7KH 'HYHORSPHQW DQG 9DOLGDWLRQ RI WKH ,QWHUYLHZ $ VWUXFWXUHG VHOHFWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ ZLOO EH XVHG DV WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH FXUUHQW GLVVHUWDWLRQ UHVHDUFK 7KH LQWHUYLHZ GLPHQVLRQV TXHVWLRQV DQG IRUPDW IRU XVH LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZHUH GHYHORSHG DV SDUW RI WKH ILUVW SUHOLPLQDU\ VWXG\ 6XSHUYLVRU\ UDWLQJV RI SHUIRUPDQFH ZLOO EH WKH FULWHULRQ IRU WKH FXUUHQW GLVVHUWDWLRQ UHVHDUFK 7KH PHDVXUHV QHHGHG WR FROOHFW WKRVH VXSHUYLVRU\ UDWLQJV ZHUH DOVR GHYHORSHG DV SDUW RI WKLV ILUVW VWXG\ $GGLWLRQDOO\ LQ WKLV SUHOLPLQDU\ VWXG\ LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG DQG UHFRUGHG RQ YLGHRWDSH LQWHUYLHZHHV ZHUH UDWHG E\ WKH LQWHUYLHZHU DQG VXSHUYLVRU\ UDWLQJV ZHUH FROOHFWHG 7KH FROOHFWLRQ RI WKLV GDWD DOORZHG IRU D SUHOLPLQDU\ YDOLGDWLRQ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ $ 6WUXFWXUHG 6HOHFWLRQ ,QWHUYLHZ GHYHORSPHQW RI LQWHUYLHZ TXHVWLRQV DQG GLPHQVLRQV $Q LQWHUYLHZ V\VWHP ZDV GHYHORSHG WR PHDVXUH JHQHUDO PDQDJHULDO VNLOOV IRU HQWU\OHYHO PDQDJHUV 3HUIRUPDQFH GLPHQVLRQV RI PDQDJHULDO VNLOO ZHUH LGHQWLILHG DFFRUGLQJ WR SULRU UHVHDUFK 0RWRZLGOR HW DO f 7KH\ LQFOXGHG OHDGHUVKLS IRUFHIXOQHVV WHDPZRUN RSHQPLQGHGQHVV FRQVLGHUDWLRQ SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ WKRURXJKQHVV GULYH DQG UHVXOWV RULHQWDWLRQ 7KHVH QLQH GLPHQVLRQV ZHUH

PAGE 70

WKHQ FRPELQHG WR IRUP IRXU GLPHQVLRQV 7KLV ZDV DFFRPSOLVKHG E\ KDYLQJ WKUHH GRFWRUDO PDQDJHPHQW VWXGHQWV FDUHIXOO\ UHDG HDFK GLPHQVLRQ GHILQLWLRQ DQG WKHQ VRUW WKH QLQH GLPHQVLRQV LQWR IHZHU PHDQLQJIXO FDWHJRULHV EDVHG RQ WKHLU VLPLODULWLHV DQG GHJUHH RI RYHUODS 7KH IRXU QHZ GLPHQVLRQV DUH /HDGHUVKLS OHDGHUVKLS IRUFHIXOQHVVf 7HDPZRUN WHDPZRUN RSHQPLQGHGQHVV FRQVLGHUDWLRQf 'ULYH GULYH UHVXOWV RULHQWDWLRQf DQG 3ODQQLQJ DQG 2UJDQL]LQJ SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ WKRURXJKQHVVf 5DWLQJ VFDOHV ZHUH GHYHORSHG IRU HDFK GLPHQVLRQ 7KHVH VFDOHV ZHUH EHKDYLRUDOO\ DQFKRUHG ZLWK JHQHUDO EHKDYLRUDO GHVFULSWLRQV DW WKH +LJK 0RGHUDWH DQG /RZ OHYHO RI HDFK VFDOH 7KHVH ZHUH SRLQW VFDOHV ZKHUH DQG DUH DW WKH +LJK OHYHO DQG DW WKH 0RGHUDWH OHYHO DQG DQG DW WKH /RZ OHYHO 7KHVH DQFKRUV ZHQW WKURXJK VHYHUDO UHYLVLRQV EHIRUH DUULYLQJ DW WKH ILQDO VFDOHV VHH $SSHQGL[ $f 1H[W LQWHUYLHZ TXHVWLRQV ZHUH GHYHORSHG WR WDS HDFK EHKDYLRUDO GLPHQVLRQ $V GLVFXVVHG SUHYLRXVO\ LQ WKH VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ OLWHUDWXUH WKHUH DUH WZR EDVLF W\SHV RI LQWHUYLHZ TXHVWLRQV -DQ] f LQWURGXFHG SDVWRULHQWHG TXHVWLRQV ZKHUH LQWHUYLHZHHV DUH DVNHG 7HOO PH DERXW D WLPH ZKHQ $QRWKHU W\SH RI TXHVWLRQ GHYHORSHG E\ /DWKDP HW DO f LV RULHQWHG WRZDUG IXWXUH EHKDYLRU DQG LQWHUYLHZHHV DUH DVNHG 7HOO PH ZKDW \RX ZRXOG GR LI 7KHUH LV QR VXIILFLHQW HYLGHQFH UHJDUGLQJ ZKHWKHU RQH W\SH RI TXHVWLRQ LV EHWWHU WKDQ DQRWKHU $V D UHVXOW LQ WKLV VWXG\ ERWK W\SHV RI TXHVWLRQV ZHUH LQFOXGHG $ WRWDO RI HLJKW

PAGE 71

LQWHUYLHZ TXHVWLRQV ZHUH GHYHORSHG 7ZR TXHVWLRQV RQH RI HDFK W\SH LH SDVWRULHQWHG DQG K\SRWKHWLFDOf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f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

PAGE 72

UHVHDUFK SURMHFW DQG WKH SXUSRVH IRU ZKLFK WKH YLGHRWDSHV ZRXOG EH XVHG ,QWHUYLHZHHV ZHUH DVNHG WR LPDJLQH WKDW WKH VHVVLRQ ZDV D UHDO MRE LQWHUYLHZ DQG WR SURYLGH UHDO DQG WUXWKIXO DQVZHUV 7KH YLGHRFDPHUD ZDV WKHQ WXUQHG RQ $W WKLV SRLQW WKH LQWHUYLHZHU WROG WKH LQWHUYLHZHH DERXW WKH W\SHV RI TXHVWLRQV WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG EH DVNHG SDVW YHUVXV IXWXUHf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f

PAGE 73

,QWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV 7KH LQWHUYLHZHU UDWHG LQWHUYLHZHHV XVLQJ WKH IRXU EHKDYLRUDOO\ DQFKRUHG UDWLQJ VFDOHV RI OHDGHUVKLS WHDPZRUN GULYH DQG SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]LQJ IRU HDFK W\SH RI TXHVWLRQ 7KLV UHVXOWHG LQ HLJKW UDWLQJV IRU HDFK LQWHUYLHZHH 6XSHUYLVRU\ 5DWLQDV RI -RE 3HUIRUPDQFH 'HYHORSPHQW RI SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJ VFDOHV 7KH VDPH IRXU GLPHQVLRQV DQG DFFRPSDQ\LQJ VFDOHV XVHG IRU WKH LQWHUYLHZ ZHUH DOVR XVHG IRU WKH VXSHUYLVRUVn UDWLQJV RI WKHLU VXERUGLQDWHnV SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKHLU FXUUHQW MRE 7KH VXSHUYLVRUVn IRUP KDV D PRUH QDUUDWLYH IRUPDW IRU WKH EHKDYLRUDO DQFKRUV RQ HDFK VFDOH WKDQ WKH EXOOHWW\SH VHQWHQFHV RQ WKH LQWHUYLHZ IRUP 7KH VXSHUYLVRUVn IRUP DOVR LQFOXGHV D EULHI GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH SURMHFW DQG GHWDLOHG LQVWUXFWLRQV RQ KRZ WR ILOORXW WKH IRUP ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH IRXU GLPHQVLRQV RI /HDGHUVKLS 7HDPZRUN 'ULYH DQG 3ODQQLQJ DQG 2UJDQL]LQJ VXSHUYLVRUV ZHUH DVNHG WR UDWH LQGLYLGXDOV RQ D GLPHQVLRQ RI 2YHUDOO 3HUIRUPDQFH 7KH\ DOVR SURYLGHG LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ KRZ LPSRUWDQW WKH\ IHOW HDFK GLPHQVLRQ ZDV IRU WKH MRE WKDW WKHLU VXERUGLQDWH SHUIRUPV VHH $SSHQGL[ %f &ROOHFWLRQ RI SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJV (DFK FRPSDQ\ UHSUHVHQWDWLYH GLVWULEXWHG WKH SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJ IRUPV WR WKH DSSURSULDWH VXSHUYLVRU RI HDFK

PAGE 74

LQWHUYLHZHH 7KH IRUPV ZHUH DFFRPSDQLHG E\ LQVWUXFWLRQV WKDW WKH\ EH UHWXUQHG GLUHFWO\ WR WKH UHVHDUFKHUV 6L[W\ILYH VXSHUYLVRU\ UDWLQJV RU b RI WKH RULJLQDO LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH UHWXUQHG 6XSHUYLVRUV UHSRUWHG RQ DYHUDJH WKDW /HDGHUVKLS VNLOOV ZHUH LPSRUWDQW PHDQ VG f 7HDPZRUN ZDV YHU\ LPSRUWDQW PHDQ VG f 'ULYH ZDV YHU\ LPSRUWDQW PHDQ VG f DQG 3ODQQLQJ DQG 2UJDQL]LQJ ZDV YHU\ LPSRUWDQW PHDQ VG f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

PAGE 75

1H[W WKH WRWDO VFRUHV IRU HDFK W\SH RI TXHVWLRQ DQG WKH RYHUDOO LQWHUYLHZ WRWDOV ZHUH FRUUHODWHG ZLWK SHUIRUPDQFH 7KH FRUUHODWLRQ RI SHUIRUPDQFH ZLWK SDVWRULHQWHG TXHVWLRQV ZDV Sf ZLWK IXWXUHRULHQWHG TXHVWLRQV U Sf DQG ZLWK WKH WRWDO LQWHUYLHZ VFRUH U Sf 7KHVH UHVXOWV VKRXOG EH LQWHUSUHWHG ZLWK FDXWLRQ VLQFH WKH LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV ZHUH PDGH E\ RQO\ RQH UDWHU 6XPPDU\ RI 3UHOLPLQDU\ 6WXG\ 7KH GHYHORSPHQW DQG FROOHFWLRQ RI LQWHUYLHZ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJV IRU LQWHUYLHZHHV ZHUH GHVFULEHG KHUH 7KH FRUUHODWLRQDO DQDO\VLV RI LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV ZLWK SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJV LQGLFDWHG WKDW ERWK SDVWRULHQWHG DQG IXWXUHRULHQWHG TXHVWLRQV DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK SHUIRUPDQFH 6WXG\ $XUDO DQG 9LVXDO 6RXUFHV RI 9DOLGLW\ 0RWRZLGOR DQG %XUQHWW f 7KH FXUUHQW GLVVHUWDWLRQ UHVHDUFK VWXG\ ZLOO LQYHVWLJDWH WKH HIIHFW RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV RQ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ %XW ILUVW LW ZDV QHFHVVDU\ WR GHWHUPLQH ZKDW LI DQ\ HIIHFW YLVXDOO\EDVHG LQIRUPDWLRQ KDG RQ LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VHFRQG SUHOLPLQDU\ VWXG\ OHJLWLPL]HG WKH IXUWKHU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH UROH RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV RQ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ

PAGE 76

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f ZDWFKHG DQG OLVWHQHG Ef RQO\ OLVWHQHG ZLWK QR SLFWXUHf RU Ff RQO\ ZDWFKHG ZLWK QR VRXQGf WR RI WKH YLGHRWDSHG LQWHUYLHZV $GGLWLRQDOO\ UDWHUV HLWKHU VDZ DQGRU KHDUG WKH SRUWLRQ RI WKH RULJLQDO LQWHUYLHZ ZKHUH LQWHUYLHZHHV UHVSRQGHG WR SDVWRULHQWHG TXHVWLRQ RU WR WKH UHVSRQVHV WR IXWXUHRULHQWHG TXHVWLRQV 7KLV GHVLJQ UHVXOWHG LQ IRUPV RI FXH DYDLODELOLW\ [ W\SHV RI TXHVWLRQVf GLIIHUHQW FRQGLWLRQV

PAGE 77

7KHUH ZHUH DQ DYHUDJH RI UDWHUV SHU FRQGLWLRQ $OO LQWHUYLHZV FRPELQHG LQWR VHWV RI LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG LQ HDFK FRQGLWLRQ (DFK UDWHU UDWHG LQWHUYLHZV DQG HDFK LQWHUYLHZ ZDV UDWHG E\ DQ DYHUDJH RI UDWHUV LQ HDFK FRQGLWLRQ 6XPPDU\ RI 5HVXOWV 7KH FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV RI WKH SDVW RULHQWHG TXHVWLRQV DQG SHUIRUPDQFH IRU WKH DXUDOYLVXDO DXUDO RQO\ DQG YLVXDO RQO\ FRQGLWLRQV ZHUH Sf Sf DQG Sf UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH K\SRWKHWLFDO TXHVWLRQV DQG SHUIRUPDQFH IRU WKH DXUDOYLVXDO DXUDO RQO\ DQG YLVXDO RQO\ FRQGLWLRQV ZHUH QVf QVfDQG Sf UHVSHFWLYHO\ 3RROHG UDWLQJV DFURVV TXHVWLRQ W\SH DOVR FRUUHODWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK SHUIRUPDQFH IRU WKH DXUDOYLVXDO U Sf DXUDO RQO\ Sf DQG YLVXDO RQO\ Sf FRQGLWLRQV 7KHVH UHVXOWV DGGUHVV WKH SULPDU\ UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ DQG FRQILUP WKDW YLVXDOO\ EDVHG LQWHUYLHZ MXGJPHQWV FDQ EH YDOLG SUHGLFWRUV RI SHUIRUPDQFH 6HFRQG VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQV ZHUH IRXQG EHWZHHQ YLVXDOO\ EDVHG MXGJPHQWV DQG MXGJPHQWV PDGH ZKHQ ERWK YLVXDO DQG DXUDO FXHV DUH DYDLODEOH 7KLV ZDV WUXH IRU ERWK UDWLQJV EDVHG RQ SDVWRULHQWHG TXHVWLRQV U Sf DQG IXWXUH RULHQWHG TXHVWLRQV U Sf 7KH SRROHG YLVXDOO\ EDVHG UDWLQJV FRUUHODWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ U Sf ZLWK WKH

PAGE 78

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f DQG PDUJLQDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW IRU WKH IXWXUH RULHQWHG TXHVWLRQV U S f 7KH SRROHG UDWLQJV RI UDWHUV ZKR RQO\ ZDWFKHG WKH LQWHUYLHZV FRUUHODWHG Sf ZLWK SRROHG UDWLQJV RI WKRVH ZKR RQO\ KHDUG WKH LQWHUYLHZV 7KLV UHVXOW DGGUHVVHV WKH WKLUG UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ DQG PD\ LQGLFDWH WKDW WKHUH H[LVWV VRPH UHGXQGDQF\ EHWZHHQ WKHVH WZR W\SHV RI FXHV $V DQ H[SORUDWRU\ DQDO\VLV WKH VH[ DJH DQG UDFH RI LQWHUYLHZHHV ZHUH H[DPLQHG DV SRWHQWLDO LQIOXHQFHV RQ WKH YDOLGLW\ ILQGLQJV $OWKRXJK DJH DQG UDFH ZHUH QRW UHODWHG WR SHUIRUPDQFH RU LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV WKH VH[ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHH KDG D VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK ERWK SHUIRUPDQFH U Sf DQG YLVXDOO\ EDVHG LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV U Sf 7KLV PD\ LQGLFDWH WKDW VH[ GLIIHUHQFHV SOD\ VRPH UROH LQ FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ LQWHUYLHZ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJV SDUWLFXODUO\ ZKHQ YLVXDO FXHV DUH DYDLODEOH

PAGE 79

6XPPDU\ RI 3UHOLPLQDU\ 6WXG\ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH TXLWH LQWULJXLQJ )LUVW UDWHUV ZKR ZHUH H[SRVHG WR RQO\ LQWHUYLHZHHVn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

PAGE 80

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

PAGE 81

/LQNLQJ 3HUIRUPDQFH 'LPHQVLRQV ZLWK WKH %LJ )LYH 3HUVRQDOLW\ 7UDLWV 5HVHDUFKHUV ZKR KDYH LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH FRRFFXUHQFH RI EHKDYLRUV DQG WUDLWV KDYH PDLQO\ XVHG D ILYH IDFWRU PRGHO RI WUDLW DVVHVVPHQW 7KHVH ILYH IDFWRUV ZHUH GHULYHG LQ VHYHUDO VWXGLHV DFURVV GLIIHUHQW VDPSOHV WKDW IRXQG ILYH IDLUO\ VWURQJ IDFWRUV RI SHUVRQDOLW\ DVVHVVPHQW VHH 7XSHV DQG &KULVWDO f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

PAGE 82

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f 7KH RUGHU RI WKH WUDLWV ZDV VFUDPEOHG -XGJHV ZHUH DVNHG WR UDWH WKH GHJUHH RI DVVRFLDWLRQ EHWZHHQ HDFK WUDLW IRU HDFK RI WKH IRXU SHUIRUPDQFH GLPHQVLRQV RQ D SRLQW VFDOH GHILQLWHO\ UHODWHG WR O QRW DW DOO UHODWHGf VHH $SSHQGL[ &f 7KHUH ZHUH D GLIIHUHQW QXPEHU RI WUDLW DGMHFWLYHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ HDFK SHUVRQDOLW\ IDFWRU )RU HDFK SHUVRQDOLW\ IDFWRU PHDQ VFRUHV ZHUH FDOFXODWHG E\ DYHUDJLQJ WKH UDWLQJV PDGH E\ MXGJHV RQ WKRVH WUDLW DGMHFWLYHV ZLWKLQ HDFK SHUIRUPDQFH GLPHQVLRQ )RU H[DPSOH IRU WKH /HDGHUVKLS GLPHQVLRQ QLQH WUDLW DGMHFWLYH UDWLQJV ZHUH DYHUDJHG WR IRUP D VFRUH IRU ([WUDYHUVLQ 7KLV UHVXOWHG LQ ILYH SHUVRQDOLW\

PAGE 83

IDFWRUV VFRUHV ZLWKLQ HDFK RI WKH IRXU SHUIRUPDQFH GLPHQVLRQV IRU HDFK RI WKH VL[ MXGJHV 7R GHWHUPLQH WKH UHOLDELOLW\ RI MXGJHV LQWUDFODVV FRUUHODWLRQV ZHUH FRPSXWHG DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH PRGHO E\ 6KURXW DQG )OHLVV f 7KH FRUUHFWHG LQWUDFODVV FRUUHODWLRQ ,&&f IRU /HDGHUVKLS ZDV IRU 7HDPZRUN IRU 'ULYH DQG IRU 3ODQQLQJ DQG 2UJDQL]LQJ %DVHG RQ WKHVH HVWLPDWHV RI UHOLDELOLW\ LW ZDV FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV DJUHHPHQW DQG FRQVLVWHQF\ DPRQJ MXGJHV ZKHQ WKH\ LQGLFDWHG WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUVRQDOLW\ WUDLWV DQG SHUIRUPDQFH GLPHQVLRQV $GGLWLRQDOO\ D WZRZD\ DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH ZDV FRPSXWHG 7KH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH ZDV WKH PHDQ VFRUHV RQ HDFK SHUVRQDOLW\ IDFWRU ZLWKLQ HDFK GLPHQVLRQ IRU HDFK MXGJH [[ f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

PAGE 84

/HDGHUVKLS ZDV PRVW UHODWHG WR ([WURYHUVLRQ DQG &RQVFLHQWLRXVQHVV 7HDPZRUN ZDV KLJKO\ UHODWHG WR $JUHHDEOHQHVV DQG OHVV VR WR &RQVFLHQWLRXVQHVV 'ULYH ZDV UHODWHG WR &RQVFLHQWLRXVQHVV DQG ([WURYHUVLRQ DQG 3ODQQLQJ DQG 2UJDQL]LQJ ZDV KLJKO\ UHODWHG WR &RQVFLHQWLRXVQHVV DV ZHOO DV $JUHHDEOHQHVV 1RWH WKH PHDQ VFRUHV IRU WKH IDFWRUV RI (PRWLRQDO 6WDELOLW\ DQG &XOWXUH,QWHOOHFW ZHUH WKH ORZHVW 7DEOH 0HDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV RI MXGJHVn UDWLQJV RI SHUVRQDOLW\ IDFWRUV DFURVV SHUIRUPDQFH GLPHQVLRQV 3HUIRUPDQFH 'LPHQVLRQV 3HUVRQDOLW\ 3ODQQLQJ )DFWRUV /HDGHUVKLS 7HDPZRUN 'ULYH 2UJDQL]LQJ ([WURYHUVLRQ f f f f $JUHHDEOHQHVV f f f f &RQVFLHQWLRXV f f f f (PRWLRQDO 6WDELOLW\ f f f f &XOWXUH ,QWHOOHFW f f f f IRU HDFK GLPHQVLRQ DQG GLG QRW PHHW WKH FXWRII FULWHULD IRU DQ\ RI WKH GLPHQVLRQV $IWHU WKH SHUIRUPDQFH GLPHQVLRQV ZHUH OLQNHG WR WKH WUDLWV WKH QH[W WDVN ZDV WR OLQN WKH WUDLWV WR QRQYHUEDO FXHV 7KH RXWFRPH LV WKH OLVW RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV WKDW ZLOO EH LQYHVWLJDWHG LQ WKLV VWXG\

PAGE 85

/LQNLQJ WKH %LJ )LYH 3HUVRQDOLW\ 7UDLWV ZLWK 1RQYHUEDO %HKDYLRUV 6WURQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV DUH IUHTXHQWO\ IRXQG EHWZHHQ MXGJPHQWV RI SHUVRQDOLW\ DQG REMHFWLYHO\ PHDVXUHG EHKDYLRUV RU SK\VLFDO DWWULEXWHV $OEULJKW .HQQ\ DQG 0DOOR\ %RUNHQDX DQG /LHEOHU 'LRQ %HUVFKHLG DQG :DOVWHU )XQGHU )XQGHU DQG &ROYLQ )XQGHU DQG 6QHHG *DQJHVWDG 6LPSVRQ 'L*HURQLPR DQG %LHN .HQQ\ +RUQHU .DVK\ DQG &KX f (YHQ ZKHQ WKH RQO\ LQIRUPDWLRQ DYDLODEOH WR MXGJHV LV WKH WDUJHWnV SK\VLFDO DWWULEXWHV WUDLW DVVHVVPHQWV KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR EH DFFXUDWH DQG FRQVHQVXV H[LVWV DPRQJ MXGJHV &OHHWRQ DQG .QLJKW +XQW DQG /LQ 1RUPDQ DQG *ROGEHUJ 3DVVLQL DQG 1RUPDQ f 7KLV FRQWH[W ZKHUH WKHUH LV QR LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ MXGJHV DQG WDUJHWV DQG QR SULRU NQRZOHGJH RI RQH DQRWKHU LV FDOOHG ]HUR DFTXDLQWDQFH $OEULJKW HW DO f (YLGHQFH LQGLFDWHV WKDW MXGJPHQWV PDGH DW ]HUR DFTXDLQWDQFH DUH VWDEOH HYHQ DIWHU WKH MXGJH DQG WDUJHW KDYH LQWHUDFWHG .HQQ\ HW DO f DQG WKH DFFXUDF\ RI WUDLW DVVHVVPHQWV LQFUHDVHV GLUHFWO\ ZLWK WKH GHJUHH RI DFTXDLQWDQFHVKLS 3DXQRQHQ f :KLOH WKH GHJUHH RI DFTXDLQWDQFH LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI D VHOHFWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ LV QRW ]HUR LW LV ORZ %HIRUH WKH DSSOLFDQW ZDONV WKURXJK WKH GRRU IRU WKH LQWHUYLHZ WKH RQO\ LQIRUPDWLRQ DQ LQWHUYLHZHU W\SLFDOO\ KDV LV WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV UHVXPH ,QWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHU DQG DSSOLFDQW

PAGE 86

WDNHV SODFH ZLWKLQ D OLPLWHG SHULRG RI WLPH W\SLFDOO\ PLQXWHV 'XULQJ WKDW EULHI SHULRG WKH LQWHUYLHZHU PXVW REWDLQ DGHTXDWH LQIRUPDWLRQ LQ RUGHU WR PDNH MXGJPHQWV UHJDUGLQJ WKH DSSOLFDQWnV SRWHQWLDO WR SHUIRUP RQ WKH MRE 7KH LQWHUYLHZHU LV LQLWLDOO\ SUHVHQWHG ZLWK WKH SK\VLFDO DWWULEXWHV RI WKH DSSOLFDQW DWWUDFWLYHQHVV GUHVV HWFf EXW DV WKH LQWHUYLHZ SURJUHVVHV WKH DSSOLFDQW SURYLGHV G\QDPLF EHKDYLRUDO DQG DXGLEOH FXHV $OO RI WKHVH FXHV UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH DUJXHG LQIOXHQFH WKH DVVHVVPHQW RI SHUVRQDOLW\ WUDLWV DQG WKRVH WUDLWV VHHP WR XQGHUOLH WKH EHKDYLRUDO GLPHQVLRQV XSRQ ZKLFK WKH LQWHUYLHZHU PDNHV UDWLQJV ,Q RUGHU WR PDNH WKHVH LQIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WUDLWV DQG FXHV LW LV HVVHQWLDO WR PHDVXUH WKH EHKDYLRUV RU FXHV WKDW DUH LQGLFDWLYH RI UHOHYDQW WUDLWV *DQJHVWDG HW DO f 5HVHDUFKHUV DUH RQO\ EHJLQQLQJ WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH FXHV WKDW MXGJHV XVH WR PDNH WUDLW DVVHVVPHQWV DQG WKHUHIRUH WKHUH DUH QR VSHFLILF JXLGHOLQHV IRU GHILQLQJ WKH FRRFFXUUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WUDLWV DQG EHKDYLRUV RU DV %RUNHQDX FDOOHG LW ZKDW JRHV ZLWK ZKDW SS f $ VXPPDU\ RI UHODWHG OLWHUDWXUH LV SUHVHQWHG KHUH ZKLFK KDV LGHQWLILHG WKH UHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ FHUWDLQ QRQYHUEDO FXHV DQG WKUHH RI WKH ELJ ILYH SHUVRQDOLW\ IDFWRUV RI ([WURYHUVLRQ $JUHHDEOHQHVV DQG &RQVFLHQWLRXVQHVV 7KHVH UHODWLRQV DUH LOOXVWUDWHG LQ )LJXUH )LUVW G\QDPLF FXHV VXFK DV VPLOLQJ H\H FRQWDFW DQG JD]H DQG UDSLG ERG\ PRYHPHQW VHHP WR UHIOHFW ([WURYHUVLRQ .HQQ\ HW DO f QRWHG WKDW UDSLG ERG\ PRYHPHQW ZDV

PAGE 87

FRUUHODWHG DW Sf ZLWK ([WURYHUVLRQ 7KH\ DOVR UHSRUWHG D FRUUHODWLRQ RI Sf EHWZHHQ VPLOLQJ DQG WKLV IDFWRU %RUNHQDX DQG /LHEOHU f UHSRUWHG VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ ([WURYHUVLRQ DQG H[WHQVLYH VPLOLQJ U Sf DQG IULHQGO\ H[SUHVVLRQ U Sf 7KHVH UHVHDUFKHUV DOVR IRXQG OHVV H\H FRQWDFW WR EH QHJDWLYHO\ DQG VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK WKLV IDFWRU U Sf $UJ\OH f QRWHG WKDW VPLOLQJ JD]H DQG VSDWLDO SUR[LPLW\ ZHUH FRUUHODWHV RI ([WURYHUVLRQ 6WDWLF 3HUIRUPDQFH 3HUVRQDOLW\ 'LPHQVLRQV 7UDLW )DFWRUV 1RQYHUEDO &XHV *D]H(\H &RQWDFW 6PLOLQJ %RG\ 0RYHPHQW +DQG *HVWXUHV 6SDWLDO 3UR[LPLW\ 3RVWXUH 3K\VLFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV $SSHDUDQFH $VSHFWV RI 'UHVV 9RFDO &KDUDFWHULVWLFV $PRXQW RI 6SHHFK )LJXUH $VVRFLDWLRQV EHWZHHQ QRQYHUEDO FXHV WUDLWV DQG SHUIRUPDQFH GLPHQVLRQV

PAGE 88

FXHV WKDW VHHP WR EH UHODWHG WR ([WURYHUVLRQ LQFOXGH DWWUDFWLYHQHVV DQG DSSURSULDWHQHVV RI GUHVV %RUNHQDX DQG /LHEOHU f IRXQG WKDW DWWUDFWLYHQHVV FRUUHODWHG Sf ZLWK ([WURYHUVLRQ DQG $OEULJKW HW DO f UHSRUWHG D FRUUHODWLRQ RI Sf EHWZHHQ WKH VDPH YDULDEOHV .HQQ\ HW DO f UHSOLFDWHG DQG FRQILUPHG $OEULJKW HW DOnV ILQGLQJV %RUNHQDX DQG /LHEOHU f DOVR IRXQG WKDW ([WURYHUVLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR DQ XQUHILQHG DSSHDUDQFH Sf VKRZ\ GUHVV Sf DQG XQIDVKLRQDEOH GUHVV Sf 7ZR SDUDOLQJXLVWLF FXHV VHHPV WR DOVR UHIOHFW ([WURYHUVLRQ %RUNHQDX DQG /LHEOHU f IRXQG D VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKLV IDFWRU DQG VRIWQHVV RI YRLFH Sf DQG $UJ\OH f LGHQWLILHG DPRXQW RI VSHHFK DV D FRUUHODWH RI ([WURYHUVLRQ 6HFRQG G\QDPLF FXHV WKDW KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR EH UHODWHG WR WKH VHFRQG IDFWRU $JUHHDEOHQHVV LQFOXGH VPLOLQJ KDQG PRYHPHQWV DQG UDSLG ERG\ PRYHPHQW .HQQ\ HW DO f UHSRUWHG D VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQ RI Sf EHWZHHQ VPLOLQJ DQG $JUHHDEOHQHVV DQG %RUNHQDX DQG /LHEOHU f IRXQG D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IULHQGO\ H[SUHVVLRQ DQG WKLV IDFWRU U Sf ,Q WKH VWXG\ E\ %RUNHQDX DQG /LHEOHU f D VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV DOVR IRXQG EHWZHHQ $JUHHDEOHQHVV DQG IUHTXHQF\ RI KDQG PRYHPHQW U Sf 5DSLG ERG\ PRYHPHQW ZDV UHSRUWHG E\ .HQQ\ HW DO f DV UHODWHG WR WKLV IDFWRU U Sf 7KH $JUHHDEOHQHVV IDFWRU LV DOVR UHODWHG WR SDUDOLQJXLVWLF FXHV LQFOXGLQJ HIIRUWIXO UHDGLQJ U Sf HDV\ WR XQGHUVWDQG U

PAGE 89

Sf DQG KHFWLF VSHDNLQJ U Sf %RUNHQDX DQG /LHEOHU f 2QH G\QDPLF FXH KDV EHHQ IRXQG WR EH UHODWHG WR WKH WKLUG IDFWRU &RQVFLHQWLRXVQHVV %RUNHQDX DQG /LHEOHU f UHSRUWHG D VLJQLILFDQW QHJDWLYH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ UHOD[HG SRVWXUH DQG &RQVFLHQWLRXVQHVV U Sf 6WDWLF FXHV UHODWHG WR WKLV IDFWRU DUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK GUHVV %RUNHQDX DQG /LHEOHU f .HQQ\ HW DO f DQG $OEULJKW HW DO f DOO QRWHG VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ GUHVV IRUPDOLW\ DQG WKH &RQVFLHQWLRXVQHVV IDFWRU U S UHYHUVHG VFRUHG U S DQG U S UHVSHFWLYHO\f $OEULJKW HW DO f DOVR IRXQG WKDW QHDWQHVV RI GUHVV ZDV UHODWHG WR WKLV IDFWRU U Sf %RUNHQDX DQG /LHEOHU f IRXQG RQH SDUDOLQJXLVWLF FXH HIIRUWIXO UHDGLQJ ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR &RQVFLHQWLRXVQHVV U Sf 6XPPDU\ RI 3UHOLPLQDU\ 6WXG\ (YLGHQFH DQG UHVHDUFK KDYH EHHQ SUHVHQWHG UHJDUGLQJ ZKDW JRHV ZLWK ZKDW 0RUH VSHFLILFDOO\ MXGJHVn UDWLQJV LQGLFDWH ZKDW WUDLWV JR ZLWK ZKDW SHUIRUPDQFH GLPHQVLRQV DQG H[LVWLQJ UHVHDUFK KDV EHHQ XVHG WR LQGLFDWH ZKDW FXHV JR ZLWK ZKDW WUDLWV 7KHVH OLQNDJHV ZLOO EH XVHG WR MXVWLI\ WKH FKRLFH RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV IRU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\

PAGE 90

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

PAGE 91

UHVXOW LW ZDV GHFLGHG WKDW RQO\ WKH SRUWLRQ RI WKH RULJLQDO LQWHUYLHZV ZKHUH LQWHUYLHZHHV UHVSRQGHG WR WKH SDVWRULHQWHG TXHVWLRQV ZRXOG EH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ 6HFRQG WKH UHVXOWV RI 6WXG\ LPSO\ WKDW WKH VH[ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHH PD\ SOD\ DQ LPSRUWDQW UROH LQ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ $FFRUGLQJO\ VH[ GLIIHUHQFHV ZLOO EH H[SORUHG LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ 7KH GHWDLOHG LQIRUPDWLRQ ZKLFK ZLOO EH FROOHFWHG UHJDUGLQJ LQWHUYLHZHHVn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f +RZHYHU =XFNHUPDQ +RGJLQV DQG 0L\DNH f IRXQG YRFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH IDYRUDELOLW\ RI SHUVRQDOLW\ UDWLQJV $FFRUGLQJO\ YRFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV LV FRQVLGHUHG E\ WKLV UHVHDUFKHU WR EH PRUH DSSURSULDWH IRU WKH LQWHUHVWV RI WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\

PAGE 92

7DEOH 1RQYHUEDO FXHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ '\QDPLF 6WDWLF 3DUDOLQJXLVWLF *D]H 3K\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV 9RFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV 6PLOLQJ 'UHVV +DQG PRYHPHQW %DFNVLGH OHDQ %RG\ RULHQWDWLRQ ,W LV DVVXPHG WKDW DOO RI WKHVH QRQYHUEDO FXHV LI H[KLELWHG E\ DQ LQWHUYLHZHH ZRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG IDYRUDEOH E\ LQWHUYLHZHUV H[FHSW IRU EDFNVLGH OHDQ 7KLV G\QDPLF FXH LV RIWHQ LQWHUSUHWHG DV D VLJQ RI UHOD[DWLRQ RU ERUHGRP $UJ\OH 0HKUDELDQ 0HKUDELDQ f $ UHOD[HG SRVWXUH DOVR FRPPXQLFDWHV GRPLQDQFH LQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO LQWHUDFWLRQ $UJ\OH 0HKUDELDQ f 7KHVH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DUH QRW FRQVLGHUHG DSSURSULDWH QRU MXGJHG IDYRUDEO\ LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI D VHOHFWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ $OWHUQDWLYHO\ ZKHQ DQ LQWHUYLHZHH OHDQV IRUZDUG WKH\ DSSHDU DWWHQWLYH LQWHUHVWHG DQG LQYROYHG LQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHUVn TXHVWLRQV %XOO 0HKUDELDQ f $WWHQWLYHQHVV DQG LQYROYHPHQW DUH PRUH DSSURSULDWH EHKDYLRUV LQ DQ LQWHUYLHZ $FFRUGLQJO\ WKH YDULDEOH RI EDFNVLGH OHDQ ZLOO EH UHYHUVH VFRUHG IRU DQDO\VHV LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ 6XPPDU\ RI WKH ,PSOLFDWLRQV RI WKH 3UHOLPLQDU\ 6WXGLHV RQ WKH &XUUHQW 6WXG\ $V D UHVXOW RI WKH WKUHH SUHOLPLQDU\ VWXGLHV WKH YLGHRWDSHG LQWHUYLHZV RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHHV UHVSRQGLQJ WR

PAGE 93

WKH IRXU SDVWRULHQWHG VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ TXHVWLRQV ZLOO EH XVHG LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ )XUWKHUPRUH WKH QRQYHUEDO FXHV WR EH PHDVXUHG LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZHUH LGHQWLILHG )LQDOO\ VH[ GLIIHUHQFHV ZLOO EH LQYHVWLJDWHG DV SRVVLEOH LQIOXHQFHV RQ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ &XUUHQW 5HVHDUFK 6WXG\ 7KH IRFXV RI WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ LV WKH HIIHFW RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV RQ WKH YDOLGLW\ ZLWK ZKLFK LQWHUYLHZHUV PDNH SUHGLFWLRQV RI LQWHUYLHZHHVn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f RU WKH XWLOL]DWLRQ RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV &XH XWLOL]DWLRQ KDV EHHQ WKH IRFXV RI VHYHUDO UHVHDUFK VWXGLHV RQ WKH HIIHFW RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV RQ WKH IDYRUDELOLW\ RI LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV EXW LQYHVWLJDWLQJ WKLV TXHVWLRQ LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI D VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ LV XQLTXH $V SDUW RI VWUXFWXULQJ DQ

PAGE 94

LQWHUYLHZ UHVHDUFKHUV DQG SUDFWLWLRQHUV KDYH HPSKDVL]HG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI IRFXVLQJ LQWHUYLHZHUVn DWWHQWLRQ H[FOXVLYHO\ RQ WKH FRQWHQW RI DSSOLFDQWVn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f .LQLNL HW DOf DQG $PEDG\ DQG 5RVHQWKDO f KDYH DGGUHVVHG ZKHWKHU QRQYHUEDO FXHV DUH UHODWHG WR MRE SHUIRUPDQFH +RZHYHU WKHUH ZHUH VHYHUDO GHILFLHQFLHV LQ WKRVH VWXGLHV ZKLFK ZLOO EH RYHUFRPH LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ 7KH WKLUG DQG IRXUWK UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV DVN 'R QRQYHUEDO FXHV FRQWULEXWH LQFUHPHQWDOO\ WR YDOLGLW\ DIWHU LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV DUH WDNHQ LQWR DFFRXQW" DQG GR LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV FRQWULEXWH LQFUHPHQWDOO\ WR YDOLGLW\ DIWHU QRQYHUEDO FXHV DUH WDNHQ LQWR DFFRXQW" 7KHVH WZR TXHVWLRQV FRUUHVSRQG WR %UXQVZLNnV FRQFHSW RI DFKLHYHPHQW %RWK TXHVWLRQV DUH QHFHVVDU\ EHFDXVH WKHUH LV QR H[LVWLQJ HYLGHQFH UHJDUGLQJ WKHVH UHODWLRQV $JDLQ WKH LVVXH RI KRZ QRQYHUEDO FXHV LQIOXHQFH LQWHUYLHZ YDOLGLW\ KDV QRW \HW EHHQ VXIILFLHQWO\

PAGE 95

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n MXGJPHQWV 7KH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH HIIHFW RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV RQ LQWHUYLHZHU YDOLGLW\ LV LWVHOI LPSRUWDQW EHFDXVH XQWLO QRZ UHVHDUFK KDV RQO\ XVHG FULWHULD VXFK DV WKH IDYRUDELOLW\ RI UDWLQJV RU SHUVRQDOLW\ WUDLWV 7KLV VWXG\ ZLOO WDNH DQ LPSRUWDQW VWHS IXUWKHU E\ XVLQJ MREUHODWHG FULWHULD LH VXSHUYLVRU\ UDWLQJV RI SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH MREf WR DVVHVV WKH RYHUDOO HIIHFW RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV 7KH LVVXH RI YDOLGLW\ LV LPSRUWDQW WR PDQDJHUV DQG SUDFWLWLRQHUV DV ZHOO 7KH\ DUH LQWHUHVWHG LQ VLJQLILFDQW ZD\V WR LPSURYH LQWHUYLHZ YDOLGLW\ VLQFH YDOLGDWLRQ LV WKH SULPDU\ FULWHULD XVHG ZKHQ HVWDEOLVKLQJ WKH GHIHQVLELOLW\ DQG DSSURSULDWHQHVV RI VHOHFWLRQ SURFHGXUHV &URQVKDZ DQG :LHVQHU f /DVW E\ LQGHSHQGHQWO\ PHDVXULQJ PLFUROHYHO QRQYHUEDO FXHV ZH ZLOO EH DEOH WR WHDVH RXW WKH LQGLYLGXDO DQG

PAGE 96

FRPELQHG HIIHFWV RI WKRVH EHKDYLRUV RQ YDOLGLW\ 5HVHDUFKHUV DQG SUDFWLWLRQHUV DUH LQWHUHVWHG LQ NQRZLQJ QRW RQO\ ZKHWKHU QRQYHUEDO FXHV DUH DSSURSULDWHO\ XWLOL]HG EXW DOVR H[DFWO\ ZKLFK FXHV DUH XVHG WR PDNH YDOLG MXGJPHQWV )LQGLQJV RI WKLV VWXG\ FRXOG KDYH DQ LPSRUWDQW LPSDFW RQ WKH WUDLQLQJ RI LQWHUYLHZHUV

PAGE 97

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f 'R UDWHUV RI LQWHUYLHZHHV DWWHQG WR DQG XWLOL]H QRQYHUEDO FXHV LQ WKH LQWHUYLHZ" f $UH QRQYHUEDO FXHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH MRE" f 'R QRQYHUEDO FXHV FRQWULEXWH LQFUHPHQWDOO\ WR YDOLGLW\ DIWHU LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV DUH WDNHQ LQWR DFFRXQW" DQG f 'R LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV FRQWULEXWH LQFUHPHQWDOO\ WR YDOLGLW\ DIWHU QRQYHUEDO FXHV DUH WDNHQ LQWR DFFRXQW" 7KHVH UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV FRUUHVSRQG WR %UXQVZLNnV FRQFHSWV RI FXH XWLOL]DWLRQ HFRORJLFDO YDOLGLW\ DQG DFKLHYHPHQW UHVSHFWLYHO\

PAGE 98

&XH 8WLOL]DWLRQ :LWK UHJDUG WR WKH ILUVW UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ LW LV H[SHFWHG WKDW UDWHUV ZLOO DWWHQG WR DQG XWLOL]H QRQYHUEDO FXHV ZKHQ PDNLQJ LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV 7KLV H[SHFWDWLRQ LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH ILQGLQJV LQ WKH QRQYHUEDO FXH OLWHUDWXUH WKDW LQWHUYLHZHUV DWWHQG WR DQG XWLOL]H FXHV DQG WKDW WKHLU XVH DIIHFWV WKH IDYRUDELOLW\ RI WKHLU MXGJPHQWV )RUEHV DQG -DFNVRQ *LIIRUG HW DO +ROODQGVZRUWK HW DO ,PDGD DQG +DNHO 0F*RYHUQ 0F*RYHUQ DQG 7LQVOH\ 3DUVRQV DQG /LGHQ
PAGE 99

+\SRWKHVLV ,QWHUYLHZHHVn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f IRXQG WKDW UDWHUV ZKR ZHUH H[SRVHG WR RQO\ YLVXDO VRXUFHV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ ZHUH DEOH WR PDNH YDOLG LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV $PEDG\ DQG 5RVHQWKDO f UHSRUWHG VLPLODU UHVXOWV ZKHUH MXGJPHQWV RI FROOHJH WHDFKHUVn EDVHG RQ RQO\ WHDFKHUVn QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWRUV RI VWXGHQW HYDOXDWLRQV RI WHDFKHU HIIHFWLYHQHVV 7KXV LQIRUPDWLRQ FRPPXQLFDWHG WKURXJK QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU VHHPV WR EH DQ LPSRUWDQW LQGLFDWRU RI MRE SHUIRUPDQFH DQG VKRXOG QRW EH LJQRUHG 7KH VSHFLILF K\SRWKHVLV LV VWDWHG DV IROORZV +\SRWKHVLV ,QWHUYLHZHHVn QRQYHUEDO FXHV ZLOO EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ DQG SRVLWLYHO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK VXSHUYLVRU\ UDWLQJV RI MRE SHUIRUPDQFH

PAGE 100

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

PAGE 101

UHODWHG WR SHUIRUPDQFH WKHUH DUH DOVR WZR SRVVLEOH RXWFRPHV IRU WKH IRXUWK UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ (YHQ LI UDWHUV DWWHQG WR DQG XWLOL]H QRQYHUEDO FXHV RWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ QRW SURYLGHG E\ QRQYHUEDO FXHV EXW XWLOL]HG E\ UDWHUV FDQ FRQWULEXWH WR YDOLGLW\ 7KHUHIRUH LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV ZRXOG VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQFUHDVH YDOLGLW\ RYHU QRQYHUEDO FXHV DORQH $OWHUQDWLYHO\ LI UDWHUV RI WKH LQWHUYLHZV WRRN LQWR DFFRXQW RQO\ LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLGHG E\ QRQYHUEDO FXHV WKHQ WKH DGGLWLRQ RI LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV ZRXOG QRW FRQWULEXWH VLJQLILFDQWO\ WR YDOLGLW\ EHFDXVH LW ZRXOG EH UHGXQGDQW 0HWKRGV DQG 3URFHGXUHV ,Q WKLV VHFWLRQ WKH UHVHDUFK GHVLJQ DQG PHWKRGRORJ\ ZLOO EH GHVFULEHG DQG H[SODLQHG )LUVW LQWHUYLHZ SHUIRUPDQFH DQG QRQYHUEDO FXH PHDVXUHV ZLOO EH SUHVHQWHG 6HFRQG WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI WKH H[SHULPHQWDO LQWHUYLHZ WDSHV DQG WKH H[SHULPHQWDO QRQYHUEDO FXH WDSHV ZLOO EH H[SODLQHG 7KLUG WKH UHVXOWLQJ VDPSOH RI LQWHUYLHZHHV ZLOO EH GHVFULEHG )LQDOO\ SURFHGXUHV IROORZHG IRU WKH FROOHFWLRQ RI LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV DQG QRQYHUEDO FXH UDWLQJV ZLOO EH GLVFXVVHG

PAGE 102

'HYHORSPHQW RI 0HDVXUHV ,QWHUYLHZ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH PHDVXUHV 7KH LQWHUYLHZV GHYHORSHG DQG DGPLQLVWHUHG RQ YLGHRWDSH LQ WKH ILUVW SUHOLPLQDU\ VWXG\ ZHUH WKH VWLPXOXV LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ 7KH SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJV FROOHFWHG IURP VXSHUYLVRUV LQ WKH VDPH SUHOLPLQDU\ VWXG\ ZHUH DOVR XVHG DV WKH FULWHULRQ LQ WKLV FXUUHQW VWXG\ VHH SUHYLRXV FKDSWHU IRU GHWDLOVf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f 7KHVH GHILQLWLRQV DUH DV IROORZV

PAGE 103

*D]H" RFFXUV ZKHQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHH ORRNV LQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHUnV IDFH RU KHDG 6PLOLQJ RFFXUV ZKHQ WKH FRUQHU RI WKH OLSV DUH FXUOHG XSZDUG +DQG PRYHPHQW RFFXUV ZKHQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHH PRYHV RQH RU ERWK KDQGV ZKLFK LQFOXGHV WKH SDUW RI WKH ERG\ IURP WKH ZULVW WR WKH ILQJHUWLSV %DFNVLGH OHDQ RFFXUV ZKHQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV ERG\ LV WLOWHG LQ D EDFNZDUG RU VLGHZD\V GLUHFWLRQ 3DUDOOHO ERG\ RULHQWDWLRQ RFFXUV ZKHQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV ERG\ LV RULHQWHG WRZDUG WKH LQWHUYLHZHU 3K\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV LV WKH GHJUHH RI DSSHDO RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV SK\VLFDO DSSHDUDQFH 'UHVV LV FDWHJRUL]HG DFFRUGLQJ WR W\SH DQG FRORU 9RFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV LV WKH GHJUHH RI DSSHDO RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV YRLFH 1H[W WKH VFRULQJ VKHHWV DQG UDWLQJ VFDOHV WR PHDVXUH HDFK RI WKH QRQYHUEDO FXHV ZHUH GHYHORSHG 7KUHH GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI PHDVXUHV ZHUH QHHGHG IRU WKH G\QDPLF FXHV DWWUDFWLYHQHVV FXHV DQG GUHVV FXHV UHVSHFWLYHO\ '\QDPLF FXHV LQFOXGLQJ JD]H VPLOLQJ KDQG PRYHPHQWV EDFNVLGH OHDQ DQG SDUDOOHO ERG\ RULHQWDWLRQ ZHUH PHDVXUHG XVLQJ D FRXQWHUWLPHU GHYLFH $ VZLWFK DFWLYDWHG WKH FRXQWHUWLPHU HDFK WLPH LW ZDV SUHVVHG DQG D FXPXODWLYH UHFRUG ZDV NHSW RI WKH GXUDWLRQ DQG IUHTXHQF\ RI HDFK EHKDYLRU ,QGHSHQGHQW MXGJHV UHFRUGHG WKH GXUDWLRQ LQ VHFRQGV DQG IUHTXHQF\ RI WKH EHKDYLRU IURP WKH FRXQWHUWLPHU GHYLFH RQWR WKH VFRULQJ VKHHW 6FRULQJ VKHHWV DUH ORFDWHG LQ $SSHQGL[ )RU WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ KRZHYHU WKH DFWXDO WLPH DQ LQWHUYLHZHH VSHQW H[KLELWLQJ VSHFLILF QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRUV ZDV GHWHUPLQHG WR EH WKHRUHWLFDOO\ DQG

PAGE 104

SUDFWLFDOO\ PRUH LQWHUHVWLQJ WKDQ WKH IUHTXHQF\ RU QXPEHU RI VZLWFKHV IURP EHKDYLQJ WR QRW EHKDYLQJ $FFRUGLQJO\ IRU WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI G\QDPLF FXH EHKDYLRUV ZDV GURSSHG IURP IXUWKHU DQDO\VLV %RWK SK\VLFDO DQG YRFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV ZHUH PHDVXUHG XVLQJ WKH VDPH SRLQW VFDOH 7KLV VFDOH UDQJHG IURP YHU\ DWWUDFWLYH f WR YHU\ XQDWWUDFWLYH f 7KHVH UDWLQJ VFDOHV DUH ORFDWHG LQ $SSHQGL[ 'UHVV UDWLQJV ZHUH GLYLGHG LQWR WKUHH FDWHJRULHV IRU ERWK PHQ DQG ZRPHQ DQG LQFOXGHG WKH W\SH RI FORWKLQJ SUHVHQFH RI DFFHVVRULHV DQG GRPLQDQW FRORU RI FORWKLQJ $ SRLQW VFDOH ZDV GHYHORSHG WR UDWH WKH W\SH RI FORWKLQJ DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH OHYHO RI IRUPDOLW\ EOD]HU RU VXLW FRDW O QR MDFNHWGUHVV VKLUW PHQf RU EORXVH ZRPHQf 2 RWKHUFDVXDO VKLUWf $ SRLQW VFDOH ZDV GHYHORSHG WR UDWH WKH SUHVHQFH RI DFFHVVRULHV O WLH PHQf RU RQH RU PRUH DFFHVVRULHV ZRPHQf QR WLH PHQf QR DFFHVVRULHV ZRPHQff $QG D SRLQW VFDOH ZDV GHYHORSHG WR UDWH WKH GRPLQDQW FRORU RI LQWHUYLHZHHVn GUHVV GDUN PHGLXP GDUNQHVV O ZKLWH RU OLJKWf 7KHVH UDWLQJ VFDOHV FDQ EH IRXQG LQ $SSHQGL[ 3UHSDUDWLRQ RI 'LH ([SHULPHQWDO 9LGHRWDSHV 7DSHV IRU LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV 7KH RULJLQDO YLGHRWDSHG LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH GLYLGHG LQWR TXDUWLOHV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKHLU WRWDO SHUIRUPDQFH VFRUH 6L[W\

PAGE 105

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f ZHUH IURP WKH EHJLQQLQJ $ DQG %f IURP WKH PLGGOH DQG $ DQG %f IURP WKH HQG RI HDFK LQWHUYLHZ )RU H[DPSOH D PLQXWH LQWHUYLHZ ZDV GLYLGHG DV LQ )LJXUH )RU LQWHUYLHZV ORQJHU WKDQ PLQXWHV PLQXWH VHJPHQWV ZHUH WDNHQ IURP WKH EHJLQQLQJ PLQXWH VHJPHQWV IURP HLWKHU VLGH RI WKH PLGSRLQW DQG PLQXWH VHJPHQWV IURP WKH HQG )RU LQWHUYLHZV OHVV WKDQ PLQXWHV WKH

PAGE 106

LQWHUYLHZ ZDV GLYLGHG LQWR HTXDO SDUWV EHJLQQLQJ PLGGOH DQG HQGf DQG PLQXWH VHJPHQWV ZHUH WDNHQ IURP HDFK SDUW )RU LQWHUYLHZV PLQXWHV RU PRUH QR RYHUODSf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f IURP HDFK RI WKH LQWHUYLHZV $ VHFRQG JURXS RI WDSHV FRQWDLQHG SRUWLRQ % EHJLQQLQJ PLGGOH DQG HQGf IURP HDFK RI WKH LQWHUYLHZV 7KHVH WDSHV ZHUH UHFRUGHG ZLWKRXW WKH VRXQG $GGLWLRQDOO\ D VHFRQG SDXVH ZDV UHFRUGHG EHWZHHQ HDFK PLQXWH VHJPHQW EHJLQQLQJ PLGGOH DQG HQGf DQG EHWZHHQ HDFK LQWHUYLHZHH SUHVHQWHG -XGJHV ZHUH DEOH WR PDNH WKHLU UDWLQJV GXULQJ WKHVH SDXVHV $ GLIIHUHQW YLGHRWDSH ZDV SUHSDUHG IRU WKH SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV DQG GUHVV UDWLQJV 2Q WKLV WDSH VHFRQG VHJPHQWV ZHUH UHFRUGHG IURP WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI HDFK LQWHUYLHZ

PAGE 107

ZKHUH WKH LQWHUYLHZHH ZDV QHLWKHU PRYLQJ QRU WDONLQJ 7KHVH VHFRQG VHJPHQWV ZHUH UHFRUGHG ZLWKRXW WKH VRXQG $ VHFRQG SDXVH ZDV UHFRUGHG EHWZHHQ WKH SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI HDFK LQWHUYLHZHH WR JLYH MXGJHV WLPH WR PDNH WKHLU UDWLQJV $ WKLUG YLGHRWDSH ZDV FUHDWHG IRU WKH YRFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV UDWLQJV $ YLGHRWDSH ZDV XVHG IRU WKHVH UHFRUGLQJV UDWKHU WKDQ DQ DXGLRWDSH LQ RUGHU WR SUHVHUYH WKH TXDOLW\ RI WKH UHSURGXFWLRQ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHHVn YRLFH :KHQ MXGJHV UDWH YRFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV WKH SLFWXUH ZDV FRQFHDOHG 2Q WKLV WDSH VHFRQG VHJPHQWV ZHUH UHFRUGHG RI HDFK LQWHUYLHZHH WDONLQJ 7KH SRUWLRQ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ XVHG IRU WKHVH UHFRUGLQJV ZDV ZKHQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHU DVNHG HDFK LQWHUYLHZHH ZKLFK W\SH RI LQWHUYLHZ TXHVWLRQ WKH\ SUHIHUUHG 7KH DFWXDO TXHVWLRQ ZDV $V \RX NQRZ ZH XVHG WZR W\SHV RI TXHVWLRQV LQ WKLV LQWHUYLHZ SDVWRULHQWHG DQG WKH K\SRWKHWLFDO :KLFK W\SH GR \RX WKLQN DSSOLFDQWV ZRXOG SUHIHU" :KLFK W\SH VHHPHG PRUH UHOHYDQW WR \RXU MRE" 7KLV SRUWLRQ ZDV FKRVHQ EHFDXVH RI LWV QHXWUDO FRQWHQW DQG DOVR EHFDXVH UHVSRQVHV ZHUH VLPLODU DFURVV SDUWLFLSDQWV $ VHFRQG SDXVH ZDV UHFRUGHG EHWZHHQ WKH SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI HDFK LQWHUYLHZHH WR JLYH MXGJHV WLPH WR PDNH WKHLU UDWLQJV 6DPSOH RI ,QWHUYLHZHHV 2I WKH WRWDO LQWHUYLHZHHV ZHUH IURP FRPSDQ\ $ IURP FRPSDQ\ % IURP FRPSDQ\ & DQG IURP FRPSDQ\ 7KLUW\WZR LQWHUYLHZHHV ZHUH PDOH DQG IHPDOH ZLWK D PHDQ

PAGE 108

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b IHPDOH 7KHLU DJHV UDQJHG IURP WR \HDUV ROG ZLWK D PHDQ DJH RI 7KH PDMRULW\ RI WKH UDWHUV ZHUH ZKLWH ZHUH EODFN +LVSDQLF $VLDQ FODVVLILHG

PAGE 109

KLPKHUVHOI DV RWKHU LQ UDFH DQG UDWHUV GLG QRW UHSRUW WKHLU UDFH 0RVW ZHUH FROOHJH MXQLRUV bf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f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n UHVSRQVHV )LQDOO\ WKH WUDLQHU UHFRPPHQGHG WKDW UDWHUV XVH WKH VSDFH SURYLGHG XQGHU HDFK TXHVWLRQ LQ WKHLU SDFNHW WR WDNH QRWHV UHJDUGLQJ LQWHUYLHZHHVn UHVSRQVHV 7KH\ ZHUH DOVR LQVWUXFWHG WR ZDLW XQWLO WKH HQG RI HDFK LQWHUYLHZ WR PDNH WKHLU UDWLQJV RQ HDFK LQWHUYLHZHH 7KH\ FRXOG UHIHU EDFN WR WKHLU QRWHV ZKHQ PDNLQJ WKHLU UDWLQJV

PAGE 110

$W WKLV SRLQW UDWHUV ZDWFKHG D SUDFWLFH LQWHUYLHZ DQG PDGH SUDFWLFH LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV 7KLV JDYH WKHP DQ RSSRUWXQLW\ WR OLVWHQ WR DQ LQWHUYLHZHHnV UHVSRQVHV VHH DQ LQWHUYLHZHH DQG PDNH UDWLQJV RQ WKH IRXU VFDOHV VHH $SSHQGL[ $f &ROOHFWLRQ RI LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV $IWHU YLHZLQJ WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO WDSH DQG SUDFWLFH LQWHUYLHZ UDWHUV ZDWFKHG DQG OLVWHQHG WR IRXU LQWHUYLHZV $IWHU WKH\ YLHZHG HDFK LQWHUYLHZ WKH\ PDGH WKHLU UDWLQJV $W WKH HQG RI WKH VHVVLRQ UDWHUV DQVZHUHG WKUHH PDQLSXODWLRQ FKHFN TXHVWLRQV DQG SURYLGHG GHPRJUDSKLF LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KH WKUHH PDQLSXODWLRQ FKHFN TXHVWLRQV ZHUH f +RZ FRQFHUQHG ZHUH \RX ZLWK PDNLQJ DFFXUDWH UDWLQJV RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHHV" YHU\ FRQFHUQHG QRW YHU\ FRQFHUQHGf f :HUH WKH GHILQLWLRQV DQG OHYHOV KLJK PRGHUDWH ORZf RI WKH UDWLQJ GLPHQVLRQV OHDGHUVKLS WHDPZRUN GULYH SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]LQJ FOHDU DQG XQGHUVWDQGDEOH WR \RX" YHU\ FOHDU O YHU\ XQFOHDUf f +RZ PXFK LQIRUPDWLRQ GLG \RX IHHO \RX KDG WR PDNH WKH UDWLQJV" D JUHDW GHDO RI LQIRUPDWLRQ O KDUGO\ DQ\ LQIRUPDWLRQf (DFK JURXS RI UDWHUV ZDWFKHG LQWHUYLHZV 7KLV UHVXOWHG LQ GLIIHUHQW JURXSV ZKR YLHZHG DOO LQWHUYLHZV 9LHZLQJ JURXSV FRQVLVWHG RI D PLQLPXP RI DQG D PD[LPXP RI UDWHUV 7KHUH ZHUH WRWDO UDWHUV 7KH HQWLUH VHVVLRQ LQFOXGLQJ WUDLQLQJ DQG WKH YLHZLQJ DQG UDWLQJ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHHV WRRN DSSUR[LPDWHO\ KRXU DQG PLQXWHV

PAGE 111

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

PAGE 112

6HFRQG HDFK SDLU RI MXGJHV UDWHG GLIIHUHQW VHWV RI LQWHUYLHZHHV IRU HDFK QRQYHUEDO FXH )RU H[DPSOH WKH ILUVW SDLU RI MXGJHV ZKR UDWHG LQWHUYLHZHHV WKURXJK IRU JD]H UDWHG LQWHUYLHZHHV WKURXJK IRU VPLOH 7DEOH $VVLJQPHQW RI LQWHUYLHZV WR G\QDPLF FXH MXGJHV '<1$0,& &8( -8'*(6 9$5,$%/(6 $ *D]H $ % $ % $ % 6PLOH $ % $ % $ % +DQG 0RYHPHQW $ % $ % $ % %DFN6LGH /HDQ % $ % $ % $ 3DUDOOHO 2ULHQWDWLRQ % $ % $ % $ 1RWH 1XPEHUV LQ FHOOV UHSUHVHQW LQWHUYLHZHHV f DQG OHWWHUV LQ FHOOV UHSUHVHQW WKH SRUWLRQ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ UDWHG $ RU %f 3RUWLRQV $ DQG % HDFK LQFOXGH PLQXWH VHJPHQWV IURP WKH EHJLQQLQJ PLGGOH DQG HQG RI HDFK LQWHUYLHZ WKURXJK IRU KDQG PRYHPHQWV WKURXJK DJDLQ IRU EDFNVLGH OHDQ DQG WKURXJK DJDLQ IRU SDUDOOHO ERG\ RULHQWDWLRQ 7KLUG ZLWKLQ SDLUV HDFK MXGJH UDWHG HLWKHU WKH $ RU % SRUWLRQ RI WKH VHJPHQWV )RU H[DPSOH IRU WKH ILUVW SDLU RI MXGJHV UDWLQJ JD]H MXGJH ZRXOG UDWH SRUWLRQ $ IRU LQWHUYLHZHHV WKURXJK DQG MXGJH ZRXOG UDWH SRUWLRQ % IRU WKH VDPH LQWHUYLHZHHV :KHQ WKH VHW RI LQWHUYLHZHHV

PAGE 113

ZDV UHSHDWHG WKH MXGJH ZKR KDG UDWHG SRUWLRQ $ SUHYLRXVO\ ZRXOG WKHQ UDWH SRUWLRQ % IRU WKH VDPH LQWHUYLHZHHV DQG YLFH YHUVD IRU WKH RWKHU MXGJH 7KHUHIRUH QR MXGJH HYHU UDWHG WKH VDPH LQWHUYLHZHH RQ WKH VDPH EHKDYLRU WZLFH VHH 7DEOH f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f -XGJHV RQFH DJDLQ ZDWFKHG VHFRQG VHJPHQWV RI

PAGE 114

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f ,QWHUYLHZ GLPHQVLRQ VFRUHV ZHUH DYHUDJHG DFURVV UDWHUV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH QXPEHU RI UDWHUV SHU LQWHUYLHZHH 5HOLDELOLW\ RI ,QWHUYLHZ DQG 3HUIRUPDQFH 'LPHQVLRQV DQG WKH &UHDWLRQ RI 7RWDO 6FRUHV 7KH LQWHUFRUUHODWLRQV RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ GLPHQVLRQ VFRUHV PDGH E\ VWXGHQW UDWHUV UDQJHG IURP WR ZLWK DQ DYHUDJH FRUUHODWLRQ RI 1 f $V D UHVXOW WKH

PAGE 115

GLPHQVLRQ VFRUHV ZHUH FRPELQHG LQWR D WRWDO LQWHUYLHZ VFRUH IRU HDFK LQWHUYLHZHH 7KH LQWHUFRUUHODWLRQV RI WKH SHUIRUPDQFH GLPHQVLRQ VFRUHV PDGH E\ VXSHUYLVRUV UDQJHG IURP WR ZLWK DQ DYHUDJH FRUUHODWLRQ RI 1 f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

PAGE 116

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

PAGE 117

ZLWKLQ SDLUV RI MXGJHV ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV SDLUV RI MXGJHV ZKR UDWHG GLIIHUHQW SRUWLRQV RI WKH VDPH LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH FRUUHODWHG ZLWK RQH DQRWKHU LH ZLWK ZLWK DQG ZLWK f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

PAGE 118

7KHVH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWH WKH UHOLDELOLW\ RI G\QDPLF QRQYHUEDO FXH UDWLQJV 7KHUHIRUH WKH UDWLQJV PDGH E\ HDFK SDLU RI MXGJHV ZHUH VXPPHG WR IRUP RQH VFRUH IRU HDFK G\QDPLF FXH IRU HDFK LQWHUYLHZHH 5HOLDELOLWLHV RI VWDWLF DQG SDUDOLQJXLVWLF FXH UDWLQJV 3K\VLFDO DQG YRFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV ZHUH UDWLQJV PDGH E\ ILYH MXGJHV RI DOO LQWHUYLHZHHV ZHUH FRUUHODWHG 7KH DYHUDJH FRUUHODWLRQ ZDV IRU SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV DQG IRU YRFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV 1 f 7KH 6SHDUPDQ%URZQ IRUPXOD ZDV XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH FRUUHODWLRQ IRU ILYH MXGJHV 7KH FRUUHFWHG FRUUHODWLRQ IRU SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV ZDV DQG IRU YRFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV 5DWLQJV PDGH E\ WKH ILYH MXGJHV ZHUH DYHUDJHG WR IRUP D PHDQ SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV VFRUH DQG PHDQ YRFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV VFRUH IRU HDFK LQWHUYLHZHH 5DWLQJV RI GUHVV ZHUH PDGH E\ IRXU RI WKH VDPH MXGJHV $OO IRXU MXGJHV UDWHG DOO LQWHUYLHZHHV 7KH DYHUDJH FRUUHODWLRQ DFURVV WKHVH IRXU MXGJHV IRU WKH W\SH RI GUHVV ZDV IRU WKH DFFHVVRULHV RI GUHVV ZDV DQG IRU WKH FRORU RI GUHVV ZDV 7KH IRXU MXGJHVn UDWLQJV IRU HDFK DVSHFW RI GUHVV ZHUH VXPPHG DQG LQWHUFRUUHODWHG 7KH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ W\SH DQG DFFHVVRULHV ZDV EHWZHHQ W\SH DQG FRORU ZDV DQG EHWZHHQ DFFHVVRULHV DQG FRORU ZDV 1 f %DVHG RQ WKH UHVXOWV RI WKHVH WZR DQDO\VHV WKDW WKHUH ZDV OHVV DJUHHPHQW RQ WKH DVSHFW RI DFFHVVRULHV EHWZHHQ

PAGE 119

MXGJHV DQG WKHUH ZHUH VPDOO FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ DFFHVVRULHV DQG RWKHU DVSHFWV RI GUHVV WKH DFFHVVRU\ YDULDEOH ZDV GURSSHG IURP IXUWKHU FRQVLGHUDWLRQ $ GUHVV WRWDO VFRUH ZDV FRPSXWHG IRU HDFK LQWHUYLHZHH E\ MXGJH ZKLFK ZDV WKH VXP RI WKH W\SH DQG FRORU RI GUHVV VFRUHV 7KHUHIRUH HDFK LQWHUYLHZHH KDG IRXU GUHVV WRWDO VFRUHV FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR WKH IRXU MXGJHVn UDWLQJV 7KH FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKHVH IRXU VFRUHV UDQJHG IURP WR ZLWK DQ DYHUDJH FRUUHODWLRQ RI FRUUHFWHG E\ 6SHDUPDQ%URZQ IRU IRXU MXGJHV f $V D UHVXOW DQ DYHUDJH GUHVV VFRUH ZDV FRPSXWHG IRU HDFK LQWHUYLHZHH ZKLFK ZDV WKH DYHUDJH RI WKH IRXU MXGJHVn GUHVV WRWDO VFRUHV 7KH &UHDWLRQ DQG 5HOLDELOLW\ RI D &RPSRVLWH 1RQYHUEDO &XH 9DULDEOH ,Q WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ QRQYHUEDO FXHV ZHUH GHILQHG DQG PHDVXUHG DW D PLFURVFRSLF OHYHO 7KHVH PHDVXUHV DOORZ IRU WKH DQDO\VLV RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV DV HLWKHU LQGLYLGXDO YDULDEOHV RU LQ FRPELQDWLRQ 7KH SULPDU\ DQDO\VLV ZLOO XVH D FRPELQDWLRQ RI DOO HLJKW RI WKH QRQYHUEDO FXHV PHDVXUHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KLV FRPSRVLWH FXH UHSUHVHQWV D PHDQLQJIXO ZKROH RI LQWHUYLHZHHVn QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU 7KH VLQJOH FRPSRVLWH QRQYHUEDO FXH YDULDEOH ZDV FDOFXODWHG E\ DGGLQJ WRJHWKHU VWDQGDUGL]HG YDOXHV RI JD]H VPLOH KDQG PRYHPHQWV EDFNVLGH OHDQ UHYHUVH VFRUHGf SDUDOOHO ERG\ RULHQWDWLRQ SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV GUHVV DQG YRFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV 6WDQGDUGL]HG YDULDEOHV ZHUH XVHG

PAGE 120

,OO GXH WR VXEVWDQWLDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV ,W LV LPSRUWDQW WR QRWH WKDW WKHVH FXHV ZHUH FRPELQHG RQ WKHRUHWLFDO DQG ORJLFDO JURXQGV QRW EHFDXVH WKH\ ZHUH KLJKO\ LQWHUFRUUHODWHG RU UHSUHVHQWHG RQH FRPPRQ IDFWRU ,Q IDFW WKH LQGLYLGXDO QRQYHUEDO FXHV KDG JHQHUDOO\ ORZ LQWHUFRUUHODWLRQV LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW WKH\ ZHUH LQGHSHQGHQW RI RQH DQRWKHU 7KH %UXQVZLN OHQV PRGHO UHTXLUHV WKDW PXOWLSOH FXHV QRW EH KLJKO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK RQH DQRWKHU 3DXQRQHQ f 3DXQRQHQ f DUJXHG WKDW ORZ LQWHUFRUUHODWLRQV DQG WKXV PLQLPDO UHGXQGDQF\ DUH GHVLUDEOH WR HQVXUH WKDW HDFK QRQYHUEDO FXH KDV D XQLTXH FRQWULEXWLRQ IRU WKH SUHGLFWLRQ RI WKH FULWHULRQ ,QWHUFRUUHODWLRQV RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO QRQYHUEDO FXH YDULDEOHV ZKLFK FRPSULVH WKH WRWDO FXH YDULDEOH DUH GLVSOD\HG LQ 7DEOH 7KH LQWHUFRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH FXHV DUH ORZ DQG JHQHUDOO\ QRQVLJQLILFDQW 7KH DYHUDJH FRUUHODWLRQ DPRQJ DOO FXHV LV +RZHYHU JD]H ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ DQG SRVLWLYHO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK SDUDOOHO ERG\ RULHQWDWLRQ DQG SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV DQG QHJDWLYHO\ ZLWK GUHVV $OVR QRWH WKH VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ EDFNVLGH OHDQ DQG SDUDOOHO ERG\ RULHQWDWLRQ 7KLV UHODWLRQ LV QRW VXUSULVLQJ JLYHQ WKDW ERWK RI WKHVH YDULDEOHV DUH HOHPHQWV RI SRVWXUH 1RQYHUEDO FXHV FDQ DOVR EH DQDO\]HG LQGLYLGXDOO\ DW WKH PLFURVFRSLF OHYHO 7ZR DGGLWLRQDO VHWV RI FXHV ZLOO DOVR EH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH GDWD DQDO\VLV 7KHVH VHFRQGDU\ DQDO\VHV ZLOO

PAGE 121

EH FRQGXFWHG WR REWDLQ D EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH XQGHUO\LQJ HIIHFWV RI WKH FRPSRVLWH QRQYHUEDO FXH YDULDEOH 7DEOH ,QWHUFRUUHODWLRQV DPRQJ LQGLYLGXDO QRQYHUEDO FXH YDULDEOHV 1RQYHUEDO &XHV *D]H 6PLOH +DQG 0RYHPHQW %DFN6LGH /HDQ R 3DUDOOHO %RG\ 2ULHQWDWLRQ r rr 3K\VLFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV r 'UHVV rr R 9RFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV O R O R 1 S S WZRWDLOHGf )LUVW QRQYHUEDO FXHV ZHUH GLYLGHG DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH W\SH RI FXHV UHSUHVHQWHG G\QDPLF DQG VWDWLF DQG D QHZ YDULDEOH ZDV FRPSXWHG IRU HDFK W\SH RI FXH 7KH G\QDPLF FXH YDULDEOH FRQVLVWHG RI WKH VXP RI JD]H VPLOLQJ KDQG PRYHPHQWV EDFNVLGH OHDQ UHYHUVH VFRUHGf DQG SDUDOOHO ERG\ RULHQWDWLRQ 7KH VWDWLF FXHV RI SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV DQG GUHVV ZHUH FRPELQHG WR IRUP DQRWKHU FRPSRVLWH YDULDEOH

PAGE 122

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n SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJV 7KH ILUVW PRGHO FRUUHVSRQGV WR WKH WKLUG UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ ,QWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV ZHUH HQWHUHG LQWR WKH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ ILUVW WKHQ WKH QRQYHUEDO FXHV ZHUH DGGHG ,I WKH FKDQJH LQ WKH PXOWLSOH FRUUHODWLRQ LV VLJQLILFDQW WKHQ

PAGE 123

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

PAGE 124

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f DERXW WKH DFFXUDF\ RI WKHLU UDWLQJV 1H[W UDWHUV UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH LQWHUYLHZ GLPHQVLRQV ZHUH FOHDU DQG XQGHUVWDQGDEOH PHDQ VG f )LQDOO\ VWXGHQW UDWHUV UHSRUWHG WKDW RQ DYHUDJH WKH\ KDG D PRGHUDWH WR FRQVLGHUDEOH DPRXQW RI LQIRUPDWLRQ WR PDNH WKHLU UDWLQJV PHDQ VG f 7RWDO 6DPSOH $QDO\VHV 'HVFULSWLYH $QDO\VHV RI 9DULDEOHV 7KH PHDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ VFRUHV SHUIRUPDQFH VFRUHV DQG QRQYHUEDO FXH WRWDO DUH IRXQG

PAGE 125

LQ 7DEOH &RUUHODWLRQV RI WKHVH YDULDEOHV ZLWK LQWHUYLHZHHVn VH[ DJH UDFH DQG MRE WHQXUH DUH DOVR SUHVHQWHG $ FOHDUHU LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH QRQYHUEDO FXH WRWDO FDQ EH DFKLHYHG E\ ORRNLQJ DW WKH LQGLYLGXDO QRQYHUEDO FXHV ZKRVH PHDQV VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV DQG FRUUHODWLRQV ZLWK GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV DUH DOVR SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH 7DEOH 0HDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV RI LQWHUYLHZ SHUIRUPDQFH DQG QRQYHUEDO FXH YDULDEOHV DQG WKHLU FRUUHODWLRQV ZLWK GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV &RUUHODWLRQV -RE 9DULDEOHV 0HDQ V G 6H[ $FUH 5DFH 7HQXUH ,QWHUYLHZ 6FRUH 3HUIRUPDQFH L r r 1RQYHUEDO &XH 7RWDO VWG]HGf *D]H rr 6PLOH L rr +DQG 0RYHPHQWV L %DFN6LGH /HDQ L 3DUDOOHO %RG\ 2ULHQWDWLRQ L r 3K\VLFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV L rr 'UHVV L L 9RFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV r 1 r S rr S WZR WDLOHGf

PAGE 126

1RQH RI WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV RU WRWDO QRQYHUEDO FXHV +RZHYHU DJH DQG UDFH ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJV $JH DQG UDFH ZHUH DOVR PDUJLQDOO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK HDFK RWKHU DW S f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f ZLWK LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV DQG ZLWK SHUIRUPDQFH S 1 f 1RQYHUEDO FXHV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ERWK LQWHUYLHZ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJV 7KLV VXSSRUWV +\SRWKHVHV DQG DQG LQGLFDWHV WKDW UDWHUV DUH XWLOL]LQJ QRQYHUEDO FXHV DQG WKRVH FXHV DUH YDOLG

PAGE 127

&RUUHODWLRQV RI &DWHJRULFDO DQG ,QGLYLGXDO 1RQYHUEDO &XHV ZLWK ,QWHUYLHZ DQG 3HUIRUPDQFH 5DWLQJV ,Q RUGHU WR REWDLQ D EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH XQGHUO\LQJ HIIHFWV RI WKH QRQYHUEDO FXH WRWDO WKH HIIHFWV RI HDFK W\SH RI FXH G\QDPLF DQG VWDWLF DQG YRFDO DQG LQGLYLGXDO FXHV ZHUH H[DPLQHG 7KH FRUUHODWLRQV RI WKH FDWHJRULFDO FXHV DQG WKH LQGLYLGXDO FXHV ZLWK LQWHUYLHZ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJV DUH IRXQG LQ 7DEOH 7DEOH &RUUHODWLRQV RI FDWHJRULFDO DQG LQGLYLGXDO QRQYHUEDO FXHV ZLWK LQWHUYLHZ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJV 1RQYHUEDO &XHV ,QWHUYLHZ 3HUIRUPDQFH '\QDPLF &XHV r 6WDWLF &XHV *D]H 6PLOH +DQG 0RYHPHQW %DFN6LGH /HDQ 3DUDOOHO %RG\ 2ULHQWDWLRQ 3K\VLFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV r 'UHVV 9RFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV r 1 W S r S RQH WDLOHGf

PAGE 128

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f :KHQ RWKHU QRQYHUEDO FXHV DUH DGGHG WR JD]H IRU DV D FRPSRVLWH RI G\QDPLF FXHV WKH FRUUHODWLRQ RI WKRVH FRPELQHG YDULDEOHV ZLWK SHUIRUPDQFH GHFUHDVHV WR *D]H VHHPV WR EH D NH\ QRQYHUEDO FXH IRU LQWHUYLHZ YDOLGLW\ 7KH ,QFUHPHQWDO 9DOLGLW\ RI ,QWHUYLHZ 6FRUHV DQG 1RQYHUEDO &XHV %HIRUH DVVHVVLQJ WKH LQFUHPHQWDO YDOLGLW\ RI LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV DQG QRQYHUEDO FXHV WKH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV DQG SHUIRUPDQFH ZDV FRPSXWHG 7KLV FRUUHODWLRQ ZDV Sf LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW WKHUH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW FRQFXUUHQW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ 1H[W WKH WKLUG DQG IRXUWK UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV ZHUH WHVWHG E\ GHWHUPLQLQJ WKH LQFUHPHQWDO YDOLGLW\ RI LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV DQG QRQYHUEDO FXHV 7KLV DQDO\VLV ZDV FRQGXFWHG LQ WZR VWHSV )LUVW WKH UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO ZLWK RQO\ LQWHUYLHZ VFRUHV ZDV FRPSDUHG WR WKH PRGHO ZLWK LQWHUYLHZ VFRUHV DQG WKH

PAGE 129

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

PAGE 130

7DEOH 5HJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VLV RI LQFUHPHQWDO YDOLGLW\ RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV DQG LQWHUYLHZ VFRUHV 'HSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 3HUIRUPDQFH 6FRUH ,QFUHPHQWDO 9DOLGLW\ RI 1RQYHUEDO &XHV ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV $U ,QWHUYLHZ ( 6FRUHV ,QWHUYLHZ 6FRUH 1RQYHUEDO &XHV ,QFUHPHQWDO 9DOLGLW\ RI ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV $U ( 1RQYHUEDO &XHV ,QWHUYLHZ 6FRUH r 1 r S rr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

PAGE 131

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f *D]H 6PLOH +DQG 0RYHPHQWV

PAGE 132

7DEOH f§FRQWLQXHG %DFN6LGH /HDQ 3DUDOOHO %RG\ 2ULHQWDWLRQ r 3K\VLFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV 'UHVV 9RFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV 0DOHV 1 )HPDOHV 1 r S ,QWHUFRUUHODWLRQV RI LQGLYLGXDO QRQYHUEDO FXHV $OWKRXJK QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU GRHV QRW VHHP WR GLIIHU DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH VH[ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHH LQWHUFRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ LQGLYLGXDO QRQYHUEDO FXHV GLG GLIIHU E\ VH[ ,QWHUFRUUHODWLRQV RI LQGLYLGXDO QRQYHUEDO FXH YDULDEOHV IRU PHQ DQG ZRPHQ DUH GLVSOD\HG LQ 7DEOH 6WURQJ LQWHUFRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ EDFNVLGH OHDQ DQG SDUDOOHO ERG\ RULHQWDWLRQ ZHUH IRXQG IRU ERWK VH[HV EXW RWKHU VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQV GLIIHUHG E\ VH[ )RU PHQ JD]H ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR EDFNVLGH OHDQ DQG SK\VLFDO DQG YRFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR HDFK RWKHU )RU ZRPHQ VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQV LQFOXGHG JD]H ZLWK KDQG PRYHPHQW JD]H ZLWK GUHVV QHJDWLYHO\f DQG VPLOLQJ ZLWK SDUDOOHO ERG\ RULHQWDWLRQ 7KHVH GLIIHUHQW LQWHUFRUUHODWLRQV LPSO\ WKDW ZKLOH LQGLYLGXDO FXHV GR QRW GLIIHU DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH VH[ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHH VH[ GRHV SOD\

PAGE 133

D UROH LQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DQG SRVVLEO\ FRRFFXUHQFH RI EHKDYLRUV 7DEOH ,QWHUFRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ LQGLYLGXDO QRQYHUEDO FXH YDULDEOHV E\ VH[ RI LQWHUYLHZHH 1RQYHUEDO &XHV £ *D]H r rr 6PLOH +DQG 0RYHPHQW %DFN6LGH /HDQ r r 3DUDOOHO %RG\ 2ULHQWDWLRQ rr 3K\VLFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV 'UHVV 9RFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV r )RU PDOHV 1 f r S rr S WZRWDLOHGf )RU IHPDOHV 1 f r S rr S WZRWDLOHGf 1RWH &RUUHODWLRQV IRU PDOH LQWHUYLHZHHV DSSHDU EHORZ WKH GLDJRQDO DQG FRUUHODWLRQV IRU IHPDOH LQWHUYLHZHHV DSSHDU DERYH WKH GLDJRQDO &RUUHODWLRQV RI WKH 7RWDO 1RQYHUEDO &XH 9DULDEOH ZLWK ,QWHUYLHZ DQG 3HUIRUPDQFH 5DWLQJV &RUUHODWLRQV RI WKH WRWDO QRQYHUEDO FXH YDULDEOH ZLWK LQWHUYLHZ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJV ZHUH FRPSXWHG VHSDUDWHO\

PAGE 134

IRU PDOH DQG IHPDOH LQWHUYLHZHHV )RU PHQ QRQYHUEDO FXHV FRUUHODWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV U S 1 f EXW QRW ZLWK SHUIRUPDQFH U QVf )RU ZRPHQ QRQYHUEDO FXHV ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ERWK LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV U S 1 f DQG SHUIRUPDQFH U S 1 f 7KH FRUUHODWLRQ FRHIILFLHQWV RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV ZLWK SHUIRUPDQFH ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW EHWZHHQ PHQ DQG ZRPHQ ] Sf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

PAGE 135

ERWK LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV DQG SHUIRUPDQFH 6WDWLF FXHV DOVR FRUUHODWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK SHUIRUPDQFH IRU ZRPHQ 1H[W LQGLYLGXDO QRQYHUEDO FXHV ZHUH FRUUHODWHG ZLWK LQWHUYLHZ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJV VHSDUDWHO\ IRU PHQ DQG ZRPHQ 7KHVH UHVXOWV DUH DOVR UHSRUWHG LQ 7DEOH 7DEOH &RUUHODWLRQV RI LQWHUYLHZ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH VFRUHV ZLWK FDWHJRULFDO DQG LQGLYLGXDO QRQYHUEDO FXH YDULDEOHV IRU PDOH DQG IHPDOH LQWHUYLHZHHV 0DOHV )HPDOHV 1RQYHUEDO &XHV ,QWYZ 3HUI ,QWYZ 3HUI '\QDPLF &XHV r rrr 6WDWLF &XHV r *D]H r r 6PLOH r +DQG 0RYHPHQW r %DFN6LGH /HDQ 3DUDOOHO %RG\ 2ULHQWDWLRQ 3K\VLFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV r 'UHVV 9RFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV 0DOHV 1 )HPDOHV 1 r S rrr S RQHWDLOHGf )RU PHQ JD]H ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK LQWHUYLHZ VFRUH DQG SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV ZDV PDUJLQDOO\ UHODWHG S f )RU ZRPHQ QRQH RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO QRQYHUEDO

PAGE 136

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f DQG IRU ZRPHQ LW ZDV Sf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

PAGE 137

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f 'HSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 3HUIRUPDQFH 6FRUH ,QFUHPHQWDO 9DOLGLW\ RI 1RQYHUEDO &XHV 0DOHV )HPDOHV ,QGHRHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV $( H $5 ( ,QWHUYLHZ 6FRUH 1RQYHUEDO &XHV rrr ,QFUHPHQWDO 9DOLGLW\ RI ,QWHUYLHZ 6FRUVD 0DOHV )HPDOHV ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV $5 ( $5 ( 1RQYHUEDO &XHV ,QWHUYLHZ 6FRUH )RU PDOHV 1 IRU IHPDOHV &0 ,, r S rr S rrr S 7KH LQFUHPHQWDO YDOLGLW\ RI LQWHUYLHZ VFRUHV GLG QRW GLIIHU E\ VH[ )RU ERWK PHQ DQG ZRPHQ LQWHUYLHZHHV WKH

PAGE 138

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f DQG WKH DVVRFLDWHG ORVV RI VWDWLVWLFDO SRZHU

PAGE 139

',6&866,21 $1' &21&/86,216 &XH 8WLOL]DWLRQ DQG WKH (FRORJLFDO 9DOLGLW\ RI 1RQYHUEDO &XHV &RQVLVWHQW ZLWK VHYHUDO RWKHU VWXGLHV LW ZDV IRXQG LQ WKLV VWXG\ WKDW LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV ZHUH IDYRUDEO\ LQIOXHQFHG E\ LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLGHG E\ LQWHUYLHZHHVn QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU ,QWHUYLHZHHVn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f DQG $PEDG\ DQG 5RVHQWKDO f 0RWRZLGOR DQG %XUQHWW f IRXQG WKDW UDWLQJV EDVHG RQO\ RQ YLVXDO FXHV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK VXSHUYLVRU\ UDWLQJV RI SHUIRUPDQFH $PEDG\ DQG 5RVHQWKDO f VLPLODUO\ UHSRUWHG WKDW UDWLQJV RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK UDWLQJV RI WHDFKHU HIIHFWLYHQHVV 7KXV LW PD\ EH LQIHUUHG WKDW LPSRUWDQW DQG UHOHYDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW DQ LQWHUYLHZHHVn

PAGE 140

SRWHQWLDO WR SHUIRUP ZHOO RQ WKH MRE PD\ EH FRPPXQLFDWHG WKURXJK LQWHUYLHZHHVn QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU 7KLV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ VXJJHVWV WKDW VXSHUYLVRUV ZKR UDWHG LQFXPEHQWVn MRE SHUIRUPDQFH FRUUHFWO\ LQWHUSUHWHG QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRUV H[KLELWHG RQ WKH MRE DV YDOLG LQGLFDWRUV RI PDQDJHPHQW HIIHFWLYHQHVV 7KLV H[SODQDWLRQ LV EDVHG RQ WKH DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRUV UHIOHFW XQGHUO\LQJ WUDLWV DQG WKDW VXSHUYLVRUV DUH DEOH WR LQIHU WKRVH WUDLWV IURP WKHLU LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK LQFXPEHQWV $FFRUGLQJO\ WKH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ QRQYHUEDO FXHV DQG SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJV FDQ EH H[SODLQHG E\ WKHLU UHODWLRQ WR WKH VDPH UHOHYDQW WUDLWV $Q DOWHUQDWLYH H[SODQDWLRQ LV WKDW VXSHUYLVRUV PD\ EH HUURQHRXVO\ LQWHUSUHWLQJ QRQYHUEDO FXHV H[KLELWHG RQ WKH MRE DV LQGLFDWRUV RI PDQDJHPHQW HIIHFWLYHQHVV 7KLV DOWHUQDWLYH H[SODQDWLRQ UHVWV RQ WKH DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW QRQYHUEDO FXHV GR QRW UHIOHFW XQGHUO\LQJ WUDLWV RU WKDW WKH XQGHUO\LQJ WUDLWV WKH\ GR UHSUHVHQW DUH QRW WUXO\ UHODWHG WR MRE SHUIRUPDQFH 7KLV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV PRUH GLIILFXOW WR GHIHQG JLYHQ WKH H[WHQVLYH OLWHUDWXUH RQ WKH DFFXUDF\ ZLWK ZKLFK SHUVRQDOLW\ WUDLWV FDQ EH MXGJHG E\ RWKHUV EDVHG RQ WDUJHWVn QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU $PEDG\ DQG 5RVHQWKDO %RUNHQDX %RUNHQDX DQG /LHEOHU .HQQ\ HW DO )XQGHU DQG 'REURWK 3DXQRQHQ f 5HFHQW VWXGLHV VXSSRUW WKLV ILUVW H[SODQDWLRQ WKDW MXGJHV DUH TXLWH DFFXUDWH DW DVVHVVLQJ SHUVRQDOLW\ WUDLWV IURP QRQYHUEDO FXHV $PEDG\ DQG 5RVHQWKDO %RUNHQDX DQG

PAGE 141

/LHEOHU .HQQ\ HW DO f 1RW RQO\ KDV VXSSRUW EHHQ IRXQG IRU WKH DFFXUDF\ RI SHUVRQDOLW\ MXGJPHQWV E\ VWUDQJHUV DW ZKDW LV FDOOHG ]HUR DFTXDLQWDQFH $OEULJKW HW DO .HQQ\ HW DO f EXW DOVR WKH DFFXUDF\ RI SHUVRQDOLW\ MXGJPHQWV YDULHV SRVLWLYHO\ ZLWK WKH GHJUHH RI DFTXDLQWDQFH EHWZHHQ WKH MXGJH DQG WKH WDUJHW )XQGHU DQG &ROYLQ 3DXQRQHQ f ,Q WKLV VWXG\ LQFXPEHQWV KDG EHHQ RQ WKHLU FXUUHQW MRE ZLWK WKHLU FXUUHQW VXSHUYLVRU IRU DW OHDVW VL[ PRQWKV 7KXV LW ZRXOG VHHP UHDVRQDEOH WKDW VXSHUYLVRUV ZKR KDG D VXEVWDQWLDO GHJUHH RI FRQWDFW ZLWK LQWHUYLHZHHV LH LQFXPEHQWVf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f 7KHUHIRUH WKLV ILQGLQJ LV HYHQ PRUH VXUSULVLQJ *D]H LV RIWHQ LQWHUSUHWHG DV D VLJQDO RI GRPLQDQFH DWWHQWLYHQHVV SHUVXDVLYHQHVV FUHGLELOLW\ RU WUXVWZRUWKLQHVV .OHLQNH f 7KHVH WUDLWV PD\ EH FRQVLGHUHG GHVLUDEOH IRU DQ HIIHFWLYH PDQDJHU 7KHVH SUHVXPSWLRQV DERXW SHUVRQDOLW\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DUH KRZHYHU

PAGE 142

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n YHUEDO UHVSRQVHV $Q\ XQLTXH UHOHYDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLGHG E\ LQWHUYLHZHHV LQ WKHLU UHVSRQVHV WR LQWHUYLHZ TXHVWLRQV ZDV PRVW OLNHO\ XVHG E\ LQWHUYLHZ UDWHUV 7KH XWLOL]DWLRQ RI XQLTXH LQIRUPDWLRQ QRW SURYLGHG E\

PAGE 143

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f ZHUH XWLOL]HG E\ LQWHUYLHZ UDWHUV DQG ZHUH DOVR VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR VXSHUYLVRU\ UDWLQJV RI SHUIRUPDQFH

PAGE 144

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f 6LQFH WKH LQWHUYLHZHU LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZDV IHPDOH WKHQ IHPDOH LQWHUYLHZHHV PD\ KDYH EHHQ PRUH OLNHO\ WR RULHQW WKHPVHOYHV GLUHFWO\ WRZDUG KHU +RZHYHU WKLV VLQJOH GLIIHUHQFH LV QRW VXIILFLHQW WR VXSSRUW WKH H[SODQDWLRQ WKDW WKH GLIIHULQJ

PAGE 145

UHVXOWV IRU PHQ DQG ZRPHQ LQWHUYLHZHHV RFFXUUHG EHFDXVH WKH\ DFWXDOO\ EHKDYH GLIIHUHQW QRQYHUEDOO\ $ VHFRQG SRVVLEOH H[SODQDWLRQ LV WKDW WKH VDPH EHKDYLRUV DUH LQWHUSUHWHG GLIIHUHQWO\ IRU PHQ WKDQ IRU ZRPHQ )RU H[DPSOH DOWKRXJK JD]H GLG QRW GLIIHU E\ VH[ LQ WKLV VWXG\ LW KDV EHHQ UHSRUWHG E\ RWKHU UHVHDUFKHUV WKDW ZRPHQ JD]H DW RWKHUV PRUH WKDQ PHQ GR +DOO f ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQV RI ZRPHQnV JD]LQJ SDWWHUQV DUH FRPSOLFDWHG E\ WKH IDFW WKDW JD]H FRQQRWHV GHJUHHV RI GRPLQDQFH DQG VWDWXV DV ZHOO DV GHJUHHV RI DIILOLDWLRQ RSHQQHVV DQG GHSHQGHQFH .OHLQNH 0HKUDELDQ 1HYLOO 7KD\HU f 7KHVH DSSDUHQW FRQWUDGLFWLRQV PD\ FRPH LQWR SOD\ LQ VH[VWHUHRW\SLF ZD\V +HQOH\ f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f %XW QR VLJQLILFDQW VH[ GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVWHG IRU SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJV 7KHUH LV QR

PAGE 146

FOHDU HYLGHQFH WR VXSSRUW RU UXOH RXW WKLV H[SODQDWLRQ DW WKLV WLPH $ WKLUG SRVVLEOH H[SODQDWLRQ IRU WKH VH[ GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKLV VWXG\ VXJJHVWV WKDW PHQ DQG ZRPHQ GLIIHU LQ WKHLU DELOLW\ WR DFFXUDWHO\ HQFRGH RU H[KLELW WUDLWV RU HPRWLRQV WKURXJK WKHLU QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU 7KHUH LV VWURQJ DQG SUHYDLOLQJ HYLGHQFH WKDW ZRPHQ DUH EHWWHU HQFRGHUV RI QRQYHUEDO FXHV WKDQ DUH PHQ VHH UHYLHZ E\ +DOO f )HPDOH LQWHUYLHZHHVLQFXPEHQWV PD\ GLVSOD\ QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRUV RQ WKH MRE WKDW DUH DFFXUDWHO\ DVVHVVHG E\ VXSHUYLVRUV 1RQYHUEDO FXHV GLVSOD\HG E\ PHQ RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG PD\ EH PLVLQWHUSUHWHG EHFDXVH PHQ DUH QRW LQ JHQHUDO DV VNLOOHG DW HQFRGLQJ WKHLU WUDLWV DQG HPRWLRQV 1RQYHUEDO FXHV PD\ HYHQ DFW DV GLVWUDFWHUV RU QRLVH ZKHQ DVVHVVLQJ PDOH LQWHUYLHZHHVLQFXPEHQWV 5HVXOWV UHSRUWHG E\ 0RWRZLGOR DQG %XUQHWW f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

PAGE 147

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f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

PAGE 148

VWXG\ f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f ,W LV DFNQRZOHGJHG WKDW VLQFH ERWK LQWHUYLHZ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH VFRUHV ZHUH PDGH E\ KXPDQ UDWHUV WKRVH UDWLQJV PD\ VKDUH WKH VDPH V\VWHPDWLF HUURU YDULDQFH $QRWKHU SRVVLEOH OLPLWDWLRQ RI WKLV VWXG\ LV WKDW XQLYHUVLW\ VWXGHQWV VHUYHG DV UDWHUV RI WKH LQWHUYLHZV UDWKHU WKDQ H[SHULHQFHG LQWHUYLHZHUV %HUQVWHLQ +DNHO DQG +DUODQ f KRZHYHU FRPSDUHG WKH GHFLVLRQ SURFHVVHV RI LQWHUYLHZHUV DQG FROOHJH VWXGHQWV LQ DQ LQWHUYLHZ VLWXDWLRQ

PAGE 149

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n DQVZHUV WR WKH VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ TXHVWLRQV ZDV QRW LQGHSHQGHQWO\ PHDVXUHG ,I WKH FRQWHQW RI LQWHUYLHZHHVn DQVZHUV ZDV FROOHFWHG HLWKHU LQ WKH IRUP RI ZULWWHQ WUDQVFULSWV ZKLFK ZRXOG UHPRYH DOO QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU IURP FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RU LQ WKH IRUP RI LQWHUYLHZ UDWLQJV EDVHG RQO\ RQ KHDULQJ LQWHUYLHZHHV UHVSRQVHV ZKLFK ZRXOG UHPRYH RQO\ YLVXDOO\EDVHG FXHV WKHQ WKH LQFUHPHQWDO YDOLGLW\ RI YHUEDO DQG QRQYHUEDO LQIRUPDWLRQ FRXOG EH GHWHUPLQHG 6XPPDU\ DQG &RQFOXVLRQV 1RQYHUEDO FXHV DUH XWLOL]HG E\ LQWHUYLHZ UDWHUV DQG DUH DOVR UHODWHG WR SHUIRUPDQFH 0RUH LQWHUHVWLQJO\ RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO FXHV JD]H ZDV WKH RQO\ YDOLG FXH ZKLFK ZDV XWLOL]HG E\ LQWHUYLHZ UDWHUV 1RQYHUEDO FXHV DORQH ZHUH QRW KRZHYHU VXIILFLHQW SUHGLFWRUV RI SHUIRUPDQFH DQG GLG QRW

PAGE 150

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

PAGE 151

$33(1',; $ ,17(59,(: 35272&2/ $1' ,17(59,(: ',0(16,216

PAGE 152

,16758&7,216 )25 7+( ,17(59,(:(5 :KHQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHH HQWHUV WKH URRP LQWURGXFH \RXUVHOI DQG DVN WKHP WR KDYH D VHDW 1H[W XVH WKH IROORZLQJ SRLQWV WR LQWURGXFH WKH SURMHFW DQG WKH SXUSRVH RI WKH VWXG\ /HW PH WDNH D PRPHQW WR WHOO \RX DERXW WKH SURMHFW DQG KRZ \RXU SDUWLFLSDWLRQ ZLOO KHOS XV 2YHUYLHZ 0\ FROOHDJXHV DQG DW 8) KDYH GHYHORSHG VRPH H[SHULPHQWDO LQWHUYLHZ TXHVWLRQV :H ZLOO XVH WKHVH TXHVWLRQV LQ LQWHUYLHZV ZLWK SHRSOH DFURVV VHYHUDO FRPSDQLHV $OO LQWHUYLHZV ZLOO EH YLGHRWDSHG WR XVH IRU ODWHU UHVHDUFK 6XSHUYLVRUV RI HDFK SHUVRQ LQWHUYLHZHG ZLOO EH FRQWDFWHG DQG DVNHG WR FRPPHQW RQ KRZ WKHLU HPSOR\HH UHVSRQGV LQ JHQHUDO MRE VLWXDWLRQV +RZ WKH YLGHRWDSHV ZLOO EH XVHG 9LGHRWDSHG LQWHUYLHZV ZLOO EH XVHG DV SDUW RI D SURJUDP RI UHVHDUFK DW 8) RYHU WKH QH[W VHYHUDO \HDUV %DVLFDOO\ VWXGHQWV ZLOO ZDWFK WKH WDSHV DQG WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHUHG ZLOO KHOS XV WR VXJJHVW ZD\V WR LPSURYH WKH LQWHUYLHZ SURFHVV 7KH HPSKDVLV RI WKHVH VWXGLHV ZLOO EH RQ VWXGHQW REVHUYHUVn UHDFWLRQV DQG GHFLVLRQV QRW RQ \RX WKH LQWHUYLHZHH &RQILGHQWLDOLW\ 6LQFH WKLV LV DQ LQGHSHQGHQW SURMHFW E\ WKH 8QLY RI )ORULGD LQIRUPDWLRQ FROOHFWHG ZLOO QRW EH SDUW RI \RXU SHUVRQQHO UHFRUG QRU ZLOO LW DIIHFW \RXU MREFDUHHU LQ DQ\ ZD\ ,QIRUPDWLRQ IURP WKH LQWHUYLHZ DQG IURP VXSHUYLVRUV ZLOO QRW EH VHHQ E\ DQ\RQH ZKR LV LQ \RXU FRPSDQ\ 2QO\ DJJUHJDWHG RU FRPELQHG GDWD ZLOO EH UHSRUWHG WR WKH FRPSDQ\ ,QGLYLGXDO LQIRUPDWLRQ FDQQRW EH GLVWLQJXLVKHG

PAGE 153

9LGHRWDSHV ZLOO QRW EH XVHG IRU DQ\ SXUSRVH RWKHU WKDQ IRU UHVHDUFK :KDW ZH DUH DVNLQJ IURP WKHP $V \RX DQVZHU WKH LQWHUYLHZ TXHVWLRQV WUHDW WKLV DV D UHDO MRE LQWHUYLHZ
PAGE 154

3DVWRULHQWHG 4XHVWLRQV :KHQ DQVZHULQJ WKH ILUVW IHZ TXHVWLRQV ZRXOG OLNH \RX WR WKLQN RI VSHFLILF H[SHULHQFHV \RX KDYH KDG LQ WKH SDVW ,3f )LUVW ,nG OLNH \RX WR WKLQN RI D WLPH ZKHQ \RX ZHUH ZRUNLQJ ZLWK RWKHU SHRSOH HLWKHU RQ D VSHFLDO SURMHFW RU RQ DQ HYHU\GD\ WDVN ZKHQ WKHUH ZDV VRPH W\SH RI FULVLV DQG LW ZDV QHFHVVDU\ IRU VRPHRQH WR WDNH FKDUJH :KDW ZDV \RXU UROH LQ WKLV VLWXDWLRQ" /HDGHUVKLSf 3f :KHQ ZH ZRUN LQ JURXSV WKHUH DUH XVXDOO\ PDQ\ LPSRUWDQW GHFLVLRQV WR PDNH 7HOO PH DERXW D WLPH ZKHQ \RX ZHUH SDUW RI D JURXS WKDW KDG DQ LPSRUWDQW GHFLVLRQ WR PDNH DQG \RX KHOG D SRVLWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKDW GHFLVLRQ EXW \RX ZHUH RXWQXPEHUHG E\ RWKHU PHPEHUV RI WKH JURXS ZKR KHOG D SRVLWLRQ GLIIHUHQW IURP \RXUV 7HDPZRUNf

PAGE 155

3f 1H[W ,nG OLNH \RX WR WHOO PH DERXW D WLPH ZKHQ \RX ZHUH ZRUNLQJ RQ DQ LPSRUWDQW WDVN EXW D PDMRU REVWDFOH RU GLVUXSWLRQ JRW LQ WKH ZD\ DQG IRUFHG \RX WR WKLQN DERXW ZKHWKHU RU QRW WR FRQWLQXH DV \RX KDG RULJLQDOO\ SODQQHG 'ULYHf 3f 1RZ OHWnV IRFXV RQ VLWXDWLRQV ZKHUH WKH GHFLVLRQV ZHUH PDLQO\ \RXU RZQ UDWKHU WKDQ DV SDUW RI D JURXS 7KLQN DERXW DQ LPSRUWDQW GHFLVLRQ \RX KDG WR PDNH WKDW ZDV HVSHFLDOO\ FRPSOH[ RU FKDOOHQJLQJ DP UHDOO\ LQWHUHVWHG LQ WKH SURFHVV XVHG RU DSSURDFK \RX WRRN WR UHDFK WKDW GHFLVLRQ 3ODQQLQJ t 2UJDQL]LQJf

PAGE 156

)XWXUHRULHQWHG 4XHVWLRQV :KHQ DQVZHULQJ WKH UHPDLQLQJ TXHVWLRQV \RX VKRXOG LPDJLQH \RX DUH D QHZO\ KLUHG PDQDJHU ZLWK D ODUJH FRPSDQ\ ,)f ,nG OLNH \RX WR LPDJLQH WKDW \RXU VXSHUYLVRU KDV DVNHG \RX WR MRLQ DQ HVWDEOLVKHG WDVN IRUFH WR ILOO D YDFDQF\ OHIW E\ DQRWKHU PDQDJHU ZKR UHFHQWO\ UHVLJQHG
PAGE 157

)f ,PDJLQH WKDW \RXU VXSHUYLVRU DVNV \RX WR WDNH RYHU D JURXS SURMHFW EHFDXVH WKH SURMHFW OHDGHU ZDV WUDQVIHUUHG
PAGE 158

$IWHU \RX KDYH DVNHG DOO LQWHUYLHZ TXHVWLRQV XVH WKH IROORZLQJ VFULSW 7KDW LV WKH HQG RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ ZRXOG OLNH WR WDNH MXVW D FRXSOH PRUH PLQXWHV WR DVN \RX VRPH IROORZXS TXHVWLRQV )LUVW QRZ WKDW \RX KDYH KHDUG WKH LQWHUYLHZ TXHVWLRQV DQG \RXU RZQ UHVSRQVHV FDQ ZH KDYH \RXU SHUPLVVLRQ WR XVH WKH YLGHRWDSH RI \RXU LQWHUYLHZ IRU UHVHDUFK SXUSRVHV"
PAGE 159

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

PAGE 160

'HPRJUDSKLF ,QIRUPDWLRQ 6H[ 0 ) $JH 5DFH $VLDQ %ODFN +LVSDQLF :KLWH 2WKHU -RE 7HQXUH PR PR PR PR PR 2UJDQL]DWLRQ 7HQXUH PR PR PR PR PR ,17(59,(:(( &203$1< '$7( &855(17 -2% 7,7/( 683(59,625 ,1)250$7,21 1DPH -RE 7LWOH

PAGE 161

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

PAGE 162

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nV VXJJHVWLRQV RU LGHDV HYHQ ZKHQ QHFHVVDU\

PAGE 163

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

PAGE 164

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

PAGE 165

$33(1',; % 683(59,625< 5$7,1* )2506 ,QVWUXFWLRQV IRU 6XSHUYLVRUV
PAGE 166

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

PAGE 167

6HFRQG UHDG WKH GHVFULSWLRQV RI EHKDYLRUV IRU WKH WKUHH UDQJHV RI SHUIRUPDQFH 7KLUG GHFLGH ZKLFK RI WKH WKUHH GHVFULSWLRQV +LJK 0RGHUDWH /RZf EHVW ILWV WKH SHUVRQ \RX DUH UDWLQJ )RXUWK FLUFOH RQH QXPEHU ZLWKLQ WKDW UDQJH WKDW EHVW UHSUHVHQWV WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKH SHUVRQ \RX DUH UDWLQJ )LIWK FLUFOH RQH QXPEHU DW WKH ERWWRP RI WKH SDJH WR LQGLFDWH KRZ LPSRUWDQW WKLV SHUIRUPDQFH FDWHJRU\ LV IRU WKH MRE RI WKH SHUVRQ \RX DUH UDWLQJ $IWHU \RX KDYH GRQH WKLV IRU WKH IRXU SHUIRUPDQFH FDWHJRULHV UDWH WKH SHUVRQnV 2YHUDOO -RE 3HUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH ODVW SDJH RI WKLV TXHVWLRQQDLUH E\ FLUFOLQJ RQH QXPEHU WKDW DSSHDUV RQ WKDW VFDOH 7KDQN \RX YHU\ PXFK IRU \RXU KHOS DQG FRRSHUDWLRQ 7KH HPSOR\HH QDPHG EHORZ KDV SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKH LQWHUYLHZ SURMHFW DQG LV DZDUH WKDW \RX KDYH EHHQ DVNHG WR PDNH WKH IROORZLQJ UDWLQJV (PSOR\HHnV QDPH

PAGE 168

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f 1RW DW DOO LPSRUWDQW 0LQRU LPSRUWDQFH 6RPH LPSRUWDQFH ,PSRUWDQW 9HU\ LPSRUWDQW ([WUHPHO\ LPSRUWDQW

PAGE 169

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nVXJJHVWLRQV RU LGHDV HYHQ ZKHQ QHFHVVDU\ +RZ LPSRUWDQW LV WKLV SHUIRUPDQFH GLPHQVLRQ IRU WKH MRE RI WKH SHUVRQ \RX DUH UDWLQJ" FLUFOH RQH QXPEHU EHORZf 1RW DW DOO LPSRUWDQW 0LQRU LPSRUWDQFH 6RPH LPSRUWDQFH ,PSRUWDQW 9HU\ LPSRUWDQW ([WUHPHO\ LPSRUWDQW

PAGE 170

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f 1RW DW DOO LPSRUWDQW 0LQRU LPSRUWDQFH 6RPH LPSRUWDQFH ,PSRUWDQW 9HU\ LPSRUWDQW ([WUHPHO\ LPSRUWDQW

PAGE 171

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f 1RW DW DOO LPSRUWDQW 0LQRU LPSRUWDQFH 6RPH LPSRUWDQFH ,PSRUWDQW 9HU\ LPSRUWDQW ([WUHPHO\ LPSRUWDQW

PAGE 172

2YHUDOO -RE 3HUIRUPDQFH +,*+ 3HUIRUPV MRE ZHOO LQ DOO RU DOPRVW DOO H[FHHGV VWDQGDUGV DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU MRE SHUIRUPDQFH DUHDV DGHTXDWH 3HUIRUPV DGHTXDWHO\ LQ LPSRUWDQW DUHDV RI WKH 02'(5$7( MRE PHHWV VWDQGDUGV DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU DGHTXDWH MRE SHUIRUPDQFH /2: 3HUIRUPV SRRUO\ LQ LPSRUWDQW DUHDV RI WKH MRE GRHV QRW PHHW VWDQGDUGV DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU DGHTXDWH MRE SHUIRUPDQFH

PAGE 173

$33(1',; & 75$,76 $662&,$7(' :,7+ %(+$9,25$/ ',0(16,216 5$7(56 ,16758&7,216 3OHDVH UHDG HDFK GHILQLWLRQ RI WKH EHKDYLRUDO GLPHQVLRQV 7KHVH GHILQLWLRQV UHSUHVHQW WKH KLJK HQG RI WKH VFDOH ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV D SHUVRQ UDWHG KLJK RQ WKDW GLPHQVLRQ ZRXOG EH GHVFULEHG LQ WKHVH WHUPV 3OHDVH FLUFOH WKH QXPEHU WR f FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR ZKHWKHU RU QRW \RX WKLQN D SHUVRQ GHVFULEHG VLPLODUO\ RQ WKDW GLPHQVLRQ ZRXOG DOVR EH GHVFULEHG DV SRVVHVVLQJ HDFK RI WKH WUDLWV OLVWHG 7KH VFDOH FRUUHVSRQGV ZLWK WKH GHJUHH RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS \RX WKLQN H[LVWV EHWZHHQ WKH GLPHQVLRQ DQG HDFK WUDLW 127 KRZ KLJK \RX WKLQN WKH WUDLW ZRXOG EH LI WKH LQGLYLGXDO LV UDWHG KLJK RQ WKDW GLPHQVLRQ )RU H[DPSOH RQ WKH GLPHQVLRQ RI OHDGHUVKLS DQG WKH WUDLW RI QHXURWLF
PAGE 174

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

PAGE 175

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

PAGE 176

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

PAGE 177

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

PAGE 178

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
PAGE 179

*D]H 2SHUDWLRQDO 'HILQLWLRQ $ JD]H RFFXUV ZKHQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHH ORRNV LQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHUnV IDFH RU KHDG .H\V WR 5DWLQJ Df %\ ORRNLQJ DW WKH ZKLWH SDUW RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV H\HV LW LV HDVLHU WR GLVWLQJXLVK PRYHPHQW DQG WKHUHIRUH ZKHQ WKH\ DUH JD]LQJ Ef 7KH LQWHUYLHZHHnV H\HV GR QRW KDYH WR EH IL[HG WR EH FRQVLGHUHG JD]LQJ ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV D TXLFN ORRN DW WKH LQWHUYLHZHU PRUH OLNH D JODQFH VKRXOG EH FRXQWHG DV JD]H ([DPSOHV RQ 9LGHRWDSH 1RWHV 6PLOLQJ 2SHUDWLRQDO 'HILQLWLRQ $ VPLOH RFFXUV ZKHQ WKH FRUQHU RI WKH OLSV DUH FXUOHG XSZDUG .H\V WR 5DWLQJ Df 7KH WHHWK PD\ RU PD\ QRW EH VKRZLQJ GXULQJ D VPLOH Ef 7KH LQWHUYLHZHH FDQ WDON DQG PDLQWDLQ D VPLOH DW WKH VDPH WLPH ([DPSOHV RQ 9LGHRWDSH 1RWHV

PAGE 180

+DQG 0RYHPHQWV 2SHUDWLRQDO 'HILQLWLRQ $ KDQG PRYHPHQW RFFXUV ZKHQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHH PRYHV RQH RU ERWK KDQGV ZKLFK LQFOXGHV WKH SDUW RI WKH ERG\ IURP WKH ZULVW WR WKH ILQJHUWLSV .HYV WR 5DWLQD Df 6FRUH RQH PRYHPHQW RI WKH KDQGVf DV ORQJ DV WKH KDQG LV LQ PRWLRQ :KHQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV KDQGV VWRS PRYLQJ HJ UHVW RQ WDEOH RU LQ ODSf WKLV VLJQDOV WKH HQG RI WKH KDQG PRYHPHQW Ef ,I \RX FDQ QRW VHH WKH KDQGV HJ LI WKH\ DUH RQ WKHLU ODS XQGHU WKH WDEOHf HYHQ WKRXJK LW DSSHDUV DV WKRXJK WKH\ DUH PRYLQJ WKHLU KDQGV \RX VKRXOG QRW UDWH LW ([DPSOHV RQ 9LGHRWDSH 1RWHV 5DFN6LGH /HDQ 2SHUDWLRQDO 'HILQLWLRQ $ EDFN RU VLGH OHDQ RFFXUV ZKHQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV ERG\ LV WLOWHG LQ D EDFNZDUG RU VLGHZD\V GLUHFWLRQ .H\V WR )HWLQJ Df )RFXV RQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV WRUVR QRW WKHLU DUPV 1RWLQJ WKH DQJOH RI WKHLU VKRXOGHU SODQH LV KHOSIXO Ef ,I WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV ERG\ LV DW DQ\ DQJOHEDFNZDUG RU VLGHZD\V LW LV D ERG\ OHDQ ([DPSOHV RQ 9LGHRWDSH 1RWHV

PAGE 181

3DUDOOHO %RG\ 2ULHQWDWLRQ 2SHUDWLRQDO 'HILQLWLRQ :KHQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV ERG\ LV RULHQWHG WRZDUG WKH LQWHUYLHZHU WKHQ WKH\ DUH LQ D SDUDOOHO SRVLWLRQ .H\V WR 5DWLQJ Df ,I WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV VKRXOGHUV DUH DW DQ DQJOH WR WKH FDPHUD WKHQ WKHLU SRVLWLRQ LV FRQVLGHUHG SDUDOOHO WR WKH LQWHUYLHZHU Ef ,I WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV VKRXOGHUV DUH VTXDUH WR WKH FDPHUD WKH\ DUH DW DQ DQJOH QRW SDUDOOHO WR WKH LQWHUYLHZHU ([DPSOHV BTGBY LGH4WDSJ 1RWHV

PAGE 182

,QWHUYLHZ *D]H *D]H RFFXUV ZKHQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHH ORRNV LQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHUnV IDFHKHDG 6HJPHQW RQH 6HFRQGV VSHQW JD]LQJ )UHTXHQF\ VZLWFKHV JD]H DW LQWHUYLHZHU ORRN DZD\f 6HJPHQW WZR 6HFRQGV VSHQW JD]LQJ )UHTXHQF\ VZLWFKHV JD]H DW LQWHUYLHZHU ORRN DZD\f 6HJPHQW WKUHH 6HFRQGV VSHQW JD]LQJ )UHTXHQF\ VZLWFKHV JD]H DW LQWHUYLHZHU ORRN DZD\f

PAGE 183

,QWHUYLHZ 6PL LQJ 6PLOLQJ RFFXUV ZKHQ WKH FRUQHU RI WKH OLSV DUH FXUOHG XSZDUG 6HJPHQW RQH 6HFRQGV VSHQW VPLOLQJ )UHTXHQF\ VZLWFKHV VPLOLQJ QRW VPLOLQJf 6HJPHQW WZR 6HFRQGV VSHQW VPLOLQJ )UHTXHQF\ VZLWFKHV VPLOLQJ QRW VPLOLQJf 6HJPHQW WKUHH 6HFRQGV VSHQW VPLOLQJ )UHTXHQF\ VZLWFKHV VPLOLQJ QRW VPLOLQJf

PAGE 184

,QWHUYLHZ +DQG 0RYHPHQWV $ KDQG PRYHPHQW RFFXUV ZKHQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHH PRYHV RQH RU ERWK KDQGV ZKLFK LQFOXGHV WKH SDUW RI WKH ERG\ IURP WKH ZULVW WR WKH ILQJHUWLSV 6HJPHQW RQH 6HFRQGV VSHQW PRYLQJ KDQGV )UHTXHQF\ VZLWFKHV PRYLQJ KDQGV QRW PRYLQJ KDQGVf 6HJPHQW WZR 6HFRQGV VSHQW PRYLQJ KDQGV )UHTXHQF\ VZLWFKHV PRYLQJ KDQGV QRW PRYLQJ KDQGVf 6HJPHQW WKUHH 6HFRQGV VSHQW PRYLQJ KDQGV )UHTXHQF\ VZLWFKHV PRYLQJ KDQGV QRW PRYLQJ KDQGVf

PAGE 185

,QWHUYLHZ %DFN6LGH /HDQ $ EDFN RU VLGH OHDQ RFFXUV ZKHQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV ERG\ LV WLOWHG LQ D EDFNZDUG RU VLGHZD\V GLUHFWLRQ 6HJPHQW RQH 6HFRQGV OHDQLQJ )UHTXHQF\ VZLWFKHV IURP XSULJKW WR OHDQLQJ SRVLWLRQf 6HJPHQW WZR 6HFRQGV OHDQLQJ )UHTXHQF\ VZLWFKHV IURP XSULJKW WR OHDQLQJ SRVLWLRQf 6HJPHQW WKUHH 6HFRQGV OHDQLQJ )UHTXHQF\ VZLWFKHV IURP XSULJKW WR OHDQLQJ SRVLWLRQf

PAGE 186

,QWHUYLHZ 3DUDOOHO %RG\ 2ULHQWDWLRQ :KHQ WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV ERG\ LV RULHQWHG WRZDUG WKH LQWHUYLHZHU WKHQ WKH\ DUH LQ D SDUDOOHO SRVLWLRQ 6HJPHQW RQH 6HFRQGV VSHQW SDUDOOHO )UHTXHQF\ VZLWFKHV IURP SDUDOOHO SRVLWLRQ WR RWKHU SRVLWLRQf 6HJPHQW WZR 6HFRQGV VSHQW SDUDOOHO )UHTXHQF\ VZLWFKHV IURP SDUDOOHO SRVLWLRQ WR RWKHU SRVLWLRQf 6HJPHQW WKUHH 6HFRQGV VSHQW SDUDOOHO )UHTXHQF\ VZLWFKHV IURP SDUDOOHO SRVLWLRQ WR RWKHU SRVLWLRQf

PAGE 187

5DWLQJV RI 3K\VLFDO DQG 9RFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV DQG 'UHVV ,QVWUXFWLRQV ,Q WKLV VWXG\ \RX ZLOO EH DVNHG WR PDNH UDWLQJV RI SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV YRFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV DQG W\SH RI GUHVV RI LQWHUYLHZHHV ZKR SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ D PRFN MRE LQWHUYLHZ WKH LQWHUYLHZHU@ DVNHG \RX WZR W\SHV RI TXHVWLRQV WKH SDVWRULHQWHG DQG WKH K\SRWKHWLFDO RQHV :KLFK W\SH GR \RX WKLQN D MRE DSSOLFDQW ZRXOG SUHIHU" :KLFK W\SH GR \RX WKLQN LV PRUH UHOHYDQW IRU WKH MRE LH IURP FRPSDQ\nV SHUVSHFWLYHf" 7KH LQWHUYLHZHHVn UHVSRQVH WR WKLV IROORZXS TXHVWLRQ LV QRW LPSRUWDQW
PAGE 188

3K\VLFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV 5DWLQJV -XGJH 3K\VLFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV $IWHU VHHLQJ D VWLOO SLFWXUH RI WKH MRE DSSOLFDQW SOHDVH PDNH \RXU UDWLQJV RQ WKLV VKHHW IRU SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV E\ FLUFOLQJ WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ QXPEHU 3K\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV WKH GHJUHH RI DSSHDO RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV SK\VLFDO DSSHDUDQFH 9HU\ 8QDWWUDFWLYH ,QWHUYLHZ 9HU\ $WWUDFWLYH

PAGE 189

3K\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV WKH GHJUHH RI DSSHDO RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV SK\VLFDO DSSHDUDQFH 9HU\ 8QDWWUDFWLYH ,QWHUYLHZ 9HU\ $WWUDFWLYH

PAGE 190

3K\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV WKH GHJUHH RI DSSHDO RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV SK\VLFDO DSSHDUDQFH 9HU\ 8QDWWUDFWLYH ,QWHUYLHZ 9HU\ $WWUDFWLYH

PAGE 191

9RFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV 5DWLQDV -XGJH 9RFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV $IWHU OLVWHQLQJ WR WKH LQWHUYLHZ WDSH IRU HDFK DSSOLFDQW SOHDVH PDNH \RXU UDWLQJ RQ WKLV VKHHW IRU YRFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV E\ FLUFOLQJ WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ QXPEHU 9RFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV WKH GHJUHH RI DSSHDO RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV YRLFH 9HU\ 9HU\ 8QDWWUDFWLYH $WWUDFWLYH ,QWHUYLHZ

PAGE 192

9RFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV WKH GHJUHH RI DSSHDO RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV YRLFH 9HU\ 9HU\ 8QDWWUDFWLYH $WWUDFWLYH ,QWHUYLHZ

PAGE 193

9RFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV WKH GHJUHH RI DSSHDO RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHHnV YRLFH 9HU\ 9HU\ 8QDWWUDFWLYH $WWUDFWLYH ,QWHUYLHZ

PAGE 194

'UHVV 5DWLQJV -XGJH ,QWHUYLHZ 'UHVV $IWHU VHHLQJ D VWLOO SLFWXUH RI WKH MRE DSSOLFDQW SOHDVH PDNH \RXU UDWLQJV RQ WKLV VKHHW E\ FLUFOLQJ WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ QXPEHU 'UHVV FDWHJRUL]HG DFFRUGLQJ WR W\SH DQG FRORU 0DOHV 7\SH RI &ORWKLQJ RWKHU FDVXDO VKLUW QR MDFNHW GUHVV VKLUW EOD]HU RU VXLW FRDW QR WLH WLH 'RPLQDQW &RORU ZKLWH RU OLJKW SDVWHOf PHGLXP GDUNQHVV EOXHV NKDNL OLJKW JUD\f GDUN GDUN JUD\ QDY\ EODFNf )HPDOHV 7\SH RI &ORWKLQJ RWKHU FDVXDO VKLUW QR MDFNHW GUHVV RU EORXVH EOD]HU RU VXLW FRDW QR DFFHVVRULHV RQH RU PRUH DFFHVVRULHV HDUULQJV QHFNODFH VFDUI SLQf 'RPLQDQW &RORQ ZKLWH RU OLJKW SDVWHOf PHGLXP GDUNQHVV EOXHV NKDNL OLJKW JUD\f GDUN GDUN JUD\ QDY\ EODFNf

PAGE 195

5()(5(1&(6 $OEULJKW / .HQQ\ '$ DQG 0DOOR\ 7$ f &RQVHQVXV LQ SHUVRQDOLW\ MXGJPHQWV DW ]HUR DFTXDLQWDQFH -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ $PDELOH 70 DQG 5DEDW /* f :KHQ VHOIGHVFULSWLRQV FRQWUDGLFW EHKDYLRU $FWLRQV GR VSHDN ORXGHU WKDQ ZRUGV 6RFLDO &RJQLWLRQ r $PEDG\ 1 DQG 5RVHQWKDO 5 f +DOI D PLQXWH 3UHGLFWLQJ WHDFKHU HYDOXDWLRQV IURP WKLQ VOLFHV RI QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU DQG SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 0 $QGHUVRQ &: f 7KH UHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ VSHDNLQJ WLPHV DQG GHFLVLRQ LQ WKH HPSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZ -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ $QGHUVRQ 1 DQG 6KDFNOHWRQ 9 f 'HFLVLRQ PDNLQJ LQ WKH JUDGXDWH VHOHFWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ $ ILHOG VWXG\ -RXUQDO RI 2FFXSDWLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\ $UJ\OH 0 f %RGLO\ &RPPXQLFDWLRQ QG (GLWLRQ /RQGRQ 0HWKXHQ DQG &R $UJ\OH 0 6ODWHU 9 1LFROVRQ + :LOOLDPV 0 DQG %XUJHVV 3 f 7KH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ RI LQIHULRU DQG VXSHULRU DWWLWXGHV E\ YHUEDO DQG QRQYHUEDO VLJQDOV %ULWLVK -RXUQDO RI 6RFLDO DQG &OLQLFDO 3V\FKRORJ\ $UYH\ 5' DQG &DPSLRQ -( f 7KH HPSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZ $ VXPPDU\ DQG UHYLHZ RI UHFHQW UHVHDUFK 3HUVRQQHO 3V\FKRORJ\ $XVWLQ -7 DQG 9LOODQRYD 3 f 7KH FULWHULRQ SUREOHP -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ %HUQVWHLQ 9 +DNHO 0' DQG +DUODQ $ f 7KH FROOHJH VWXGHQW DV LQWHUYLHZHU $ WKUHDW WR JHQHUDOL]DELOLW\" -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ e %RUNHQDX 3 f ,PSOLFLW SHUVRQDOLW\ WKHRU\ DQG WKH ILYHIDFWRU PRGHO -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\

PAGE 196

%RUNHQDX 3 DQG /LHEOHU $ f 7UDLW LQIHUHQFHV 6RXUFHV RI YDOLGLW\ DW ]HUR DFTXDLQWDQFH -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ e %UXQVZLN ( f 3HUFHSWLRQ DQG WKH 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH 'HVLJQ RI 3V\FKRORJLFDO ([SHULPHQWV %HUNHOH\ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &DOLIRUQLD 3UHVV %XOO 3 f 3RVWXUH DQG *HVWXUH 2[IRUG 3HUJDPRQ %XUJRRQ -. DQG %DHVOHU (f &KRRVLQJ EHWZHHQ PLFUR DQG PDFUR QRQYHUEDO PHDVXUHPHQW $SSOLFDWLRQ WR VHOHFWHG YRFDOLF DQG NLQHVLF LQGLFHV -RXUQDO RI 1RQYHUEDO %HKDYLRU e &DPSLRQ 0$ 3XUVHOO (' DQG %URZQ %. f 6WUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZLQJ 5DLVLQJ WKH SV\FKRPHWULF SURSHUWLHV RI WKH HPSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZ 3HUVRQQHO 3V\FKRORJ\ &DQQ $ 6LHJIULHG :' DQG 3HDUFH / f )RUFHG DWWHQWLRQ WR VSHFLILF DSSOLFDQW TXDOLILFDWLRQV ,PSDFW RQ SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV DQG VH[ RI DSSOLFDQW ELDVHV 3HUVRQQHO 3V\FKRORJ\ 0/ &DVK 7) DQG .LOOFXOOHQ 51 f 7KH D\H RI WKH EHKROGHU 6XVFHSWLELOLW\ WR VH[LVP DQG EHDXW\LVP LQ WKH HYDOXDWLRQ RI PDQDJHULDO DSSOLFDQWV -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ &DVK 7) *LOOHQ % DQG %XUQV '6 f 6H[LVP DQG EHDXW\LVP LQ SHUVRQQHO FRQVXOWDQW GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ e &OHHWRQ *8 DQG .QLJKW )% f 9DOLGLW\ RI FKDUDFWHU MXGJPHQWV EDVHG RQ H[WHUQDO FULWHULD -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ e &URQVKDZ 6) DQG :LHVQHU :+ f 7KH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH HPSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZ 0RGHOV IRU UHVHDUFK DQG SUDFWLFH ,Q 5: (GHU DQG *5 )HUULV (GVf 7KH (PSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZ 7KHRU\ 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH SS f 1HZEXU\ 3DUN &$ 6DJH 'LRQ %HUVFKHLG ( DQG :DOVWHU ( f :KDW LV EHDXWLIXO LV JRRG -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 'LSER\H 5/ f 6HOHFWLRQ ,QWHUYLHZV 3URFHVV 3HUVSHFWLYHV &LQFLQQDWL 2+ 6RXWK:HVWHUQ

PAGE 197

'LSER\H 5/ $UYH\ 5' DQG 7HUSVWUD '( f 6H[ DQG SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV RI UDWHUV DQG DSSOLFDQWV DV GHWHUPLQDQWV RI UHVXPH HYDOXDWLRQV -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ 'LSER\H 5/ )URPNLQ / DQG :LEDFN f 5HODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH RI DSSOLFDQW VH[ DWWUDFWLYHQHVV DQG VFKRODVWLF VWDQGLQJ LQ HYDOXDWLRQ RI MRE DSSOLFDQW UHVXPHV -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ (DJO\ $+ 0DNKLMDQL 0* DQG .ORQVN\ %* f *HQGHU DQG WKH HYDOXDWLRQ RI OHDGHUV $ PHWDDQDO\VLV 3V\FKRORJLFDO %XOOHWLQ (GHU 5: .DFPDU .0 DQG )HUULV *5 f (PSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZ UHVHDUFK +LVWRU\ DQG V\QWKHVLV ,Q 5: (GHU DQG *5 )HUULV (GVf 7KH (PSOR\PHQW ,QWHUYLHZ 7KHRU\I 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH SS f 1HZEXU\ 3DUN &$ 6DJH (GLQJHU -$ DQG 3DWWHUVRQ 0/ f 1RQYHUEDO LQYROYHPHQW DQG VRFLDO FRQWURO 3V\FKRORJLFDO %XOOHWLQ )HOGPDQ -0 f %H\RQG DWWULEXWLRQ WKHRU\ &RJQLWLYH SURFHVVHV LQ SHUIRUPDQFH DSSUDLVDO -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ )RUEHV 5DQG -DFNVRQ 35 f 1RQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU DQG WKH RXWFRPH RI VHOHFWLRQ LQWHUYLHZV -RXUQDO RI 2FFXSDWLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\ I )XQGHU '& f 7KH FRQVLVWHQF\ FRQWURYHUV\ DQG WKH DFFXUDF\ RI SHUVRQDOLW\ MXGJPHQWV -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ )XQGHU '& DQG &ROYLQ &5 f )ULHQGV DQG VWUDQJHUV DFTXDLQWDQFHVKLS DJUHHPHQW DQG WKH DFFXUDF\ RI SHUVRQDOLW\ MXGJPHQW -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ )XQGHU '& DQG 'REURWK .0 f 'LIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WUDLWV 3URSHUWLHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LQWHUMXGJH DJUHHPHQW -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ )XQGHU '& DQG 6QHHG &' f %HKDYLRUDO PDQLIHVWDWLRQV RI SHUVRQDOLW\ $Q HFRORJLFDO DSSURDFK WR MXGJPHQWDO DFFXUDF\ -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\

PAGE 198

*DQJHVWDG 6: 6LPSVRQ -$ 'L*HURQLPR DQG %LHN 0 f 'LIIHUHQWLDO DFFXUDF\ LQ SHUVRQ SHUFHSWLRQ DFURVV WUDLWV ([DPLQDWLRQ RI D IXQFWLRQDO K\SRWKHVLV -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ e *LIIRUG 5 1J &) DQG :LONLQVRQ 0 f 1RQYHUEDO FXHV LQ WKH HPSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZ /LQNV EHWZHHQ DSSOLFDQW TXDOLWLHV DQG LQWHUYLHZHU MXGJPHQWV -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ I +DNHO 0' f 7KH VWDWH RI HPSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZ WKHRU\ DQG UHVHDUFK ,Q 5: (GHU DQG *5 )HUULV (GVf 7KH (PSOR\PHQW ,QWHUYLHZ 7KHRU\ 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH SS f 1HZEXU\ 3DUN &$ 6DJH +DOO -$ f 1RQYHUEDO 6H[ 'LIIHUHQFHV &RPPXQLFDWLRQ $FFXUDF\ DQG ([SUHVVLYH 6W\OH %DOWLPRUH -RKQV +RSNLQV 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV +DUULV 00 f 5HFRQVLGHULQJ WKH HPSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZ $ UHYLHZ RI UHFHQW OLWHUDWXUH DQG VXJJHVWLRQV IRU IXWXUH UHVHDUFK 3HUVRQQHO 3V\FKRORJ\ +HLOPDQ 0( DQG 6DUXZDWDUL /5 f :KHQ EHDXW\ LV EHDVWO\ 7KH HIIHFWV RI DSSHDUDQFH DQG VH[ RQ HYDOXDWLRQV RI MRE DSSOLFDQWV IRU PDQDJHULDO DQG QRQPDQDJHULDO MREV 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO %HKDYLRU DQG +XPDQ 3HUIRUPDQFH +HQOH\ 10 f %RG\ 3ROLWLFV 3RZHU 6H[ DQG 1RQYHUEDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ (QJOHZRRG &OLIIV 13UHQWLFH +DOO +ROODQGVZRUWK -U -* .D]HOVNLV 5 6WHYHQV DQG 'UHVVHO 0( f 5HODWLYH FRQWULEXWLRQV RI YHUEDO DUWLFXODWLYH DQG QRQYHUEDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ WR HPSOR\PHQW GHFLVLRQV LQ WKH MRE LQWHUYLHZ VHWWLQJ 3HUVRQQHO 3V\FKRORJ\ +XQW 5* DQG /LQ 7. f $FFXUDF\ RI MXGJPHQWV RI SHUVRQDO DWWULEXWHV IURP VSHHFK -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ e ,OJHQ '5 DQG )HOGPDQ -0 f 3HUIRUPDQFH DSSUDLVDO $ SURFHVV IRFXV ,Q // &XPPLQJV DQG %0 6WDZ (GVf 5HVHDUFK LQ 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO %HKDYLRU 9RO SS f *UHHQZLFK &7 -$, ,PDGD $6 DQG +DNHO 0' f ,QIOXHQFH RI QRQYHUEDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG UDWHU SUR[LPLW\ RQ LPSUHVVLRQ DQG

PAGE 199

GHFLVLRQV LQ VLPXODWHG HPSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZV -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ -DFNVRQ /$ f 7KH LQIOXHQFH RI VH[ SK\VLFDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV VH[ UROH DQG RFFXSDWLRQ VH[OLQNDJH RQ SHUFHSWLRQV RI RFFXSDWLRQDO VXLWDELOLW\ -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ -DQ] -7 f ,QLWLDO FRPSDULVRQV RI SDWWHUQHG EHKDYLRU GHVFULSWLRQ LQWHUYLHZV YHUVXV XQVWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZV -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ -DQ] -7 f 7KH SDWWHUQHG EHKDYLRU GHVFULSWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ 7KH EHVW SURSKHW RI WKH IXWXUH LV WKH SDVW ,Q 5: (GHU DQG *5 )HUULV (GVf 7KH (PSOR\PHQW ,QWHUYLHZ 7KHRU\ 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH SS f 1HZEXU\ 3DUN &$ 6DJH -DQ] -7 +HOOHUYLN / DQG *LOPRUH '& f %HKDYLRU 'HVFULSWLRQ ,QWHUYLHZLQJ 1HZ $FFXUDWH &RVW (IIHFWLYH 1HZWRQ 0$ $OO\Q t %DFRQ .HQQ\ '$ +RUQHU & .DVK\ '$ DQG &KX / f &RQVHQVXV DW ]HUR DFTXDLQWDQFH 5HSOLFDWLRQ EHKDYLRUDO FXHV DQG VWDELOLW\ -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ .LQLFNL $DQG /RFNZRRG &$ f 7KH LQWHUYLHZ SURFHVV $Q H[DPLQDWLRQ RI IDFWRUV UHFUXLWHUV XVH LQ HYDOXDWLQJ MRE DSSOLFDQWV -RXUQDO RI 9RFDWLRQDO %HKDYLRU .LQLFNL $/RFNZRRG &$ +RUQ 3: DQG *ULIIHWK 5: f ,QWHUYLHZHU SUHGLFWLRQV RI DSSOLFDQW TXDOLILFDWLRQV DQG LQWHUYLHZHU YDOLGLW\ $JJUHJDWH DQG LQGLYLGXDO DQDO\VHV -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ .OHLQNH &/ f *D]H DQG H\H FRQWDFW $ UHVHDUFK UHYLHZ 3V\FKRORJLFDO %XOOHWLQ .QDSS 0/ DQG +DOO -$ f 1RQYHUEDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ LQ +XPDQ ,QWHUDFWLRQ UG (GLWLRQ )RUW :RUWK +DUFRXUW %UDFH -RYDQRYLFK &ROOHJH 3XEOLVKHUV /DWKDP *3 f 7KH UHOLDELOLW\ YDOLGLW\ DQG SUDFWLFDOLW\ RI WKH VLWXDWLRQDO LQWHUYLHZ ,Q 5: (GHU DQG *5 )HUULV (GVf 7KH (PSOR\PHQW ,QWHUYLHZ 7KHRU\ 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH SS f 1HZEXU\ 3DUN &$ 6DJH

PAGE 200

/DWKDP *3 DQG )LQQHJDQ %f 7KH SUDFWLFDOLW\ RI WKH VLWXDWLRQDO LQWHUYLHZ 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH DQQXDO PHHWLQJ RI WKH $FDGHP\ RI 0DQDJHPHQW 1HZ 2UOHDQV /DWKDP *3 6DDUL /0 3XUVHOO (' DQG &DPSLRQ 0$ f 7KH VLWXDWLRQDO LQWHUYLHZ -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ I /RUG 5* f $Q LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ DSSURDFK WR VRFLDO SHUFHSWLRQV OHDGHUVKLS DQG EHKDYLRUDO PHDVXUHPHQW LQ RUJDQL]DWLRQV ,Q .0 5RZODQG DQG *5 )HUULV (GVf 5HVHDUFK LQ 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO %HKDYLRU 9RO SS f *UHHQZLFK &7-$, 0HKUDELDQ $ f 6LJQLILFDQFH RI SRVWXUH DQG SRVLWLRQ LQ WKH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ RI DWWLWXGH DQG VWDWXV UHODWLRQVKLSV 3V\FKRORJLFDO %XOOHWLQ 0HKUDELDQ $ f 1RQYHUEDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ &KLFDJR $OGLQH$WKHUWRQ 0D\ILHOG (& f 7KH VHOHFWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ $ UH HYDOXDWLRQ RI SXEOLVKHG UHVHDUFK 3HUVRQQHO 3V\FKRORJ\ 0F*RYHUQ 79 f 7KH PDNLQJ RI D MRE LQWHUYLHZHH 7KH HIIHFW RI QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU RQ DQ LQWHUYLHZHUnV HYDOXDWLRQV GXULQJ D VHOHFWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 6RXWKHUQ ,OOLQRLV 8QLYHUVLW\f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFW ,QWHUQDWLRQDO % ,% 0F*RYHUQ 79 DQG 7LQVOH\ +($ f ,QWHUYLHZHU HYDOXDWLRQV RI LQWHUYLHZHH QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU -RXUQDO RI 9RFDWLRQDO %HKDYLRU 0F*RYHUQ 79 -RQHV %: DQG 0RUULV 6( f &RPSDULVRQ RI SURIHVVLRQDO YHUVXV VWXGHQW UDWLQJV RI MRE LQWHUYLHZHH EHKDYLRU -RXUQDO RI &RXQVHOLQJ 3V\FKRORJ\ 0F0XUUD\ 51 f 9DOLGDWLQJ WKH SDWWHUQHG LQWHUYLHZ 3HUVRQQHO 0RWRZLGOR 6f ,QIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ LQ SHUVRQQHO GHFLVLRQV ,Q .0 5RZODQG DQG *5 )HUULV (GVf 5HVHDUFK LQ3HUVRQQHO DQG +XPDQ 5HVRXUFHV 0DQDJHPHQW 9RO SS f *UHHQZLFK &7 -$, 0RWRZLGOR 6DQG %XUQHWW -5 f $XUDO DQG YLVXDO VRXUFHV RI YDOLGLW\ 8QGHU UHYLHZ

PAGE 201

0RWRZLGOR 6&DUWHU *: 'XQQHWWH 0' 7LSSLQV 1 :HUQHU 6 %XUQHWW -5 DQG 9DXJKDQ 0f 6WXGLHV RI WKH VWUXFWXUHG EHKDYLRUDO LQWHUYLHZ -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ 1HYLOO f ([SHULPHQWDO PDQLSXODWLRQ RI GHSHQGHQF\ PRWLYDWLRQ DQG LWV HIIHFWV RQ H\H FRQWDFW DQG PHDVXUHV RI ILHOG GHSHQGHQF\ -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 1RUPDQ :7 DQG *ROGEHUJ /5 f 5DWHUV UDWHHV DQG UDQGRPQHVV LQ SHUVRQDOLW\ VWUXFWXUH -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 2USHQ & f 3DWWHUQHG EHKDYLRU GHVFULSWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ YHUVXV XQVWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZV $ FRPSDUDWLYH YDOLGLW\ VWXG\ -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ 3DUVRQV &. DQG /LGHQ 5& f ,QWHUYLHZHU SHUFHSWLRQV RI DSSOLFDQW TXDOLILFDWLRQV $ PXOWLYDULDWH ILHOG VWXG\ RI GHPRJUDSKLF FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG QRQYHUEDO FXHV -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ ef 3DVVLQL )7 DQG 1RUPDQ :7 f $ XQLYHUVDO FRQFHSWLRQ RI SHUVRQDOLW\ VWUXFWXUH -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ $ 3DXQRQHQ 69 f &RQVHQVXV LQ SHUVRQDOLW\ MXGJPHQWV 0RGHUDWLQJ HIIHFWV RI WDUJHWUDWHU DFTXDLQWDQFHVKLS DQG EHKDYLRU REVHUYDELOLW\ -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 5DVPXVVHQ .* f 1RQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU YHUEDO EHKDYLRU UHVXPH FUHGHQWLDOV DQG VHOHFWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ RXWFRPHV -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ 5D]D 60 DQG &DUSHQWHU %1 f $ PRGHO RI OLYLQJ GHFLVLRQV LQ UHDO HPSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZV -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ 6FKHUHU .5 f 0HWKRGV RI UHVHDUFK RQ YRFDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ 3DUDGLJPV DQG SDUDPHWHUV ,Q .5 6KHUHU DQG 3 (NPDQ (GVf +DQGERRN RI 0HWKRGV LQ 1RQYHUEDO %HKDYLRU 5HVHDUFK SSf &DPEULGJH 8. &DPEULGJH 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV 6FKOHQNHU %5 f ,PSUHVVLRQ 0DQDJHPHQW 0RQWHUH\ &$ %URRNV&ROH 6FKPLWW 1 f 6RFLDO DQG VLWXDWLRQDO GHWHUPLQDQWV RI LQWHUYLHZ GHFLVLRQV ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU WKH HPSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZ 3HUVRQQHO 3V\FKRORJ\

PAGE 202

6FKQHLGHU : DQG 6KLIIULQ 50 f &RQWUROOHG DQG DXWRPDWLF KXPDQ LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ 'HWHFWLRQ VHDUFK DQG DWWHQWLRQ 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5HYLHZ tL 6FKXK $f 9HUEDO OLVWHQLQJ VNLOO LQ WKH LQWHUYLHZ DQG SHUVRQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH OLVWHQHUV %XOOHWLQ RI WKH 3V\FKRQRPLF 6RFLHW\ 6FKZDE '3 f &RQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ LQ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO EHKDYLRU ,Q %0 6WDZ DQG // &XPPLQJV (GVf 5HVHDUFK LQ 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO %HKDYLRU 9RO SS f *UHHQZLFK &7 -$, 6KLIIULQ 50 DQG 6FKQHLGHU : f FRQWUROOHG DQG DXWRPDWLF KXPDQ LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ,, 3HUFHSWXDO OHDUQLQJ DXWRPDWLF DWWHQGLQJ DQG D JHQHUDO WKHRU\ 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5HYLHZ 0 6KURXW 3( DQG )OHLVV -/ f ,QWUDFODVV FRUUHODWLRQV 8VHV LQ DVVHVVLQJ UDWHU UHOLDELOLW\ 3V\FKRORJLFDO %XOOHWLQ 0 6LJHOPDQ &. DQG 'DYLV 3f 0DNLQJ JRRG LPSUHVVLRQV LQ MRE LQWHUYLHZV 9HUEDO DQG QRQYHUEDO SUHGLFWRUV (GXFDWLRQ DQG 7UDLQLQJ RI WKH 0HQWDOO\ 5HWDUGHG 6WHUUHWW -+ f 7KH MRE LQWHUYLHZ %RG\ ODQJXDJH DQG SHUFHSWLRQV RI SRWHQWLDO HIIHFWLYHQHVV -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ 6XOVN\ /0 DQG %DO]HU :. f 0HDQLQJ DQG PHDVXUHPHQW RI SHUIRUPDQFH UDWLQJ DFFXUDF\ 6RPH PHWKRGRORJLFDO DQG WKHRUHWLFDO FRQFHUQV -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ 7KD\HU 6 f 7KH HIIHFW RI LQWHUSHUVRQDO ORRNLQJ GXUDWLRQ RQ GRPLQDQFH MXGJPHQWV -RXUQDO RI 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 7XSHV (& DQG &KULVWDO 5( f 5HFXUUHQW SHUVRQDOLW\ IDFWRUV EDVHG RQ WUDLW UDWLQJV -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ 5HSULQWHG IURP 86$) $6' 7HFKQLFDO 5HSRUW 1R @ 8OULFK / DQG 7UXPER f 7KH VHOHFWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ VLQFH 3V\FKRORJLFDO %XOOHWLQ 9DQ +RRII -$5$0 f &DWHJRULHV DQG VHTXHQFHV RI EHKDYLRU 0HWKRGV RI GHVFULSWLRQ DQG DQDO\VLV ,Q .5 6FKHUHU DQG 3 (NPDQ (GVf +DQGERRN RI 0HWKRGV LQ

PAGE 203

1RQYHUEDO %HKDYLRU 5HVHDUFK SSf &DPEULGJH &DPEULGJH 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV :DJQHU 5 f 7KH HPSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZ $ FULWLFDO UHYLHZ 3HUVRQQHO 3V\FKRORJ\ :DONHU 0% f 7KH UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH RI YHUEDO DQG QRQYHUEDO FXHV LQ WKH H[SUHVVLRQ RI FRQILGHQFH $XVWUDOLDQ -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKRORJ\ :HHNOH\ -$ DQG *LHU -$ f 5HOLDELOLW\ DQG YDOLGLW\ RI WKH VLWXDWLRQDO LQWHUYLHZ IRU D VDOHV SRVLWLRQ -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ :LHVQHU :+ DQG &URQVKDZ 6) f $ PHWDDQDO\WLF LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH LPSDFW RI LQWHUYLHZ IRUPDW DQG GHJUHH RI VWUXFWXUH RQ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH HPSOR\PHQW LQWHUYLHZ -RXUQDO RI 2FFXSDWLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\  :HUQLPRQW 3) DQG &DPSEHOO -3 f 6LJQV VDPSOHV DQG FULWHULD -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\  :H[OH\ .1 )XJLWD 66 DQG 0DORQH 03 f $Q DSSOLFDQWnV QRQYHUEDO EHKDYLRU DQG VWXGHQWHYDOXDWRUVn MXGJPHQWV LQ D VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ VHWWLQJ 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5HSRUWV e :ULJKW 25 f 6XPPDU\ RI UHVHDUFK RQ WKH VHOHFWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ VLQFH 3HUVRQQHO 3V\FKRORJ\ :\HU 56 DQG 6UXOO 7. f 7KH SURFHVVLQJ RI VRFLDO VWLPXOXV LQIRUPDWLRQ $ FRQFHSWXDO LQWHJUDWLRQ ,Q 5 +DVWLH 70 2VWURP (% (EEHVHQ 56 :\HU / +DPLOWRQ DQG '( &DUOVWRQ (GVf 3HUVRQ 0HPRU\ &RJQLWLYH 3DVLV IRU 6RFLDO 3HUFHSWLRQ +LOOVGDOH QM (UOEDXP
PAGE 204

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ -HQQLIHU 5 %XUQHWW ZDV ERUQ LQ $ELQJWRQ 3HQQV\OYDQLD DQG JUHZ XS LQ -DFNVRQYLOOH )ORULGD ,Q VKH JUDGXDWHG PDJQD FXP ODXGH IURP 5ROOLQV &ROOHJH :LQWHU 3DUN )ORULGD ZLWK D %DFKHORU RI $UWV GHJUHH LQ SV\FKRORJ\ $IWHU FRPSOHWLQJ KHU GRFWRUDO ZRUN LQ WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI 0DQDJHPHQW &ROOHJH RI %XVLQHVV $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD VKH ZLOO WDNH D SRVLWLRQ DV $VVLVWDQW 3URIHVVRU RI 0DQDJHPHQW DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI $ODEDPD DW %LUPLQJKDP

PAGE 205

, FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH 0DQDJHPHQW RI LORVRSK\ 6WHSKDQ=7 0RWRZLGOR &KDLU $VVRFLDWH 3URIHVVRU RI FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWWMU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 9X $ Rn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

PAGE 206

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$


UTILIZATION AND VALIDITY OF NONVERBAL CUES
IN THE STRUCTURED INTERVIEW
BY
JENNIFER R. BURNETT
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1993
Diversity
UBrar/ss

Copyright 1993
by
Jennifer R. Burnett

This work is dedicated to my supportive, patient, and ever
loving husband, Tom, who has helped me become all that I am,
and all that I will ever be; to my wonderful and caring
parents, who always believed in me and who instilled in me
the ambition and strength to reach for my goals; and to my
two brothers for their constant encouragement and
inspiration.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks are extended to my chairman, Dr. Stephan
Motowidlo, for his enduring guidance. His confidence in the
results and related implications of this line of research has
been very inspiring. As a committed mentor, he made the
dissertation process a true learning process. I am also
sincerely grateful for the support of Dr. Henry Tosi. His
belief in my abilities, constant encouragement, and
invaluable advice helped me to reach my goals. Dr. Norman
Markel was also a integral part of my learning experience.
He not only offered his expertise in the field of nonverbal
communication, but he also provided a much appreciated,
realistic perspective to this experience. Finally, I would
like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Wesley
Hutchinson. His suggestions and viewpoint were greatly
appreciated.
The financial and logistical support of Dr. Sanford Berg
and the Public Utility Research Center at the University of
Florida was greatly appreciated. His assistance made this
research possible.
A special acknowledgement is given to my parents and
brothers. Their faith in me was unwavering, and their
excitement in my accomplishments has made it all worthwhile.
iv

Finally, none of this would have been possible without my
husband, Tom. The long hours, doubts, and frequent obstacles
could not have been overcome without his undying patience,
understanding and strong belief in me. My accomplishments
are a direct result of his love and encouragement.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT viii
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW 1
Introduction 1
Structured Interviews 2
Theoretical Perspectives on the Effectiveness of the
Structured Interview 13
Attention to and Utilization of Nonverbal Cues in the
Interview 24
Issues of Concern and Future Directions 4 6
PRELIMINARY STUDIES AND THE CURRENT STUDY RESEARCH
QUESTIONS 59
Study #1: The Development and Validation of the
Interview 60
Study #2: Aural and Visual Sources of Validity 66
Study #3: Identifying Important Nonverbal Behaviors 71
Implications of Preliminary Studies on the Current
Study 81
Current Research Study 84
HYPOTHESES, METHODS, AND PROCEDURES 88
Research Hypotheses 88
Methods and Procedures 92
Reliabilities 105
Data Analysis 113
RESULTS 115
Total Sample Analyses 115
Analyses by Interviewee Sex 121
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 130
Cue Utilization and the Ecological Validity of
Nonverbal Cues 130
Incremental Validity 133
Sex Differences 134
vi

Contributions and Limitations 138
Summary and Conclusions 140
APPENDIX A INTERVIEW PROTOCOL AND INTERVIEW DIMENSIONS .... 142
APPENDIX B SUPERVISORY RATING FORMS 156
APPENDIX C TRAITS ASSOCIATED WITH BEHAVIORAL DIMENSIONS . . . 164
APPENDIX D NONVERBAL CUE RATING FORMS 169
REFERENCES 186
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 195
vii

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
UTILIZATION AND VALIDITY OF NONVERBAL CUES
IN THE STRUCTURED INTERVIEW
By
Jennifer R. Burnett
August, 1993
Chairman: Stephan J. Motowidlo, Ph.D.
Major Department: Management
The purpose of this study was to determine if nonverbal
cues are utilized by interview raters, are related to
performance ratings, and contribute incrementally to the
validity of a structured interview. Simulated job interviews
with 60 managers from 4 utility companies were recorded on
videotape. Supervisors provided performance ratings.
Undergraduate raters (N=167) watched the videotaped
interviews and rated subjects on 4 dimensions of managerial
effectiveness. Eight nonverbal behaviors, including gaze,
smiling, hand movement, back/side lean, body orientation,
physical attractiveness, dress, and vocal attractiveness,
were scored by independent judges.
Nonverbal cues, in combination, were significantly
correlated with both interview (r=.33, p<.01) and performance
viii

(r=.21, p<.05) ratings. Gaze was the only nonverbal cue
which was not only utilized by interview raters, but also was
a valid indicator of performance. Independent measures of
nonverbal cues did not contribute incrementally to the
validity of the interview, suggesting that interview raters
were utilizing cues sufficiently.
Results differed according to the sex of the
interviewee. Although nonverbal cues correlated
significantly with interview ratings for both men (r=.30,
p<.05, N=32) and women (r=.39, p<.05, N=28), correlations
with performance substantially differed by sex (men: r=-.18,
n.s.; women: r=.67, p<.001). For women only, combined
dynamic cues were both utilized by interview raters (r=.31,
p<.05), and significantly correlated with supervisory ratings
of performance (r=.56, p<.001). Also, for women,
independently rated nonverbal cues added significantly to the
prediction of performance, beyond that of interview ratings
alone. This indicates that interview raters were not
sufficiently utilizing nonverbal cues when judging female
interviewees.
It was concluded that nonverbal cues influence
structured interview ratings, and are related to supervisory
ratings of performance. Gaze, in particular, seems to be a
valid nonverbal cue to utilize in the interview. Three
explanations are proposed regarding the compelling sex
differences found in this study.
ix

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Despite years of criticism about the interview's low
reliability and validity, it has prevailed as one of the most
popular methods of selection. Recently developed structured
interview techniques have lifted some of the negativity
surrounding the use of the interview. Studies that have
tested structured interview formats have provided favorable
reports of their use to increase the validity and reliability
of interviewer's judgments (M. Campion, Pursell, and Brown,
1988; Janz, 1982; Latham, Saari, Pursell, and M. Campion,
1980; Motowidlo, Carter, Dunnette, Tippins, Werner, Burnett,
and Vaughan, 1992). Researchers must continue to investigate
how to improve the structured interview in order to obtain
accurate ratings that identify qualified job candidates.
This study will focus on a set of factors that, research
has shown, affects the favorability of interviewer's
judgments. These factors are nonverbal cues. The specific
focus here is on the effect of nonverbal cues (e.g. body
positioning, gestures, facial expressions, voice
characteristics, appearance and attractiveness) on the
validity with which interviewers make predictions of
applicants' future job performance.
1

2
In order to establish the direction and contribution of
the current study, related literature will be reviewed.
First, an overview of structured interviewing will be
presented, including an explanation of what is meant by
"structured," and a description of different types of
structured interview techniques. Second, since it has been
suggested that the structure of the interview may affect
interviewers' ability to process information presented during
the interview, a closer look will be taken of each step of
the information processing system and how the structured
interview format can affect those steps. The step of
greatest interest in the current study is the process of
attending to and utilizing cues, particularly nonverbal cues.
This focus will lead to a review of studies that have
investigated the effect of nonverbal cues on raters'
judgments. What types of cues are important, how do they
affect interviewers' judgments, and to what degree do they
influence judgments beyond that of verbal information?
Finally, important issues which need to be addressed by
further research in this area will be discussed.
Structured Interviews
The Meaning of "Structure"
Structuring an interview may mean different things to
different people. Structure, in the context of the selection

3
interview, means that the interviewer follows systematic and
predetermined rules to observe and evaluate applicants.
Structuring may also mean that these rules are applied in the
same way for all applicants of a position. These rules may
designate the type of questions asked by the interviewer, the
elements of an applicant's answer to which the interviewer
should attend, and/or the scoring system used by the
interviewers to make judgments based on the applicant's
responses. We can think of structure in varying degrees. At
the low extreme there is the unstructured interview where no,
or few, rules exist with regard to conducting the interview,
and the interviewer has full discretionary control of the
process. At the high extreme there is the very structured
interview, where the interviewer only asks predetermined
questions and nothing more, and therefore has no discretion.
The highly structured interview is, in effect, an orally
administered objective test, and could just as well be
administered without the interviewer. Although we do not
know if there is an optimal degree of structure, there is
evidence that some structure is better than none.
For example, in 1949 Wagner noted that an interview
should be conducted according to a standardized form. He
proposed that an interview can be valid if all information
that can be obtained on a candidate is taken into
consideration and weighed properly. Furthermore, the
interviewer must be skilled at obtaining full and complete
information from an applicant, observing significant

4
behavior, ignoring irrelevant behavior, and synthesizing all
information into a valid prediction of success (Wagner,
1949). In fact, Wagner noted that another researcher,
McMurray (1947), developed a "patterned" interview that
accomplished these objectives. Using McMurray's format,
interviewers (1) were trained in the techniques of
interviewing, (2) attended to definite job specifications,
(3) had a plan and knew before the interview what questions
they would ask of applicants, (4) had clinical concepts to
use when interpreting and evaluating applicant's responses,
(5) checked outside references prior to the interview, and
(6) were assessed for their own degree of emotional
adjustment and intelligence. McMurray found a significant
correlation (r=.68) between interviewers' ratings of 587
factory workers and supervisor's evaluations of their work.
In another study he found a correlation of .43 between
interview ratings and truck drivers' tenure on the job.
These suggestions by Wagner and the early findings by
McMurray (1947) sound very similar to the rules and formats
used, and results reported, of many structured interview
techniques of today.
Empirical evidence of the advantage of more structure
was presented more recently by Wiesner and Cronshaw (1988)
who reported an uncorrected validity coefficient of .35 for
structured interviews, but only .11 for unstructured
interviews in a meta-analysis of validity studies of
selection interviews. Accordingly, the interest and

5
popularity of the structured interview is based on both long
held beliefs (Mayfield, 1964; McMurray, 1927; Schmitt, 1976;
Ulrich and Trumbo, 1965; Wagner, 1949; Wright, 1969) and
recent evidence (Hakel, 1989; Janz, 1982; Latham, Saari,
Pursell, and M. Campion, 1980; Motowidlo, Carter, Dunnette,
Tippins, Werner, Burnett, and Vaughan, 1992; Wiesner and
Cronshaw, 1988) that structured interviews have an advantage
over unstructured interviews.
Types of Structured Interview Formats
Two well known structured interview formats are the
Situational Interview (SI), developed by Latham et al.
(1980), and the Patterned Behavioral Description Interview
(PBDI), developed by Janz (1982; Janz, Hellervik, and
Gilmore, 1986). Another, more recently developed, structured
interview format is the Structured Behavioral Interview,
developed by Motowidlo et al. (1992). Similarities and
differences in format of each of these interview techniques
and evidence of the validity and reliability of each type of
structured interview provide insight into the advantages of
structured interviews over traditional interviews.
First, in the situational interview (SI), questions are
presented as hypothetical situations, and ask applicants what
they would do if they were in that situation. The SI
questions are based on goal theory, or the belief that
behavioral intentions are strongly linked with subsequent

6
behavior. SI questions are derived from a critical incidents
job analysis of the job to be filled.
The validity of the situational interview has received
support. Latham et al. (1980) reported three studies with
concurrent validity coefficients of .46 (p<.05, N=49) and .30
(p<.05, N=63) with incumbents, and predictive validities of
.33 (p<.05, N=56) with applicants. The criterion in all
cases was supervisor's composite performance ratings of
workers. Two additional studies by Latham and Saari (1984)
also support the validity of the situational interview. In
one study, they reported correlations of interview ratings
with concurrent supervisory ratings at .39 (p<.05) and with
peer ratings at .42 (p<.05)(N=29). In another study, they
reported a predictive validity coefficient of .14 (p<.05,
N=157) between interview scores and composite supervisory
ratings. Weekley and Gier (1987) gave evidence of the
predictive validity of the situational format when they
reported a correlation of .45 (p<.05) between interview
ratings of 54 individuals applying for a retail sales
position and their sales productivity nine months later.
Across six studies, validity estimates for the situational
interview ranged from .14 to .46 (all significant at the
p<.05 level) with a total sample of 378 interviewees. This
results in a mean validity of .28 weighted by sample size.
Reliability estimates from these same seven studies are
adequate. Interobserver reliabilities ranged from .76 to .90,
and internal consistency estimates ranged from .61 to .78.

7
In the second well-known structured interview format,
the Patterned Behavior Description Interview (PBDI),
applicants are asked to recall specific past experiences, and
to report their actual behavior when they were in those
situations. This format is based on the theory of behavioral
consistency, or the idea that past behavior will predict
future behavior (Wernimont and Campbell, 1968). Janz (1989)
states that behavior descriptions provided by job applicants
reveal specific choices made by those individuals, and the
circumstances under which they made those choices. He argues
that this type of information reveals behavioral patterns,
rather than opinions or impressions, and the more long¬
standing the applicant's behavior pattern, the more likely it
will predict future behavior. The behavioral dimensions
tapped by the PBDI questions are derived from the results of
a critical incidents job analysis.
There have been two published studies of the validity of
the PBDI. The first, by Janz (1982), involved fifteen
teaching assistants who were interviewed twice by
undergraduate students. Interviewers were divided into two
groups. One group received training for the PBDI, and the
other group received general instruction on establishing
rapport, active listening, etc. The traditionally trained
interviewers exhibited greater interrater agreement, but the
PBDI-trained interviewers' ratings were significantly
correlated, at .54 (p< .001), with an independent rating of
the teaching assistants' effectiveness in class. The

8
traditionally trained interviewers' ratings only correlated
.07 (n.s.) with the criterion. It is important to note that
in Janz's study interviewers were not randomly assigned to a
training condition, and the sample size was small. These two
weaknesses cast speculation on the accuracy of these results.
In response, in a study by Orpen (1985), interviewers
were randomly assigned to two conditions of behavior
description training and traditional training. Nineteen real
applicants for an insurance sales position were each
interviewed by at least four of the sixteen total
interviewers. Supervisory ratings and the value of insurance
sales in one year were both used as criteria. Orpen (1985)
reported a correlation of .48 (p<.01) between supervisory
performance ratings and the ratings made by interviewers
trained in the behavioral description technique, versus a
nonsignificant validity coefficient of .08 (n.s.) for the
traditionally trained interviewers. For the criterion of the
value of insurance sold, the PBDI interviewers' ratings
validity was .61 (pc.Ol), and the traditional interviewers'
ratings validity was .10 (n.s.).
The mean validity coefficient for the Janz (1982) and
Orpen (1985) studies is .55, weighted by sample size.
However, the small total sample size (N=34), again, calls
into questions the precision of these results. The test-
retest reliability in Orpen's study was .72 and did not
differ significantly from that of the traditional
unstructured interview. In Janz's study the standard

9
interview had a greater interobserver reliability than that
of the patterned behavior interview, .71 and .46,
respectively.
Lastly, the Structured Behavioral Interview (SBI),
developed by Motowidlo et al. (1992), consolidates some
aspects of both the SI and PBDI techniques, while adding some
unique features. The SBI is similar to both the SI and PBDI
in that it derives its behavioral dimensions from the results
of critical incident job analysis. The questions in the SBI
elicit answers representing one or more of the interview
dimensions by asking how interviewees behaved in past
situations that are similar to situations encountered on the
job for which they are applying. Therefore, the SBI
questions are similar to, but more structured than the PBDI,
since this format requires interviewers to ask the same
questions. Additionally, the interviewer using the SBI not
only asks a standard set of questions, but also is trained to
probe for details of the situation, the interviewee's
behavior in that situation, and the outcome that resulted
from that behavior. Like the SI, after the interview is
completed, the interviewer using the SBI rates the
interviewee on behaviorally anchored scales for each
dimension.
Motowidlo and his colleagues (1992) reported the SBI's
criterion validity, construct validity, and reliability. In
three studies using eight telecommunications companies, with
a total validation sample of approximately 500 interviewees,

10
the uncorrected mean estimate of the criterion-related
validity of the SBI is .22. In one study they reported
concurrent validities ranging from .15 (p<.05) to .32
(pc.Ol), with a mean of .25 weighted by sample size varying
from 139-146, depending on missing data. In another study,
predictive validity coefficients were reported between .13
(p<.05) and .25 (pc.Ol), with a mean of .18, weighted by a
sample size of 192-195. In a third study, they reported a
predictive validity coefficient of .15 (n.s.) to .45(pc.Ol),
with a mean correlation of .33, weighted by a sample size of
30-33. These three studies involved an interview format that
measured dimensions important for management jobs. In the
third study, however, another format designed for marketing
jobs, was also tested. The concurrent validity of the
marketing position interview ranged from .05 (n.s.) to .32
(pc.Ol), with a mean of .20, weighted by a sample size of
124-159.
Support for the construct validity of the SBI was based
on three results. First, correlations between ratings by
interviewers and subjects who listened to tapes of the
interviews, and ratings by interviewers and supervisors, were
higher for same dimensions (i.e. convergent validity) than
for different dimensions (i.e. discriminant validity).
Second, SBI ratings were significantly correlated with
ratings made with another interview format designed to
measure the same, or similar, dimensions. And, finally, the
SBI interview ratings were not strongly, or significantly,

11
correlated with other measures, such as an aptitude test,
college grade point averages, or rank in college class, that
rely heavily on cognitive ability.
The reliability of the SBI was determined in the first
study conducted by Motowidlo et al. (1992) and was based on
(1) the correlation between ratings by different interviewers
who interviewed the same applicants on different occasions,
and (2) the correlation between ratings by pairs of listeners
of audiotapes of those interviews. Those reliability
estimates were .64 and .63, respectively.
In addition to evidence of validity and reliability of
these three particular interview techniques, there are two
additional criteria that should be taken into account—
namely, freedom from bias and practicality. For the
situational interview (Campion et al., 1988; Latham, 1989)
and the structured behavioral interview (Motowidlo, et al.,
1992) there is significant evidence that these techniques are
not biased in favor of race or sex of the applicant. There
is no reported evidence regarding the degree of bias in the
patterned behavior description interview (Janz, 1982; Janz,
1989).
The practicality of these three interview techniques is
evidenced by indicators such as their usefulness for making
selection decisions, interviewers' and applicants'
perceptions of fairness, and the feasibility of their use.
The most apparent test of an interview's practicality may be

12
its continued use and acceptance by recruiters and managers
who use the technique to make important hiring decisions.
In one study, by Latham and Finnegan (1987),
interviewers and applicants were asked to report their
perceptions of and preferences for the unstructured,
patterned, and situational interview formats. Two groups of
managers reported that they preferred the patterned to the
unstructured interview. They did, however, consider the
situational interview significantly better than the patterned
on aspects such as the opportunity to compare applicants
objectively, and to hire or reject applicants on job related
grounds. The SI, however, was perceived as low on ease of
preparation. Employees who were recently hired using the
three formats did not view one interview method as better, or
more preferable, than another. College students, however,
who were preparing for a job search, preferred the
unstructured interview over the other two formats, because
the unstructured format allowed them to sell themselves more
effectively, and gave them more freedom to say what they
wanted to say.
In summary, for users, in this case, managers, the
consensus seems to be in favor of some structure, rather than
none. But the jury is still out regarding what format
applicants prefer, or whether one particular structured
format is more preferable or practical than another to users.
Because the SBI was not included in Latham and
Finnegan's (1987) study since it had not yet been developed,

13
there is a need to conduct a more current survey of users'
and applicants' perceptions of the practicality of each
interview method for meeting their objectives. Although, if
the popularity and widespread use of the structured,
behaviorally-based interviews in corporate America is any
indication of the practicality of these techniques, then it
seems reasonable to argue that they are indeed perceived as
useful, feasible, and fair.
Convincing evidence has been presented of not only the
overall favorability of structured interviews, but also the
results of validity and reliability research of three
specific structured interview formats. Additionally, support
has been given for the SI and SBI's freedom from bias.
Finally, the structured techniques seem more practical than
the unstructured interview to interviewers, but evidence of
overall practicality is still officially undetermined. One
question not yet addressed, however, with regard to the
success of the structured interview, is "Why does it work?".
In order to try to answer this question theoretical
perspectives of interviewing itself must be considered.
Theoretical Perspectives on the Effectiveness of the
Structured Interview
The Validation Model
In order to discuss the possible reasons why structured
interviews are more valid and reliable than the traditional,

14
unstructured interview it must be explained why the latter
have had poorer results. According to a model developed by
Schwab (1980), when considering the criterion-related
validity (or empirical validity) of the interview, it is also
necessary to be concerned with the construct validity of the
predictor and the criterion used (See Figure 1.1).
Independent
Variable
Dependent
Variable
Construct
Validity
Í
I' ^
t
Empirical Validity
Figure 1.1. An illustration of construct and empirical
validity in the employment interview.(Adapted from Schwab,
1980)
The validity correlations reported by researchers are between
interview ratings (I') and some type of job performance
criterion rating (C) . These are indicators of the real
constructs of I, performance in the interview, and C,
performance on the job. When a significant correlation is
found between I' and C it suggests a significant
relationship between I and C. But, there must also be a high
correlation between I and I' , and C and C to make that
assumption. Therefore, both construct and empirical validity

15
are necessary to make inferences from the research data
(Cronshaw and Wiesner, 1989).
In the unstructured interview, the indicator I' (i.e.
interview ratings) may lack construct validity as a measure
of I in the structured interview because of the failure of
the traditional interviewer to obtain relevant, job-related
information. Janz (1989) suggested that, in the unstructured
interview, the questions interviewers actually ask, and the
information for which they probe, have little to do with the
constructs that are important for predicting job performance.
Necessary and relevant information may not be consistently
uncovered in an unstructured interview (Mayfield, 1964).
Also, I' may lack construct validity as a measure of I
because of the influence of interviewer biases (such as
similar-to-me and contrast effects). Interviewers who use
unstructured interviews have much self discretion, thereby
allowing individual differences, such as differential
attention and weighting of information, to come into play.
These biases and individual differences can interfere with
the collection of a relevant sample of the true domain of
information about the applicant (I). Likewise, interviewers
who are not guided by any specific rules or structure tend to
focus on how the applicant responds in the limited context of
the interview session, rather on long term patterns of
behavior. This allows the impression management strategies
of the interviewee to influence judgments to a greater degree
(Dipboye, 1992; Janz, 1989) .

16
Therefore, the lack of construct validity of I' may
attenuate the criterion-related validity coefficient between
I' and C. In response to the low reliabilities and low
validities of unstructured interview techniques arose the
development of structured interview formats.
There is not one widely accepted theory regarding why
structured interviews work. The advantage of the structured
interview developed by Janz (1982), Latham et al. (1980) and
Motowidlo et al. (1992) may be due to the fact that the
questions are job-related because they were systematically
derived using critical incidents job analysis. If questions
are more job-related, then applicants can provide more
relevant information in their answers for interviewers to use
for predicting effective job performance. Therefore,
structured interview ratings (I') that are based on those
relevant answers would have greater construct validity,
because they would more accurately reflect the true predictor
of I (see Figure 1.1). Similarly, the structured interview
format may have greater validity results because
interviewers' judgments are more reliable. The extensive
training typically involved in the use of structured formats,
the standardization of questions across interviewers, and the
provision of behaviorally anchored rating scales may all
contribute to increased interrater reliability. Overall, the
methodological aspects of structured formats seem to improve
the I' - I linkage, resulting in improved reliability and
construct validity of the interview ratings, and subsequently

17
strengthen the I' - C linkage, reported as the criterion-
related validity (Cronshaw and Wiesner, 1989).
Aspects of a structured format, such as the job¬
relatedness of the questions, the presence of predetermined
rules for conducting the interview, and the use of
behaviorally anchored scales to make ratings, may each
contribute to the construct and empirical validity of the
ratings. This explanation, however, may be only part of a
more comprehensive explanation of the advantages of the
structured interview. One can not forget that between the
time the interview questions are asked and the interviewer
makes a rating or judgement, an important phenomenon occurs—
the processing of information. The structure of the
interview, particularly the methodologies employed, may
improve the effectiveness of the interviewers' information
processing capabilities, that, in turn, affect the validity
of the interview (Eder, Kacmar and Ferris,1989).
The Information Processing Model
The interviewer processes information by progressing
through five steps (Lord, 1985). The first three steps
constitute the input of information, including (1) selective
attention to informational cues, (2) the comprehension and
encoding of those cues, and (3) storage and retention into
memory. After all information has been collected, at some
later point, the judge must retrieve the information (step 4)

18
from memory and translate it into the required judgment or
decision (step 5) (Lord, 1985).
The methodology of a structured format may affect each
step of the information processing system. First, the
interviewer must obtain a sample of information from the
population of positive and negative information available
about the job applicant (Motowidlo, 1986). This sample of
information is obtained through interviewers' automatic
and/or controlled attentional mechanisms (Ilgen and Feldman,
1983; Feldman, 1981; Schneider and Shiffrin, 1977; Shiffrin
and Schneider, 1977). The automatic process of attention
occurs without conscious monitoring or awareness. Relevant
information must be detected within the context of other,
irrelevant pieces of information. When under controlled
attentional conditions, individuals are aware of their
cognitive processes and consciously seek out relevant
applicant information. Both the automatic and controlled
attention mechanisms are influenced by the salience of the
informational cues. The salience of the cues determines
whether or not they are utilized by interviewers (Ilgen and
Feldman, 1983; Feldman, 1981; Schneider and Shiffrin, 1977;
Shiffrin and Schneider, 1977) .
In the structured interview the interviewers are
typically trained to attend to information that is relevant
to the dimensions on which they will rate the applicant. For
example, in the Situational Interview (Latham et al., 1980)
raters are aware of the dimensions that each question is

19
intended to tap, and they are also provided with a scoring
guide that gives them examples of a good, moderate, and poor
response for each question. Motowidlo et al. (1992) also
trained interviewers using the Structured Behavioral
Interview format to identify information provided by the
applicant that was relevant to the dimension to be measured.
The interviewers made ratings on each dimension that were
anchored with specific descriptions of behaviors at high,
moderate and low levels. This training and the tools
provided to interviewers (specific dimensions, structured
questions, scoring guides) make their attentional processes
more controlled. Additionally, by providing interviewers
with carefully developed tools and predetermined rules to
follow they are relieved of the responsibility of making
those decisions themselves. They then have more time and
freedom to attend to interviewees' responses, rather than
worry about what question to ask next, or how to score it.
Overall, the controlled attention of interviewers using a
structured interview format enables them to distinguish
relevant, from irrelevant, pieces of information more
readily.
Second, the rules and tools of the structured format
make it easier for interviewers to encode the information to
which they have attended. Encoding occurs when an external
stimulus, such as applicants' verbal and nonverbal responses
to interview questions, is translated into an symbolic code
within the mind of the perceiver (Lord, 1985) . Each piece of

20
information is not encoded independently, but instead, is
matched with more general, preexisting categories.
Information that is incongruent with existing categories
takes longer to encode, and may require the development of a
new category for novel stimuli (Lord, 1985). Ilgen and
Feldman (1983) stated that the categories that judges use to
process information are a function of their experience and
education. Accordingly, the structured interview may improve
interviewers' encoding process because they are provided with
behavioral dimensions (i.e. categories), trained to use them,
and gain more experience with using those same dimensions
over time. The dimensional scoring guides that use
behaviorally-anchored scales give them a relevant bases upon
which they can identify and categorize interviewees'
responses. Therefore, they are better able to make sense of
and integrate the wealth of information presented to them
during the interview by matching it with predetermined
behavioral categories.
After information is encoded it is stored in short-term
memory, or a "workspace" (Wyer and Srull, 1980). In many
cases of social perception, that information may not be
needed until some period of time has elapsed. In those
situations the information is eventually transferred from
short-term to long-term memory until retrieval. In the
context of the interview, however, there is very little time,
often a matter of minutes or, at most, hours, between when
the information is received and when it is retrieved for

21
evaluation. Therefore, we will assume that, under most
interviewing conditions, it does not enter long-term memory.
The short retention period helps to minimize the loss of
detailed information, and the interviewer is not limited to
using only the prototypes of the encoded categories, for
information output.
For information output, the interviewer must retrieve
and integrate encoded information, and then formulate a
judgment of the applicant based on that information. These
steps often occur contiguously (Lord, 1985). The information
recalled could be both behavioral and dispositional (Feldman,
1981). There has been much criticism about using traits to
make personnel decisions, rather than behaviors, due to the
subjective assessment of personality attributes and judges'
tendencies to define traits differently . Instead, more
objective, behavioral information is recommended for
personnel decisions. When making hiring decisions, the
behaviors of the job candidate are of greatest interest,
since these should predict how they will perform on the job.
In the structured interview, since the scoring guides with
which interviewers make their ratings are based on specific
behaviors, their ability to recall and rate behavioral
information may be improved.
Overall, the rules and methods used in structured
interviews have the potential to influence each step of the
interviewers' information processing system. Motowidlo
(1986) noted the importance of the information processing

22
system for making personnel decisions and stated that "the
accuracy of an evaluative judgment depends upon how well the
input sample of impressions represents the population of
information, how well the retrieved sample of impressions
represents the input sample of impressions, and how well the
judgment represents the retrieved sample of impressions" (p.
6). If a structured format results in more efficient
processing of information by the interviewer, then the
validity of those decisions is improved.
Within the context of both an information processing
model and a validation model, we have theoretically implied
reasons for the advantage of structured interview formats
over unstructured formats. It would be infeasible, if not
impossible, to demonstrate all of these implications at once.
Instead we would like to narrow our focus for this study to
one stage of the information processing system—that of
attention and the utilization of cues. In order to do this
we turn to another model, by Brunswik (1956), that limits
itself exclusively to the process of cue utilization.
The Brunswik Lens Model
The Brunswik lens model provides an approach for
researchers to examine (1) the influence of applicant
attributes on interviewers judgments (cue utilization), (2)
the actual relationship between each attribute and the
criterion (ecological validity), and (3) the overall

23
relationship of interviewers' judgments of the applicant to
the criterion (achievement).
Hierarchy of Cues
Achievement
Figure 1.2. A modified version of the Brunswik lens model.
The level of achievement is a function of ecological
validity and cue utilization. In other words, the accuracy
of an interviewers' judgment varies with whether he or she
utilizes valid cues, and the consistency with which cues are
utilized (Dipboye, 1992). If an interviewer has knowledge
about which pieces of verbal and nonverbal information
presented during the interview are relevant for predicting
the criterion, and uses those cues to make hiring decisions,
then he or she has identified valid cues and is utilizing
them appropriately.

24
Few studies in the employment interview literature have
used the Brunswik lens model. In their 1982 review, Arvey
and Campion encouraged more use of the lens model, yet ten
years later, there has been only one known application of
this model by Gifford et al. (1985) for interview research.
Borkenau and Liebler (1992) claimed they were the second to
use the entire lens model in a study of person perception.
Although they focused on situations where targets and raters
are strangers, much like an interview, they did not
explicitly use an employment interview setting. Furthermore,
though many studies have investigated interviewers'
utilization of nonverbal cues, or variables that correspond
to only the right side of the lens model, only one study,
conducted by Anderson and Shackleton (1990), explicitly used
the Brunswik lens model. This body of literature will now be
reviewed.
Attention to and Utilization of Nonverbal Cues in the
Interview
The interview is, by definition, a face-to-face
discussion between the applicant and the interviewer, but
interviewers do not attend only to what applicants say. Much
evidence indicates that interviewers also attend to and
evaluate nonverbal cues presented by interviewees (Gifford et
al., 1985; Imada and Hakel, 1977; McGovern and Tinsley, 1978;
Raza and Carpenter, 1987; Young and Beier, 1977). Several

25
researchers have investigated whether those cues provide
information that influences hiring decisions, above and
beyond that provided by verbal and more objective (i.e.
resume) information. Schmitt (1976) suggested that nonverbal
sources of information were more important than verbal cues,
and a combination of both verbal and nonverbal information
had the greatest influence on differences in interviewers'
ratings of job applicants. Amabile and Rabat (1982) go so
far as to suggest that when subjects' verbal responses
conflict with their behavior, interviewers tend to base their
evaluations more on actions than words. Even when there is
no conflict, the variance accounted for by nonverbal cues has
exceeded that of verbal content in some studies. Young and
Beier (1977) found that eye contact, smiling and head
movement accounted for 87% of the variance in interviewers
ratings of applicant qualifications. Sigelman and Davis
(1978) found that nonverbal behavior accounted for 56% of the
variance in the interviewers' evaluations. In two other
studies (Argyle, Salter, Nicholson, Williams and Burgess,
1970; Walker, 1977), researchers reported that nonverbal cues
accounted for 10.3 and 10 times more variance, respectively,
than that due to verbal content.
Systematic research on the effect of nonverbal behavior
on social interaction has been conducted in only the last
thirty to thirty-five years, and specifically within the
context of the interview only in the last twenty years.
Before reviewing this body of literature different types of

26
nonverbal behaviors will be identified and operationally
defined.
Identifying and Defining nonverbal Cues
There are three specific types of nonverbal cues that
have been studied as having an effect on interviewers'
employment decisions—dynamic, static and paralinguistic
cues. Dynamic cues are those that involve some type of
movement that can be changed from moment to moment. Examples
of dynamic cues include smiling, gesturing, gaze, head
movement or nodding, body orientation, and posture. Static
cues are characteristics of an individual that cannot readily
be altered in a given situation. Age, gender, physical
attractiveness, dress, and cleanliness are examples of static
cues. Obviously the latter three can be altered over time,
but, for example, in a job interview the applicant has the
same clothes, hairstyle, scent, etc. for the duration of the
interview. Paralinguistic cues refer to characteristics of
vocalizations. The rate, volume and tone with which someone
speaks, their ability to articulate words, as well as the
time spent talking and length of pauses before answers, are
examples of paralinguistic cues.
There is not a consensus regarding which nonverbal
behaviors are important for predicting interviewers'
judgments. Edinger and Patterson (1983) identified eleven
"nonverbal involvement behaviors" that determine the degree

27
of involvement between individuals in social settings. These
behaviors include interpersonal distance, gaze, touch, body
orientation lean, facial expressiveness, talking duration,
interruptions, postural openness, gestures of relational
nature, head nods, and paralinguistic cues (volume, speech
rate, and intonation). Within the context of an interview,
where the applicant's behavioral strategy is designed to
create some positive impression on the rater, Edinger and
Patterson noted that the most important nonverbal involvement
behaviors seemed to be divided, depending on the criterion.
First, gaze and facial expressions (i.e., smiling, eye
contact) were the most influential on perceptions of
likability, interest, pleasantness, credibility, and the
favorability of the applicant. Second, interpersonal
distance and touch were most influential on perceptions of
assertiveness, social activity, and favorability.
Another way to determine the possible importance of cues
may be to simply identify which cues are being studied. A
review of 19 studies (Anderson, 1960; Anderson and
Shackleton, 1990; Brunswik, 1956; Cann et al., 1981; Cash and
Kilcullen, 1985; Forbes and Jackson, 1980; Gifford et al.,
1985; Hollandsworth et al., 1979; Imada and Hakel, 1977;
Kinicki and Lockwood, 1985; Kinicki et al., 1990; McGovern et
al., 1979; Parsons and Liden, 1984; Rasmussen, 1984; Raza and
Carpenter, 1987; Sterrett, 1978; Wexley et al., 1975; Young
and Beier, 1977; Zuckerman et al., 1990), in which at least
one nonverbal cue was found to have an effect on

28
interviewer's judgments, shows that some researchers study
only one nonverbal cue, others study several, but rarely ever
are the same combination of cues studied. Eleven of these 19
studies measured or manipulated eye contact, making it the
most commonly studied dynamic cue. Smiling, gesturing, and
posture have also been frequently studied (7, 5, and 5
studies, respectively). Of the static cues, physical
attractiveness has received the most attention (7 of the 19
studies), with gender and appropriateness of dress also of
interest to researchers (4 and 3 studies, respectively).
Paralinguistic cues of voice articulation and modulation have
been included in three studies each, and voice loudness,
pauses before answering, and time spent talking have been
investigated twice.
This review of 19 studies only reveals what cues
researchers have identified as worthy of investigation. It
cannot determine from this information which cues are the
most significant. Also, it is unclear whether two
researchers who both studied the effects of gesturing, for
example, defined "gesturing" in the same way. Few of these
researchers explicitly defined the cues under study. Many
researchers rely on the assumption that behaviors such as eye
contact, smiling, and head nodding are commonly defined and
understood. As Burgoon and Baesler (1991) stated, "The
result is that many measurement decisions in the nonverbal
arena are governed more by happenstance, history, or cost
than by traditional measurement criteria" (p. 57).

29
Other researchers prefer to use the definitions set
forth by others, such as Mehrabian (1972), a psychologist
studying nonverbal behaviors in various social settings.
Mehrabian set forth scoring criteria for several categories
of nonverbal and implicit verbal behaviors. He noted that
these scoring criteria were derived from a variety of
experimental findings, and included only those cues that
yielded significant findings. He divided the behaviors into
five dimensions that he identified as the immediacy
dimension, the relaxation dimension, movements, facial
expressions, and vocalizations. The immediacy dimension
included behaviors such as touching, physical distance,
forward lean, eye contact, observation and orientation. The
relaxation dimension included arm position asymmetry,
sideways lean, leg position asymmetry, hand relaxation, neck
relaxation, and reclining angle. The movement dimension
included head nodding, head shaking, gesticulation, trunk
swivel, rocking, self-manipulation, object-manipulation, leg
movement, foot movement, and duration walking. The facial
expression dimension included such behaviors as facial
pleasantness, facial activity, and facial dominance. And,
finally, the verbalization dimension included speech error
rate, halting quality, speech volume, length and number of
statements, number of questions, verbal reinforcers,
pleasantness, positive and negative verbal content, speech
rate, and vocal activity.

30
Mehrabian (1972) operationally defined these behaviors.
For example, eye contact was defined as occurring when the
communicator and the addressee look into each other's eyes,
and would be measured as the duration of time that the
behavior occurs. Or, as another example, gesticulation was
defined as the number of movements of the hands or fingers,
cyclical, side-to-side, forward-back, and up-and-down
movements, scored as one unit each.
Rasmussen (1984) was one of the few researchers who gave
a detailed description of how the nonverbal cues of interest
were measured. He investigated five nonverbal cues—eye
contact, smiling, hand gestures, head nodding, and tone of
voice. He defined and quantified them in the following way:
Eye contact: any period during which the interviewee
looked directly at the interviewer (i.e., camera),
quantified as a percentage of total time.
Smiling: not specifically defined, but quantified as a
percentage of total time.
Hand gesture: a back and forth movement of the hands
equals one occurrence of a gesture, quantified as the
number of occurrences.
Head nodding: an up and down movement of the head equals
one occurrence of a nod, quantified as the number of
occurrences.
Tone of voice: an enthusiastic versus flat tone,
quantified dichotomously.
Not only have researchers failed to explicitly indicate
how the nonverbal cues were operationally defined, but they
also often failed to explain why they chose to take either a
macroscopic or microscopic approach to the measurement or

31
manipulation of those cues. Some researchers combined a
number of cues together in a macroscopic approach (Imada and
Hakel, 1977; Kinicki et al., 1990; McGovern et al., 1979;
Rasmussen, 1984; Wexley et al., 1975). Multiple behaviors
were combined into a single variable called nonverbal
"involvement", "immediacy", "enthusiasm" or other terms.
Other researchers have taken a microscopic approach by using
single, discrete nonverbal cues in order to identify their
individual effects on the criterion of interest (Gifford et
al., 1985; Hollandsworth et al., 1979; Parsons and Liden,
1984; Raza and Carpenter, 1987; Sterrett, 1978). The
microscopic approach usually measures behaviors as frequency
counts, durations or judgments within brief time frames, by
using highly reliable coder observations, or a physical
apparatus (Burgoon and Baesler, 1991). These latter studies,
however, are few, and more emphasis on the effects of
specific cues has been encouraged. Imada and Hakel (1977)
suggested that additional research was needed to "tease out
the effects of specific nonverbal cues as well as different
combinations of cues on selection decisions" (p. 300).
McGovern, Jones, and Morris (1979) also suggested "further
research needs to be done to identify the weightings given to
specific visual and vocal components of interviewees
nonverbal behavior" (p.178). These challenges must still be
met.

32
Research of Nonverbal Cues Presented in the Interview
A handful of studies have focused mainly on the effect
of physical attractiveness, a static cue, on hiring
decisions. A few other studies have exclusively investigated
paralinguistic cues. The bulk of the nonverbal cue
literature, however, is focused on the effects of dynamic
cues, or some combination of the three types. First, studies
of dynamic and combination cues will be reviewed and
discussed. Next, research that has been done on solely
physical attractiveness and paralinguistic cues will be
presented. Finally, contrary findings will be presented.
Studies of dynamic and combination cues in the interview
In many of the studies that have investigated dynamic
cues, or a combination of cues, researchers have used
videotapes of simulated job applicants and manipulated
nonverbal behaviors presented in those videos. A study by
Imada and Hakel (1977) provided the impetus for more
laboratory research using videotaped applicants when they
found no significant difference in hiring decisions between
live interviewers and observers of recorded interviews.
Imada and Hakel (1977) were not only interested in the the
medium through which judges observed nonverbal cues, but also
the effect of those nonverbal cues on interview impressions
and decisions. They manipulated nonverbal cues by training a
female applicant to vary her nonverbal behavior as either

33
high ("immediate") or low ("nonimmediate") while verbally
responding in a consistent manner to the interviewer's
questions. In the immediate condition, the applicant
exhibited behaviors such as greater eye contact, more
smiling, more attentive posture, less interpersonal distance,
and a direct body orientation. In the nonimmediate condition
the applicant had no eye contact, no smiling, a slouched body
posture, greater interpersonal distance, and and indirect
body orientation. Seventy-two subject were assigned to either
the immediate or nonimmediate condition, and to one of three
conditions of either participating in a live interview as the
interviewer, observing the live interview from the same room,
or observing the live interview on a television monitor from
another room. The main effects for the three conditions of
rater proximity, and interaction effects were not
significant. However, results indicated that nonverbal cues
had a significant effect on interviewers impressions and
decision to hire. Particularly, the immediate applicant was
rated as being more likely to be accepted, more successful,
more qualified, better liked, having more desirable
characteristics, more motivated, more competent, more
satisfied if given the position, and, as a result, was
recommended more often for the position. Nonverbal
information accounted for an average of 43% of the variance.
McGovern (1976; McGovern and Tinsley,1978) conducted a
study in which 52 professional personnel representatives
rated one of four videotaped employment interviews. McGovern

34
manipulated the level of nonverbal behaviors and the sex of
the job applicant in each videotape, while keeping verbal
content the same. Low levels of nonverbal behaviors were
defined as minimal eye contact, low energy, lack of affect
and voice modulation, lack of speech fluency, and frequent
speech disturbances. A high level of nonverbal cues included
maximal eye contact, high energy, exhibited affect and voice
modulation, fluid speech and no speech disturbances. The 10
factors identified by the researchers as critical for the
interviewer's judgment were the applicant's ability to
communicate, aggressiveness and initiative, self-confidence,
enthusiasm and motivation, intelligence, leadership
potential, maturity, persuasiveness, pleasant personality and
sociability, and positive attitude. The level of nonverbal
involvement had a significant and favorable effect on ratings
made by the judges on all 10 dimensions measured, but
particularly on ratings of applicants' enthusiasm and
motivation, self-confidence, persuasiveness, and pleasantness
of personality. Eighty-eight percent (23 of 26) of those who
saw the high nonverbal applicant reported that they would
have asked him or her back for a second interview. One
hundred percent (all 26) of the subjects who saw the low
nonverbal candidate reported that they would not have
recommended inviting the applicant for a second interview.
McGovern et al.'s (1979) replication of the prior study
confirmed these findings using students rather than
professional personnel representatives as observers.

35
Although students were more lenient, of those who viewed the
interviewee with a high level of nonverbal behaviors, 87%
reported that they would accept him or her. Of those who
rated the interviewee exhibiting low levels of nonverbal
behaviors, 70% reported that they would have rejected the
applicant.
Wexley, Fugita, and Malone (1975) used videotaped,
simulated loan application interviews in their study of
nonverbal cue utilization. They manipulated two levels of
nonverbal enthusiasm, represented by either high or low eye
contact, gesturing, smiling, and appropriateness of voice
tone, on the tapes. Three levels of suitability to receive a
loan (high, average, or low) was also manipulated through the
provision of objective loan application information.
Seventy-eight student raters read the loan applications,
observed the videotapes, and rated applicants' suitability to
receive a loan. A significant main effect was found for both
nonverbal enthusiasm and suitability. Those applicants who
exhibited the high levels of nonverbal behaviors received
more favorable evaluations by raters.
In another study by Young and Beier (1977), applicants
in a simulated, videotaped employment interview varied their
nonverbal behaviors in response to instructions from the
researcher to either exhibit more eye contact; more eye
contact and smiling; more eye contact, smiling and head
movement; or minimal eye contact, smiling and head movement.
Applicants followed scripts to control verbal content. Those

36
who were rated by independent judges as actually engaging in
more eye contact, smiling, and head movement were evaluated
by a different set of judges as more deserving of the job.
An independent rating of physical attractiveness was not
found to be a significant predictor of hiring evaluations.
In response to the popularity of using videotaped
interviews to manipulate nonverbal behavior Rasmussen (1984)
argued that the problem with the these studies was that
nonverbal behaviors were isolated, thereby researchers were
ignoring other important variables, such as verbal behavior
and resume credentials. Rasmussen used simulated interviews
recorded on videotapes in order to vary the levels of both
verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Four tapes were created to
represent either appropriate and relevant, or inappropriate
and irrelevant scripts for verbal responses, and either high
or low levels of nonverbal behaviors. Nonverbal behaviors
which were manipulated included the degree of eye contact,
smiling, hand gesturing, head nodding, and tone or modulation
of voice. In addition to viewing the videotapes, subjects
were provided with simulated resumes that included either
excellent academic achievement and highly relevant work
experience (high) or low academic achievement and little
previous work experience (low). Eighty subjects rated the
applicant on the videotape on their qualifications for the
job, on a scale from poor (1) to superior (25). Resume
credentials accounted for the greatest amount of variance,
and both resume information and verbal content had

37
significant main effects on the criteria. The nonverbal
behaviors alone had a relatively small effect. Rasmussen
concluded that these findings are not necessarily contrary to
prior research of the effects of nonverbal cues, but merely
indicate that when there is variability in resume credentials
and verbal responses then the additional information provided
by nonverbal cues may not be relevant. On the other hand,
when members of an applicant pool are relatively similar in
regard to verbal content and credentials, nonverbal behaviors
could have an important impact on interviewers' decisions, as
other studies that control for those variables have
indicated. In addition to those main effects, Rasmussen
reported a significant and interesting interaction effect
between verbal content and nonverbal behavior. When verbal
content was good, high levels of nonverbal behavior resulted
in even higher ratings, but when verbal content was poor,
high levels of nonverbal behavior produced lower ratings. In
other words, the presence of more nonverbal behaviors seemed
to enhance the magnitude of the effect of verbal content, not
the direction.
These six laboratory studies using videotaped, simulated
interviews have received some criticism for their lack of
generalizability to a real interview situation
(Hollandsworth, Kazelskis, Stevens, Dressel,1979; Parsons and
Liden, 1984) . The variance in nonverbal behaviors
manipulated in those taped interviews may have been

38
artificially inflated by the researcher in comparison to how
real job applicants behave when interviewed.
One important field study that addressed this criticism
was conducted by Parsons and Liden (1984). These researchers
investigated the effect of nonverbal cues within the context
of an actual, structured employment interview. Eight
interviewers rated a total of 517 applicants on both
nonverbal cues and a final judgment of overall
qualifications. The eight cues included poise, clothing
neatness, personal cleanliness, posture, articulation of
speech, voice audibility and understandability, pauses before
answers, and eye contact. Two separate scales were used to
make the judgment, or final rating. For the interviews in
which the first scale was utilized, interviewers rated
applicants on a scale from not qualified (1) to highly
qualified (5). The other applicants were rated on a 3-point
scale as rejected, accepted, or conditionally accepted.
There was substantial multicollinearity among ratings of
nonverbal cues, with correlations ranging from .54 to .90.
The correlations between nonverbal cues and interviewer
ratings of applicant qualifications ranged from .64 to
,81(N=251). These researchers also found that nonverbal
variables of articulation and eye contact were significant
predictors of each type of hiring decision on the independent
samples (N=251, N=266). Clothing and cleanliness were the
least influential cues. Furthermore, nonverbal cues added
significantly to the rating of applicant qualifications, even

39
after accounting for variance of objective data, such as
application blank information, and applicants' verbal
responses to questions regarding their scholastic
performance, extracurricular activities, and previous job
experiences (N=232). Nonverbal information alone predicted
73% of the variance of interviewers judgments and, when
subsequently added, objective information increased the
variance accounted for by only 2%. Parsons and Liden's
(1984) findings are similar to those of another field study,
previously conducted by Forbes and Jackson (1980), who used
real job applicants, and found that they were most favorably
rated when they engaged in more eye contact, smiling, and
head movement.
Slightly different results were reported by
Hollandsworth et al. (1979) who also conducted a field study,
and included verbal content information as well as nonverbal
behaviors as variables of interest. Eighteen on-campus
college recruiters were asked to rate real candidates (N=338;
mean per recruiter =4.6) on six nonverbal behaviors, the
appropriateness of the content of their verbal responses to
questions, and to indicate whether they would hire the
candidate (l=not a chance, 4=definitely hire). The six
nonverbal cues included eye contact, appropriate loudness of
voice, body posture, speech fluency, personal appearance, and
composure. Hollandsworth et al. reported that the content of
the verbal responses was the single most important variable
in a discriminant analysis. The applicants' fluency of

40
speech and composure were second and third in importance,
respectively. Body posture, eye contact, loudness of voice,
and personal appearance were also significant, in that order.
These findings are not totally contrary to the literature
supportive of the favorable effects of nonverbal cues. They
do suggest, however, that it is the verbal content, not the
nonverbal behaviors, on which interviewers primarily base
their judgments.
Overall, these laboratory and field studies provide
overwhelming evidence that several types of nonverbal
behaviors may influence interviewers' judgments. Next,
research studies that have exclusively studied one type of
cue will be reviewed. First, research on the effects of
physical attractiveness on interviewers' impressions and
decisions will be presented, then research on only
paralinguistic cues.
A closer look at physical attractiveness
As defined earlier, physical attractiveness is a static
cue that the applicant does not, or possibly can not, vary
during the course of the interview. Much of the research
conducted on the effect of static nonverbal cues on
interviewer decisions has focused mainly on the variable of
physical attractiveness.
One of the earliest studies of the effect of appearance
or attractiveness on others' judgments was conducted in 1956
by Brunswik. He used 25 psychology students to rate

41
photographs of 46 Army personnel on variables of
intelligence, energy, likability, and good looks. The
students rated the soldiers, and the soldiers rated each
other. Brunswik investigated, but found no support for, the
mediating effect of external facial characteristics (i.e.
nose height, forehead height, and overall body height) on the
relationship between actual intelligence and student raters'
estimated intelligence and personality.
As mentioned previously, an early study by Young and
Beier (1977) failed to find support for the effect of
physical attractiveness on interviewers' decisions to hire.
Those researchers noted that this finding was interesting,
considering previous, supportive results (Dipboye, Fromkin,
and Wiback, 1975; Dipboye, Arvey, and Terpstra, 1977; Cash,
Gillen, and Burns, 1977). Young and Beier suggested that
perhaps when nonverbal behaviors were present that physical
appearance was less important as a source of information for
the interviewer.
In more recent studies, Kinicki and Lockwood (1985) did
find support for the effects of physical attractiveness.
They had 24 professional recruiters conduct 3 to 4 real
interviews of 91 students as part of an interviewing skills
workshop. The recruiters rated interviewees on five
variables, including occupational knowledge, personal drive,
ability to express ideas, appearance, and attractiveness.
The first four ratings were combined into an overall
"interview impression" score, based on a subsequent factor

42
analysis. Other predictors of work experience,
extracurricular activities, professional objective, college
major and grade point average, and honors received, were
collected using personal data sheets filled in by applicants.
These were also reduced to two predictors—work experience
and academic achievement—as the result of the factor
analysis. The same recruiters also indicated applicants'
suitability for hire and interviewing skills, that were
treated as the criterion variables. Recruiters' interview
impressions of applicants significantly correlated .69
(p<.05) with suitability for hire and .75 (p<.05) with
interviewing skill. The independent variable of attraction
also correlated significantly with the criteria, .66 and .65
(p<.05), respectively. Relevant work experience and academic
achievement correlated significantly, however less strongly,
with just one criterion, interviewing skill, .27 (p<.05) and
.20 (p<.05), respectively. Therefore, Kinicki and Lockwood
concluded that recruiters were relying more on subjective
information of interview impressions and attraction, rather
than concrete, objective information, when making their
employment decisions.
Another study by Kinicki, Lockwood, Horn, and Griffeth
(1990) supported the previous findings. These researchers
reported that 3 nursing directors' judgments of 186 nursing
applicants relied more on interview impressions, including
applicants' appearance, attitude, job interest, and
communication skills, than resume credentials. In this study

43
the independent variable of attraction was not included.
Interview impressions combined with interviewers' perceptions
of applicants' work experience and education explained 42%
(p<.05) of the variance in hiring recommendations, whereas
resume data only accounted for 1%. With regard to the effect
of that information on the validity of the interview, Kinicki
et al. found that resume credentials did not predict
performance any better than interview impressions, even
though the resume cues predicted 14% (p<.05) of the variance
in performance.
Many other studies have investigated the effect of
attractiveness on interviewers' decisions, two of which are
Cash and Kilcullen (1985) and Cann, Siegfried and Pearce
(1981). Cash and Kilcullen found that applicants who were
attractive, well-qualified for the job, and male were most
preferred when judges made hiring decisions from their
fictitious resumes and attached photographs. Cann et al.
also found that the attractiveness and sex (males preferred)
of the applicant positively affected the hiring decision made
by raters. The sex of the applicant, sex of the rater, and
the sex-stereotype of the job for which they are interviewing
all seem to moderate that relationship (Cash, Gillen, and
Burns, 1977; Heilman and Saruwatari, 1979; Jackson, 1983).
One of the few field studies that investigated the
effects of applicant attractiveness on actual employment
interviews of 171 applicants for a variety of different jobs
was conducted by Raza and Carpenter (1987). These

44
researchers collected demographic information (i.e.,
interviewer age and sex, applicant age and sex, job) for each
interview, as well as having 8 professional interviewers rate
applicants on physical attractiveness, intelligence,
likability, skill level for the job, hirability and
acceptability of the applicant as an employee. Hirability
and employability were the criterion variables. These two
hiring decision variables correlated significantly with
ratings of intelligence, physical attractiveness, likability,
and skill level. Hirability was most strongly related to
perceived skill level, and employability was most strongly
associated with intelligence and likability.
Overall, these studies provide evidence that the
physical attractiveness of the applicant can influence
ratings made by interviewers. However, whether or not
physical attractiveness has the same impact when relevant
verbal content is taken into account is still unclear. These
researchers were mainly interested in studying only one
static nonverbal cue, that of physical attractiveness, much
like researchers who are only interested in studying a single
paralinguistic cue.
A closer look at paralinguistic cues
A rather different paralinguistic complement to the
research on physical attractiveness has been recently
introduced by Zuckerman, Hodgins, and Miyake (1990) who
investigated the effects of vocal attractiveness on

45
interviewers' judgments. They found strong support for the
notion of vocal attractiveness between judges who agreed on
what characteristics constitute attractive versus
unattractive voices. These researchers reported that
applicants rated as vocally attractive received more
favorable personality ratings than vocally unattractive
applicants. Thirty years earlier, Anderson (1960)
investigated the effect of a very different type of
paralinguistic characteristic on an interviewer's decision to
hire. He was interested in whether the amount of time that
the interviewer or interviewee each spent talking had any
effect on interviewer judgments. Anderson reported that in
the interviews where applicants were selected for the job
(N=70), the interviewer spent significantly more time
talking, and there was significantly less silent time, when
no one spoke, than in interviews where applicants were
rejected (N=45). Applicants who were selected also spent
less time talking and the total duration of the interview was
less than for rejected applicants, but those differences were
not statistically significant.
Contrary findings
Up until this point we have presented research that
confirms that nonverbal cues, whether they be dynamic,
static, or paralinguistic, have a favorable and significant
impact on employment decisions or judgments of applicant
suitability made by interviewers. One study in which

46
researchers reported evidence to the contrary was by Sterrett
(1978). This researcher created eight videotapes of a male
job applicant displaying high and low levels of eye contact,
hand gestures, formality of dress, and length of pause before
answering. The verbal content of the applicant's answers was
held constant. One hundred and sixty managers from the
insurance industry observed these tapes and rated the
applicant on eight traits that Sterrett claimed were typical
traits considered in the hiring process. These traits
included ambition, motivation, self confidence, self
organization, responsibility, verbal ability, intelligence,
and sincerity. No significant relationships were found
between the nonverbal cues and traits assessed. It should be
noted that the criteria in this study differed from much of
the other nonverbal cue research that used specific
employment criteria, such as decision to hire or
qualifications for the job. Here, observers of the videos
assessed several traits that may, or may not, have been
related to the job to be filled.
Issues of Concern and Future Directions
A careful look at the body of research on nonverbal cues
has helped to illustrate some gaps that must be filled by
further research in this area. There are three particular
issues that will be discussed here. First, the effect of
nonverbal cues on interview validity, rather than only

47
favorability, must be investigated. Second, ratings of
nonverbal behaviors must be made by independent, unbiased
judges. Third, the measurement of nonverbal cues should take
place at a microscopic level. These matters will
subsequently be addressed in the current study.
Validity vs. Favorability
First, the research reviewed has had as its criterion of
interest the favorability of hiring decisions. The main
issue has been whether or not applicants are hired, are
recommended for hire, are more suitable for the job, or
whether they possess attributes that are deemed important to
be successful on the job. This research has shown that
nonverbal cues have a significant impact on the favorability
of interview judgments. But, favorability is only one of two
important properties of the decision to hire an job
applicant. The other property is the accuracy of the
decision. Favorability is the degree to which the job
applicant is positively evaluated. Accuracy is the
correctness of the judgment (Motowidlo, 1986). It is
appropriate to consider the accuracy of the selection
decision since it requires a cognitive estimation of
probability, or behavioral prediction, rather than simply an
evaluative judgment of favorability. If we treat performance
ratings as "true scores", then accuracy is how well the
decision to hire corresponds with how the applicant

48
eventually performs on the job. A necessary condition for
accuracy is validity (Sulsky and Balzer, 1988). Therefore,
the interest here is not on an actual measure of accuracy,
but rather on validity. In other words, what effect do
nonverbal cues have on interview validity?
Only Gifford, Fan Ng, and Wilkinson (1985) have
investigated interview validity, rather than the favorability
of interviewers judgments. They videotaped 38 interviews for
a real job opening of a temporary, part-time position as a
research assistant in a university. The tapes were viewed
and applicants evaluated on motivation and social skill by 18
judges who had training and experience in interviewing.
Applicants completed a questionnaire to measure their
perceptions of their own motivation and social skill. The
applicant's self-reports were the criteria assessed in this
study. Motivation and social skill were chosen because they
were considered important for this job. Seven dynamic
nonverbal cues were measured by two trained raters and
included the time spent talking, facial regard, smiling,
gesturing, trunk recline, self-manipulation, and object-
manipulation. Static nonverbal cues also recorded included
age, sex, formality of dress and physical attractiveness.
Using the Brunswik lens model, Gifford et al. computed a
correlation coefficient, or ecological validity coefficient,
between applicant's self-assessed qualities of motivation and
social skill and the static and dynamic nonverbal cues.
Applicants who perceived themselves as very motivated were

49
mostly males, dressed more formally, and reclined more during
the interview. Applicants who perceived themselves as more
socially skilled also dressed more formally, gestured more,
and spent more time talking. These applicants were also
mostly male and older.
Interviewer cue utilization was computed as the
correlation between the nonverbal cues and the judges'
ratings of the applicants' motivation and social skill.
Applicants who smiled, gestured, and talked more were
perceived to be more motivated to work. Those who dressed
more formally, gestured more often, and talked more were
perceived as having more social skill by the judges.
The accuracy of the judges' attributions, as a
correlation of those ratings with applicants' self-assessed
qualities, was not significant for motivation (r=.09), but
was for social skill (r=.29, p=.05). In other words, raters
were not using relevant cues when assessing applicants'
motivation, but were using the correct cues to assess social
skill, and, as a result, were more accurate in their ratings
of social skill.
The primary shortcoming of this study by Gifford et al.
(1985) is that the measure of accuracy, or achievement score,
uses self-reported trait data as a "true" score. Judges were
not attempting to predict applicants' behavioral performance
on the job. Alternatively, instead of using self-reported
traits as the true score, researchers should use the
criterion (variable C in Figure 1.1) that interviewers are

50
actually trying to predict when they make a decision to hire
that is performance on the job.
Kinicki et al. (1990) also addressed the issue of
interview validity using performance and other job-related
criteria. This study also had many shortcomings, however.
They investigated whether interview trait impression
predicted actual job success less accurately than did resume
credentials, by assessing interviewers' ability to identify
interviewee job performance, as well as attitudinal and
withdrawal predispositions. As mentioned, the interview
ratings consisted of an overall "interview impression" score
that included ratings on interviewee attitude, job interest,
job-related experience, job-related training or education,
communication skill, and the only nonverbal cue assessed,
appearance. Performance and retention information was
obtained from personnel files, and job satisfaction and
organizational commitment was measured using a survey
completed by subjects after their third week of employment.
The combined interview impression score was used for all the
regression analyses in this study. Therefore, no evidence
was reported regarding the unique effects of each individual
factor. However, correlations between all variables were
reported, and ratings of appearance significantly, and
negatively, correlated with self-reported job satisfaction
(r=-.15, p<.05), but not the other criteria.
Although Kinicki and his colleagues addressed the issue
of validity, it is deficient at meeting the present concerns

51
First, they only studied one nonverbal cue, appearance, that
was buried within the macroscopic variable of "interview
impression". Second, the measure of performance used was not
independently collected, and it suffered from range
restriction. Third, the attitudinal measures were self-
reported and taken after only three weeks on the job.
In a recent study, Ambady and Rosenthal (1993)
recognized the importance of using an ecologically valid
criterion. They found that ratings made by judges exposed to
only small clips of teachers' nonverbal behavior were
significantly related to student evaluations of college
teachers' and principal's evaluations of high school
teachers' effectiveness. This study, however, was not
concerned with selection, and ratings did not take place in
the context of a selection interview. Rather, clips of
nonverbal behaviors were taken from silent videotapes of
subjects teaching classes in a university or high school
setting.
In another study which addressed interview validity and
the relevance of nonverbal cues, Motowidlo et al. (1992)
concluded that the information obtained from visual nonverbal
behaviors was not necessary for the interview's validity. In
other words, the content of applicants' answers was a
significant source of validity, since judgments by
interviewers who did not have access to nonverbal cues were
at least as valid as judgments by interviewers who did. This
finding does not entirely contradict previous research that

52
has supported the importance of nonverbal cues, since it has
also been reported that when appropriate and relevant verbal
information is available that it is the primary, but not
only, influence on interviewers' decisions (Hollandsworth et
al., 1979; Parsons and Liden, 1984; Rasmussen, 1984). Of
course, additional research is necessary to determine the
direction of the effect of nonverbal cues when they are
present.
Nonverbal cues may act as either enhancers or
suppressors of the interview's validity. If cues are
utilized that are irrelevant, in the sense that they do not
correspond with the interviewees' true scores on the
criterion of interest, then interviewers' judgments will be
biased and distorted. If certain nonverbal cues affect
interview outcomes, but do not predict job performance, then
those cues are a source of invalidity and interviewers must
be trained to be less influenced by them when making
judgments (Rasmussen, 1984). Schuh (1980) stated "...any
preoccupation of the interviewer with non-task relevant cues
could clutter primary memory and interfere with the
perception of the applicants verbal report...and thereby
change the applicant's information before it is needed for
recall and prediction" (p. 125). Prevailing practices
support this position, because interviewers are often trained
to attend only to the content of applicants' responses,
thereby ignoring nonverbal characteristics of the applicant
when making interview ratings (e.g. Motowidlo et al.,1992).

53
Conversely, if certain cues legitimately represent the
interviewees' true score on dimensions of performance,
interviewers may be justified and encouraged to use those
cues, in that validity will be enhanced (Arvey and Campion,
1982; Harris, 1989; Motowidlo et al., 1992; Rasmussen, 1984).
Especially if certain information cannot, or will not, be
explicitly verbally expressed in the interview, then it is
legitimate for interviewers to seek and utilize relevant cues
to determine the true character of the applicant (Edinger and
Patterson, 1983; Schlenker, 1980).
There is a real need to investigate the effect of
nonverbal cues on the validity of the interview, using
relevant performance, or other job-related, criteria. By
doing so one can get at the core of the purpose of the
interview—that of selecting applicants who will be good
performers on the job.
Measurement of Nonverbal Cues
The second issue of concern is the precision and
accuracy with which nonverbal cues are measured. More than a
decade ago Hollandsworth et al. (1979) criticized researchers
of nonverbal behavior for using artificial rather than real
interview settings. Researchers were criticized for
artificially inflating the variability of cues displayed by
applicants in laboratory settings. Researchers who were
anxious to get out of the laboratory and conduct real

54
selection interviews were willing to discard that "control"
for more generalizable results, but failed to take into
consideration how to measure the nonverbal cues in the real
setting. Parsons and Liden (1984) noted in the conclusion of
their field study that caution should be used in the
interpretation of their results since the nonverbal cues of
applicants were not controlled, as they are in the
laboratory, nor was an independent measurement taken of those
cues.
One year after Parsons and Liden's (1984) study, Gifford
et al. (1985) addressed this problem. They trained two
independent judges to score occurrences of applicants'
nonverbal behaviors and evaluate static cues. For example,
gesturing, manipulation of objects, and facial orientation
were measured as the proportion of time spent displaying
these behaviors. Physical attractiveness and formality of
dress were scored on 7-point and 3-point scales,
respectively.
Unfortunately, other field researchers did not take the
lead from Gifford and his colleagues. It is more common to
find studies in which the same person who is making the
hiring decision, or judging the appropriateness of verbal
responses, is also the one rating the applicant on nonverbal
behavior (Hollandsworth et al., 1979; Kinicki and Lockwood,
1985; Kinicki et al., 1990; Parsons and Liden, 1984; Raza and
Carpenter, 1987) .

55
Scherer (1982), in discussing the requirements for
applying the Brunswik lens model to the study of nonverbal
communication, emphasized the need for independent
measurement of variables. He noted the necessity of
obtaining independent measures of the criterion, the
nonverbal cues, and the judgments of observers. Accordingly,
independent judges should be trained to accurately identify
and measure specific nonverbal cues, in order to obtain more
reliable and unbiased measures of those cues.
Level of Measurement and Analysis of Nonverbal Cues
The third issue of concern is the level of measurement
and analysis of nonverbal behavior. Nonverbal behavior may
be measured at either the microscopic or macroscopic level.
At the microscopic level each nonverbal cue is measured
individually. At the macroscopic level individual cues are
clustered together to define a general variable of nonverbal
behavior. Individual cues are often not defined for a
macroscopic analysis.
For example, Imada and Hakel (1977) operationally
defined nonverbal "immediacy", a macroscopic variable, as
greater eye contact, smiling, attentive posture, gestures,
smaller interpersonal distance and a direct body orientation.
Wexley et al. (1975) defined their macroscopic nonverbal
variable of "enthusiasm" as high or low amounts of eye
contact, gesturing, smiling, and appropriate tone of voice.

56
In both cases, individual cues were neither individually
defined, nor individually measured. Since macro-level
variables do not necessitate the careful and specific
definition of each nonverbal cue, analyses can only take
place at the macroscopic level.
With the measurement of microscopic cues, both the
individual cues and some combination of those cues can be
analyzed. This level of measurement is essential to
determine not only whether nonverbal behavior, as a whole, is
utilized in the interview and related to performance, but
also to determine which particular cues are the most
relevant. For example, an interviewee's hand movement may
not be related to performance, but the time they spend
smiling is related to performance. These findings would have
important implications for training interviewers.
Interviewers could be taught which relevant cues to attend to
and utilize when making interview judgments, rather than
being taught to ignore all nonverbal cues and attend only to
verbal content. These distinctions can only be determined by
measuring and analyzing each cue separately.
Even when nonverbal cues are measured individually, it
is the combination of these cues which is of greatest
interest. Knapp and Hall (1992) suggested that it is the
combination of individual parts of the nonverbal behavioral
system which provides the best understanding of the system's
purpose. People do not only smile, or only move their hands.
Rather, their behavior consists of multiple signals which

57
together contribute to the message sent to the receiver of
those cues.
Van Hooff (1982) suggested that in order to interpret
nonverbal behavior we should use larger functional units of
behavior rather than molecular behavioral elements or acts.
These molar units, he suggested, enable researchers to record
and compile more meaningful, complex behavioral processes.
He cautioned that the connections between behavioral
elements, or acts, tend to get lost if a molecular
description of the behavior is used (Van Hooff, 1982).
Brunswik's (1956) lens model also indicates that a
combination of nonverbal cues, rather than individual cues,
influence person perceptions and judgments. Brunswik's
hierarchy of cues (see Figure 1.2) suggests that certain cues
are more important than others, or, if combined, individual
cues would carry different weights.
In summary, it is important to recognize that
naturalistic nonverbal behavior is not exhibited in
unconnected parts, but rather as an orchestrated whole.
Measuring individual nonverbal cues at the microscopic level
allows for analyses of both composite and molecular nonverbal
cues.
Summary of Issues to be Addressed in the Current Study
In reaction to the research that has been conducted thus
far, three issues have been presented regarding the purpose

58
of these studies and the methodologies used to achieve those
purposes. These three issues highlight (1) the need to
investigate the effects of nonverbal cues on interview
validity rather than favorability, (2) the need to use
independent ratings of those cues for analysis, and (3) the
need to measure nonverbal behavior at the microscopic level.
In the current study these needs will be met.

PRELIMINARY STUDIES AND
THE CURRENT STUDY RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In preparation for the current study it was necessary to
conduct three preliminary studies. In the first study, the
structured interview was developed, actual interviews were
collected on videotape, and the interview was validated.
This study provided evidence of the soundness of the
interview questions for predicting management effectiveness.
Second, a sample of the taped interviews was used to
determine if visual cues, in general, provide sufficient
information for raters to make valid judgments of
interviewees. The results of this study were quite
compelling, in that, raters who were exposed to only visual
cues were able to make valid ratings, and that the sex of the
interviewee seemed to play some role in the relationship
between interview and performance ratings (Motowidlo and
Burnett, 1992).
A third study was conducted to identify which specific
nonverbal cues are most likely to be related to behavioral
dimensions of management effectiveness. Related literature
was reviewed, and empirical evidence was collected. These
two sources helped to identify nonverbal cues for
investigation in the current study.
After each preliminary study is presented here, their
implications for the current study will be discussed. Next,
59

60
the research questions for the current study will be
presented, as well as reasons why the answers to those
research questions are both interesting and important.
Study #1; The Development and Validation of the Interview
A structured selection interview will be used as the
context of the current dissertation research. The interview
dimensions, questions, and format for use in the current
study were developed as part of the first preliminary study.
Supervisory ratings of performance will be the criterion for
the current dissertation research. The measures needed to
collect those supervisory ratings were also developed as part
of this first study. Additionally, in this preliminary
study, interviews were conducted and recorded on videotape,
interviewees were rated by the interviewer, and supervisory
ratings were collected. The collection of this data allowed
for a preliminary validation of the interview.
A Structured Selection Interview
development of interview questions and dimensions
An interview system was developed to measure general
managerial skills for entry-level managers. Performance
dimensions of managerial skill were identified according to
prior research (Motowidlo et al., 1992). They included:
leadership, forcefulness, teamwork, open-mindedness,
consideration, planning and organization, thoroughness,
drive, and results orientation. These nine dimensions were

61
then combined to form four dimensions. This was accomplished
by having three doctoral management students carefully read
each dimension definition, and then sort the nine dimensions
into fewer, meaningful categories based on their similarities
and degree of overlap. The four new dimensions are:
Leadership (leadership + forcefulness), Teamwork (teamwork +
open-mindedness + consideration), Drive (drive + results
orientation), and Planning and Organizing (planning and
organization + thoroughness).
Rating scales were developed for each dimension. These
scales were behaviorally anchored with general behavioral
descriptions at the High, Moderate, and Low level of each
scale. These were 7-point scales, where 7 and 6 are at the
High level, 5, 4, and 3 at the Moderate level, and 2 and 1 at
the Low level. These anchors went through several revisions
before arriving at the final scales (see Appendix A).
Next, interview questions were developed to tap each
behavioral dimension. As discussed previously, in the
structured interview literature there are two basic types of
interview questions. Janz (1982) introduced past-oriented
questions where interviewees are asked, "Tell me about a time
when...". Another type of question, developed by Latham et
al. (1980), is oriented toward future behavior and
interviewees are asked, "Tell me what you would do if...".
There is no sufficient evidence regarding whether one type of
question is better than another. As a result, in this study,
both types of questions were included. A total of eight

62
interview questions were developed. Two questions, one of
each type (i.e., past-oriented and hypothetical), were
developed for each of the four dimensions.
The interview questions were pilot tested using
undergraduate students in an elective human resource
management class at a large Southeastern university. Twelve
students participated in the first pilot test, where two
doctoral management students, including this researcher,
acted as the interviewers. Questions were revised as a
result of the first pilot. The same interviewers conducted a
second pilot with 14 different students from the same class.
Additional revisions were made before arriving at the final
eight interview questions (See Appendix A).
Collection of interviews
In order to collect interviews of real managers the
cooperation of four utility and telecommunications companies
was solicited. Company representatives contacted
interviewees to obtain their participation, and schedule the
interview appointments. Seventy-three interviews were
collected.
Interviews were conducted in three day periods in each
company. Approximately eight people were interviewed each
day, at hour intervals. Interviews took, on the average,
thirty to forty minutes. Each interview was videotaped.
At the beginning of the interview session, before the
videotaping began, the interviewer briefly described the

63
research project and the purpose for which the videotapes
would be used. Interviewees were asked to imagine that the
session was a real job interview, and to provide real and
truthful answers. The videocamera was then turned on.
At this point, the interviewer told the interviewee
about the types of questions that they would be asked (past
versus future). The interviewer then asked the eight
interview questions, as well as probing questions. Half of
the interviewees were asked the past-oriented questions
first, and the other half were asked the future-oriented
questions first.
At the conclusion of each interview the interviewer
collected demographic information and asked the interviewee
if they had a preference for one or another type of question.
Demographic information was obtained by directly asking the
interviewee for their job title, job tenure, organizational
tenure, a brief description of their job duties, and their
age. Additional demographics recorded by the interviewer
included race and sex.
Interviewees were also asked to compare the two types of
questions, past- versus future-oriented. The actual
questions were: "As you know we used two types of questions
in this interview, past-oriented and the hypothetical. Which
type do you think applicants would prefer? Which type seemed
more relevant to your job?". Responses were recorded as
either past, future, both, or none (see Appendix A).

64
Interview ratings
The interviewer rated interviewees using the four
behaviorally anchored rating scales of leadership, teamwork,
drive, and planning and organizing, for each type of
question. This resulted in eight ratings for each
interviewee.
Supervisory Ratinas of Job Performance
Development of performance rating scales
The same four dimensions and accompanying scales used
for the interview were also used for the supervisors' ratings
of their subordinate's performance on their current job. The
supervisors' form has a more narrative format for the
behavioral anchors on each scale, than the bullet-type
sentences on the interview form. The supervisors' form also
includes a brief description of the project and detailed
instructions on how to fill-out the form .
In addition to the four dimensions of Leadership,
Teamwork, Drive, and Planning and Organizing, supervisors
were asked to rate individuals on a dimension of Overall
Performance. They also provided information regarding how
important they felt each dimension was for the job that their
subordinate performs (see Appendix B).
Collection of performance ratings
Each company representative distributed the performance
rating forms to the appropriate supervisor of each

65
interviewee. The forms were accompanied by instructions that
they be returned directly to the researchers. Sixty-five
supervisory ratings, or 89% of the original 73 interviews,
were returned.
Supervisors reported, on average, that Leadership skills
were "important" (mean=3.2, s.d.=1.13), Teamwork was "very
important" (mean=4.2, s.d.=0.72), Drive was "very important"
(mean=4.2, s.d.=0.67), and Planning and Organizing was "very
important" (mean=4.0, s.d.=0.78). None of the four
dimensions was rated "not at all important" by any
supervisor. These responses indicated that these dimensions
were appropriate for assessing the general effectiveness of
entry-level managers.
Validation of the Interview
In order to determine the validity of the entire
interview, and of each type of question, interview ratings by
the interviewer were correlated with supervisory ratings.
First, the four dimension ratings were correlated within
question type. The average correlation for past-oriented
questions was .40 and for hypothetical questions was .39.
This justified the combination of dimension ratings into
total scores for each type of question. Also, an interview
total score was computed across question type. This involved
averaging the past-oriented and future-oriented score on each
dimension, and then summing the four averages.

66
Next, the total scores for each type of question and the
overall interview totals were correlated with performance.
The correlation of performance with past-oriented questions
was .31 (p<.01), with future-oriented questions r=.22 (p<.05)
and with the total interview score r=.30 (p<.01). These
results should be interpreted with caution since the
interview ratings were made by only one rater.
Summary of Preliminary Study #1
The development and collection of interview and
performance ratings for 65 interviewees were described here.
The correlational analysis of interview ratings with
performance ratings indicated that both past-oriented and
future-oriented questions are significantly correlated with
performance.
Study #2; Aural and Visual Sources of Validity
(Motowidlo and Burnett, 1992)
The current dissertation research study will investigate
the effect of nonverbal cues on the validity of the
structured interview. But first, it was necessary to
determine what, if any, effect visually-based information had
on interview ratings. The results of this second preliminary
study legitimized the further investigation of the role of
nonverbal cues on the validity of the interview.

67
Purpose of Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this second preliminary study was to
determine the effect of visual cues on the validity of a
structured interview. The primary research question was:
How valid are judgments based only on visual cues for
predicting job performance? Secondary research questions
included: What is the relationship between judgments made
when only visual cues are available and when both aural and
visual cues are available?; and, What is the relationship
between aurally based judgments and visually based judgments?
Methods and Procedures
The videotaped interviews, described in Study #1, were
the stimulus in this study and the criterion was the
supervisory performance ratings. Interview ratings were
collected from 194 undergraduate students. These student
raters either a) watched and listened, b) only listened
(with no picture), or c) only watched (with no sound) to 40
of the 65 videotaped interviews. Additionally, raters either
saw and/or heard the portion of the original interview where
interviewees responded to past-oriented question, or to the
responses to future-oriented questions. This design resulted
in 6 (3 forms of cue availability x 2 types of questions)
different conditions.

68
There were an average of 32 raters per condition. All
40 interviews, combined into 10 sets of 4 interviews, were
presented in each condition. Each rater rated 4 interviews
and each interview was rated by an average of 3.2 raters in
each condition.
Summary of Results
The correlations between interview ratings of the past-
oriented questions and performance for the aural/visual,
aural only, and visual only conditions were .45 (p<.05), .32
(p<.05), and .27 (p<.05), respectively. The correlations
between the hypothetical questions and performance for the
aural/visual, aural only, and visual only conditions were .16
(n.s.), .24 (n.s.),and .29 (p<.05), respectively. Pooled
ratings, across question type also correlated significantly
with performance for the aural/visual (r=.36, p<.05), aural
only (.33, p<.05), and visual only (.32, p<.05) conditions.
These results address the primary research question, and
confirm that visually based interview judgments can be valid
predictors of performance.
Second, significant correlations were found between
visually based judgments and judgments made when both visual
and aural cues are available. This was true for both ratings
based on past-oriented questions (r=.51, p<.01) and future-
oriented questions (r=.46, p<.01). The pooled visually based
ratings correlated significantly (r=.68, p<.01) with the

69
pooled ratings made when both visual and aural cues were
available. Furthermore, both visual and aural cues
contributed independently to the variance explained in
ratings made when both types of cues were available. These
results address the second research question, and indicate
that there is a strong positive relationship between visually
based ratings and ratings made from both aural and visual
information.
Third, judgments made by raters who were presented with
only visual cues and those presented with only aural cues
were significantly correlated for the past-oriented questions
(r=.49, p<.01) and marginally significant for the future-
oriented questions (r=.25, p=.06). The pooled ratings of
raters who only watched the interviews correlated .53 (p<.01)
with pooled ratings of those who only heard the interviews.
This result addresses the third research question and may
indicate that there exists some redundancy between these two
types of cues.
As an exploratory analysis, the sex, age and race of
interviewees were examined as potential influences on the
validity findings. Although age and race were not related to
performance or interview ratings, the sex of the interviewee
had a significant relationship with both performance (r=-.33,
p<.05) and visually based interview ratings (r=-.40, p<.05).
This may indicate that sex differences play some role in
correlations between interview and performance ratings,
particularly when visual cues are available.

70
Summary of Preliminary Study #2
The results of this study were quite intriguing. First,
raters who were exposed to only interviewees' visual cues
were able to make valid ratings. It was concluded that
visual cues play a potentially important role in interview
validity.
Second, visually based ratings and aurally based ratings
were highly related. One explanation for this finding may be
that similar personality traits underlie both sets of
judgments. In this case, aural and visual cues would share
common variance. Alternatively, it may be systematic error
variance which is shared by raters of these two types of
cues.
Third, the sex of the interviewee seemed to play an
important role in the relationship between interview and
performance ratings. One possibility for this result may be
that women exhibit different visual cues than do men. The
nonverbal cues women tend to show may be judged negatively by
raters who are assessing potential management effectiveness.
On the other hand, men and women may be behaving in similar
ways, but interpretations of those behaviors by raters may
differ by sex.

71
Study #3: Identifying Important Nonverbal Behaviors
Before conducting the current study of the effect of
nonverbal cues on the validity of the interview, the specific
nonverbal cues had to be chosen. This third preliminary
study served to identify those nonverbal behaviors that were
the most relevant for the purpose of the current study.
Overview
In order to choose the specific cues for the current
study those cues must be identified which are considered the
most likely to be relevant for predicting job performance.
Rather than associating the actual nonverbal behaviors
directly with performance, it is presumed that nonverbal
behaviors reflect personality traits which, in turn, are
related to managerial performance. In other words, rather
than stating that effective managers smile more often than
ineffective managers, one can state that smiling is
associated with agreeableness, a trait considered important
for effective management.
To justify the choice of certain dynamic, static, and
paralinguistic cues for the current study, traits believed to
underlie the four job-related dimensions - leadership,
teamwork, drive, and planning and organizing - must be linked
to cues that existing research indicates are relevant
reflections of those same traits.

72
Linking Performance Dimensions with the Big Five Personality;
Traits
Researchers who have investigated the co-occurence of
behaviors and traits have mainly used a five factor model of
trait assessment. These five factors were derived in several
studies across different samples that found five fairly
strong factors of personality assessment (see Tupes and
Christal, 1992). These factors are Extroversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and
Intellect.
Extroversion, or Surgency, is defined by traits such as
talkativeness, frankness, adventurousness, assertiveness,
sociability, energetic, composed, interest in opposite sex,
and cheerfulness. The second factor, Agreeableness, is
defined by several traits including good-natured, not
jealous, emotionally mature, mildness, cooperativeness,
trustfulness, adaptability, kindliness, attentiveness to
people, and self-sufficiency. Traits that load negatively on
the Agreeableness factor include assertiveness, talkativeness
and orderliness. The third factor, called Conscientiousness
or Dependability, is defined by traits of orderliness,
responsibility, perseverance, and conventionality, as well as
smaller loadings on the variables cooperativeness, mildness
and emotional stability. The fourth factor is called
Emotional Stability or the opposite label used is
Neuroticism. If using the first label the variables that

73
load highest on this factor include placid, poised, non-
hypochondriacal, calm, and self-sufficient. Secondary
variables on this factor are lack of jealousy, emotional
maturity, cooperativeness, trustfulness, adaptability,
responsibility, perseverance, and independent-mindedness. The
fifth factor is called Culture or Intellect and is defined by
traits such as intellectual, imaginative, artistically
sensitive, openness and polishedness.
To link these five personality factors with the job-
related dimensions six doctoral students were asked to
determine which traits seemed most indicative of each
dimension of leadership, teamwork, drive, and planning and
organizing. Each judge was provided with a list of 34 trait
adjectives which have been used to define the Big Five
personality factors (Tupes and Christal, 1992). The order of
the traits was scrambled. Judges were asked to rate the
degree of association between each trait for each of the four
performance dimensions on a 5-point scale (5=definitely
related to l=not at all related) (see Appendix C).
There were a different number of trait adjectives
representing each personality factor. For each personality
factor, mean scores were calculated by averaging the ratings
made by judges on those trait adjectives within each
performance dimension. For example, for the Leadership
dimension nine trait adjective ratings were averaged to form
a score for Extraversión. This resulted in five personality

74
factors scores within each of the four performance dimensions
for each of the six judges.
To determine the reliability of judges, intraclass
correlations were computed according to the model by Shrout
and Fleiss (1979). The corrected intraclass correlation
(ICC) for Leadership was .68, for Teamwork .59, for Drive
.68, and for Planning and Organizing .72. Based on these
estimates of reliability, it was concluded that there was
agreement and consistency among judges when they indicated
their perception of the relationship between personality
traits and performance dimensions.
Additionally, a two-way analysis of variance was
computed. The dependent variable was the mean scores on each
personality factor within each dimension for each judge
(5x4x6=120). The two independent variables were the
personality factors and the judges. There was a main effect
for the personality factors analyzed separately for each of
the four dimensions, as well as overall. This indicates that
there is a significant difference in the pattern of means
among personality factors within each performance dimension.
Next, a cut-off was established at 3.0. The top two
mean scores within each performance dimension which were
greater than or equal to 3.0 would be considered
representative of that dimension. The mean scores for each
personality factor on each dimension are presented in Table
2.1.

75
Leadership was most related to Extroversion and
Conscientiousness; Teamwork was highly related to
Agreeableness, and less so to Conscientiousness; Drive was
related to Conscientiousness and Extroversion; and Planning
and Organizing was highly related to Conscientiousness, as
well as Agreeableness. Note the mean scores for the factors
of Emotional Stability and Culture/Intellect were the lowest
Table 2.1. Means and standard deviations of judges' ratings
of personality factors across performance dimensions.
Performance Dimensions
Personality Planning/
Factors Leadership Teamwork Drive Organizing
Extroversion
3.91
(0.81)
3.20
(1.00)
3.70
(1.14)
2.83
(0.99)
Agreeableness
3.55
(1.10)
4.02
(1.06)
3.12
(1.13)
3.30
(1.23)
Conscientious
3.77
(1.01)
3.40
(1.22)
3.87
(1.22)
4.27
(0.98)
Emotional
Stability
3.53
(1.16)
3.14
(1.15)
3.09
(1.24)
3.11
(1.30)
Culture/
Intellect
2.92
(1.02)
2.80
(1.06)
2.75
(1.07)
2.85
(1.01)
for each dimension, and did not meet the cut-off criteria for
any of the dimensions.
After the performance dimensions were linked to the
traits, the next task was to link the traits to nonverbal
cues. The outcome is the list of nonverbal cues that will be
investigated in this study.

76
Linking the Big Five Personality Traits with Nonverbal
Behaviors
Strong relationships are frequently found between
judgments of personality and objectively measured behaviors
or physical attributes (Albright, Kenny, and Malloy, 1988;
Borkenau and Liebler, 1992; Dion, Berscheid, and Walster,
1972; Funder, 1983; Funder and Colvin, 1988; Funder and
Sneed, 1993; Gangestad, Simpson, DiGeronimo, and Biek, 1992;
Kenny, Horner, Kashy, and Chu, 1992). Even when the only
information available to judges is the target's physical
attributes, trait assessments have been found to be accurate
and consensus exists among judges (Cleeton and Knight, 1924;
Hunt and Lin, 1967; Norman and Goldberg, 1966; Passini and
Norman, 1966) . This context, where there is no interaction
between judges and targets, and no prior knowledge of one
another, is called "zero acquaintance" (Albright et al.,
1988). Evidence indicates that judgments made at zero
acquaintance are stable even after the judge and target have
interacted (Kenny et al., 1992), and the accuracy of trait
assessments increases directly with the degree of
acquaintanceship (Paunonen, 1989).
While the degree of acquaintance in the context of a
selection interview is not zero, it is low. Before the
applicant walks through the door for the interview the only
information an interviewer typically has is the individual's
resume.
Interaction between the interviewer and applicant

77
takes place within a limited period of time, typically 30
minutes. During that brief period the interviewer must
obtain adequate information in order to make judgments
regarding the applicant's potential to perform on the job.
The interviewer is initially presented with the physical
attributes of the applicant (attractiveness, dress, etc.) but
as the interview progresses the applicant provides dynamic
behavioral and audible cues. All of these cues, researchers
have argued, influence the assessment of personality traits,
and those traits seem to underlie the behavioral dimensions
upon which the interviewer makes ratings.
In order to make these inferences between traits and
cues it is essential to measure the behaviors or cues that
are indicative of relevant traits (Gangestad et al., 1992).
Researchers are only beginning to understand the cues that
judges use to make trait assessments, and, therefore, there
are no specific guidelines for defining the co-occurrences
between traits and behaviors, or as Borkenau called it, "what
goes with what" (1992, pp. 297-298). A summary of related
literature is presented here which has identified the
relation between certain nonverbal cues and three of the big
five personality factors of Extroversion, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness. These relations are illustrated in Figure
2.1.
First, dynamic cues such as smiling, eye contact and
gaze, and rapid body movement seem to reflect Extroversion.
Kenny et al. (1992) noted that rapid body movement was

78
correlated at .47 (p<.005) with Extroversion. They also
reported a correlation of .49 (p<.005) between smiling and
this factor. Borkenau and Liebler (1992) reported
significant correlations between Extroversion and extensive
smiling (r=.33, p<.01) and friendly expression (r=.39,
p<.01). These researchers also found less eye contact to be
negatively, and significantly correlated with this factor
(r=-.33, p<.01). (Argyle, 1988) noted that smiling, gaze, and
spatial proximity were correlates of Extroversion. Static
Performance Personality
Dimensions Trait Factors
Nonverbal Cues
Gaze/Eye Contact
Smiling
Body Movement
Hand Gestures
Spatial Proximity
Posture
Physical
Attractiveness
Appearance
Aspects of Dress
Vocal
Characteristics
Amount of Speech
Figure 2.1. Associations between nonverbal cues, traits and
performance dimensions.

79
cues that seem to be related to Extroversion include
attractiveness and appropriateness of dress. Borkenau and
Liebler (1992) found that attractiveness correlated .37
(p<.01) with Extroversion, and Albright et al. (1988)
reported a correlation of .74 (p<.05) between the same
variables. Kenny et al. (1992) replicated and confirmed
Albright et al.'s findings. Borkenau and Liebler (1992) also
found that Extroversion was significantly related to an
unrefined appearance (-.28, p<.01), showy dress (.34, p<.01),
and unfashionable dress (-.27, p<.01). Two paralinguistic
cues seems to also reflect Extroversion. Borkenau and Liebler
(1992) found a significant correlation between this factor
and softness of voice (-.26, p<.01), and (Argyle, 1988)
identified amount of speech as a correlate of Extroversion.
Second, dynamic cues that have been found to be related
to the second factor, Agreeableness, include smiling, hand
movements, and rapid body movement. Kenny et al. (1992)
reported a significant correlation of .66 (p<.005) between
smiling and Agreeableness, and Borkenau and Liebler (1992)
found a relationship between friendly expression and this
factor (r=.23, p<.05). In the study by Borkenau and Liebler
(1992) a significant relationship was also found between
Agreeableness and frequency of hand movement (r=-.23, p<.05).
Rapid body movement was reported by Kenny et al. (1992) as
related to this factor (r=-.35, p<.005). The Agreeableness
factor is also related to paralinguistic cues, including
effortful reading (r=.31, p<.01), easy to understand (r=.28,

80
p<.01), and hectic speaking (r=-.25, p<.01) (Borkenau and
Liebler, 1992).
One dynamic cue has been found to be related to the
third factor, Conscientiousness. Borkenau and Liebler (1992)
reported a significant, negative correlation between relaxed
posture and Conscientiousness (r=-.29, p<.01). Static cues
related to this factor are associated with dress. Borkenau
and Liebler (1992), Kenny et al. (1992) and Albright et al.
(1988) all noted significant correlations between dress
formality and the Conscientiousness factor (r=-.25, p<.05
reversed scored; r=.44, p<.005; and r=.76, p<.05
respectively). Albright et al. (1988) also found that
neatness of dress was related to this factor (r=.73, p<.05).
Borkenau and Liebler (1992) found one paralinguistic cue,
effortful reading, was significantly related to
Conscientiousness (r=.32, p<.01).
Summary of Preliminary Study #3
Evidence and research have been presented regarding
"what goes with what". More specifically, judges' ratings
indicate what traits go with what performance dimensions, and
existing research has been used to indicate what cues go with
what traits. These linkages will be used to justify the
choice of nonverbal cues for investigation in the current
study.

81
Implications of Preliminary Studies on the Current Study
These three studies had important implications for the
current study. As a result of each preliminary study,
important decisions were made regarding the variables of
interest and methods of the current study.
Decision Based on Study #1: Use of the Structured Interview
The structured behavioral interview format developed in
Study #1 will be used in the current study. First, the
training and tools provided to interviewers using this type
of format make the processes of cue attention and utilization
more controlled, thereby enabling interviewers to more
readily distinguish relevant from irrelevant cues. Second,
the validation results confirm the soundness of the interview
questions developed to predict general managerial
effectiveness. Accordingly, the structured behavioral
interview is the appropriate context for this study.
Decisions Based on Study #2: Type of Interview Question and
Sex Differences
First, the results of Study #2 indicated differences in
validity of past-oriented and future-oriented types of
interview questions. Similar differences were found between
interview and performance ratings in Study #1. In both
cases, correlations with performance were lower for future-
oriented questions than for past-oriented questions. As a

82
result, it was decided that only the portion of the original
interviews where interviewees responded to the past-oriented
questions would be included in the current study.
Second, the results of Study #2 imply that the sex of
the interviewee may play an important role in the validity of
the interview. Accordingly, sex differences will be explored
in the current study. The detailed information which will be
collected regarding interviewees' nonverbal behavior may help
to explain why sex differences were found in Study #2.
Decision Based on Study #3: The Choice of Nonverbal Cues
The nonverbal cues that will be investigated in the
current study are based on the findings in Study #3 and are
presented in Table 2.2. The four dynamic and two static cues
were found to be significantly correlated with at least one
of the personality factors determined to underlie the
behavioral dimensions of leadership, teamwork, drive, and
planning and organizing. The paralinguistic cue chosen for
investigation, vocal attractiveness, is more global than the
paralinguistic cues noted previously (i.e. softness of voice,
effortful reading, easy to understand, and hectic speaking).
However, Zuckerman, Hodgins, and Miyake (1990) found vocal
attractiveness to be significantly related to the
favorability of personality ratings. Accordingly, vocal
attractiveness is considered, by this researcher, to be more
appropriate for the interests of the current study.

83
Table 2.2. Nonverbal cues of interest in the current study.
Dynamic Static Paralinguistic
Gaze Physical attractiveness Vocal attractiveness
Smiling Dress
Hand movement
Back/side lean
Body orientation
It is assumed that all of these nonverbal cues if
exhibited by an interviewee would be considered favorable by
interviewers, except for back/side lean. This dynamic cue is
often interpreted as a sign of relaxation or boredom (Argyle,
1988; Mehrabian, 1969; Mehrabian, 1972). A relaxed posture
also communicates dominance in interpersonal interaction
(Argyle, 1988; Mehrabian, 1972). These characteristics are
not considered appropriate, nor judged favorably in the
context of a selection interview. Alternatively, when an
interviewee leans forward they appear attentive, interested,
and involved in the interviewers' questions (Bull, 1987;
Mehrabian, 1972). Attentiveness and involvement are more
appropriate behaviors in an interview. Accordingly, the
variable of back/side lean will be reverse scored for
analyses in the current study.
Summary of the Implications of the Preliminary Studies on the
Current Study
As a result of the three preliminary studies the
videotaped interviews of the 65 interviewees responding to

84
the four past-oriented structured interview questions will be
used in the current study. Furthermore, the nonverbal cues
to be measured in the current study were identified.
Finally, sex differences will be investigated as possible
influences on the validity of the interview.
Current Research Study
The focus of the current study is the effect of
nonverbal cues on the validity with which interviewers make
predictions of interviewees' job performance. The specific
research questions of this study will be stated in this
section. Also, the reasons for why this study is both
interesting and important to researchers and practitioners
will be discussed.
Current Research Questions
Four specific research questions will be asked to
determine how nonverbal cues affect interview validity. The
first question asks: Do raters of interviewees attend to and
utilize nonverbal cues in the interview? This question
corresponds to the right side of the Brunswik lens model (see
Figure 1.2), or the utilization of nonverbal cues. Cue
utilization has been the focus of several research studies on
the effect of nonverbal cues on the favorability of interview
ratings, but investigating this question in the context of a
structured interview is unique. As part of structuring an

85
interview, researchers and practitioners have emphasized the
importance of focusing interviewers' attention exclusively on
the content of applicants' answers. This implies that visual
cues do not carry important information and should be
ignored. The answer to this first research question will
help to determine whether or not interview ratings, made
using a structured format, are based on information carried
by nonverbal cues as well as verbal content.
The second research question asks: Are nonverbal cues
associated with performance on the job? This question
corresponds to the left side of the Brunswik lens model, or
the ecological validity of nonverbal cues. As discussed in
the previous chapter, only three research studies by Gifford
et al. (1985), Kiniki et al.(1990), and Ambady and Rosenthal
(1993) have addressed whether nonverbal cues are related to
job performance. However, there were several deficiencies
in those studies which will be overcome in the current study.
The third and fourth research questions ask: Do
nonverbal cues contribute incrementally to validity after
interview ratings are taken into account?; and do interview
ratings contribute incrementally to validity after nonverbal
cues are taken into account? These two questions correspond
to Brunswik's concept of achievement. Both questions are
necessary because there is no existing evidence regarding
these relations. Again, the issue of how nonverbal cues
influence interview validity has not yet been sufficiently

86
addressed, and these research questions are an attempt to
confront that issue.
Important and Interesting Implications of the Current Study
Results of this study can contribute to the increasing
research effort to improve the interview as a selection
device. The structured techniques that have been studied,
and are now being marketed in various forms, should not be
treated as the only way to improve the interview. We cannot
ignore a history of research that has shown that other
factors, including nonverbal cues, influence interviewers'
judgments.
The investigation of the effect of nonverbal cues on
interviewer validity is itself important because, until now,
research has only used criteria such as the favorability of
ratings or personality traits. This study will take an
important step further by using job-related criteria (i.e.,
supervisory ratings of performance on the job) to assess the
overall effect of nonverbal cues. The issue of validity is
important to managers and practitioners, as well. They are
interested in significant ways to improve interview validity,
since validation is the primary criteria used when
establishing the defensibility and appropriateness of
selection procedures (Cronshaw and Wiesner, 1989).
Last, by independently measuring microlevel nonverbal
cues we will be able to "tease out" the individual and

87
combined effects of those behaviors on validity. Researchers
and practitioners are interested in knowing not only whether
nonverbal cues are appropriately utilized, but also exactly
which cues are used to make valid judgments. Findings of
this study could have an important impact on the training of
interviewers.

HYPOTHESES, METHODS AND PROCEDURES
This chapter begins with a statement of the research
hypotheses and ends by describing the data analysis which
will be used to test those hypotheses. Additionally, methods
and procedures will be carefully explained, and the
reliabilities of interview, performance, and nonverbal cue
ratings will be reported.
Research Hypotheses
Hypotheses will be presented here which are derived from
the previously stated research questions. The four research
questions to be investigated are: (1) Do raters of
interviewees attend to and utilize nonverbal cues in the
interview?, (2) Are nonverbal cues associated with
performance on the job? (3) Do nonverbal cues contribute
incrementally to validity after interview ratings are taken
into account?; and (4) Do interview ratings contribute
incrementally to validity after nonverbal cues are taken into
account? These research questions correspond to Brunswik's
concepts of cue utilization, ecological validity, and
achievement, respectively.
88

89
Cue Utilization
With regard to the first research question, it is
expected that raters will attend to and utilize nonverbal
cues when making interview ratings. This expectation is
consistent with the findings in the nonverbal cue literature
that interviewers attend to and utilize cues, and that their
use affects the favorability of their judgments (Forbes and
Jackson, 1980; Gifford et al., 1985; Hollandsworth et al.,
1989; Imada and Hakel, 1977; McGovern, 1976; McGovern and
Tinsley, 1978; Parsons and Liden, 1984; Young and Beier,
1977).
Arvey and Campion (1982) suggested that interviewers may
not view verbal and nonverbal variables as independent. In
fact, researchers who have investigated the effect of both
verbal and nonverbal information on rating favorability have
not suggested that nonverbal information be eliminated
completely. Rasmussen (1984) and Hollandsworth et al. (1979)
found that verbal content was the primary source of
information used by interviewers, but nonverbal behavior
still had a significant, albeit smaller effect in both
studies. Therefore, it is expected that interviewers will
use both types of information cues. Accordingly, the first
hypothesis is:

90
Hypothesis 1. Interviewees' nonverbal cues will be
significantly and positively correlated with interview
ratings.
Ecological Validity
Not only is it expected that interviewers will use
nonverbal cues, but also that these cues will be related to
performance ratings. According to recent research, visual
cues can be remarkably accurate indicators of personality
traits. If these same traits are important for job
performance, then nonverbal cues may be correlated with
supervisory ratings of performance. Motowidlo and Burnett
(1992, preliminary study #2) found that raters who were
exposed to only visual sources of information were able to
make valid interview ratings. Ambady and Rosenthal (1993)
reported similar results where judgments of college
teachers', based on only teachers' nonverbal behavior, were
significant predictors of student evaluations of teacher
effectiveness. Thus, information communicated through
nonverbal behavior seems to be an important indicator of job
performance, and should not be ignored. The specific
hypothesis is stated as follows:
Hypothesis 2. Interviewees' nonverbal cues will be
significantly and positively correlated with supervisory
ratings of job performance.

91
Achievement
The third and fourth research questions are exploratory
in nature and difficult to hypothesize due to a lack of prior
evidence or theory to support a specific expectation.
However, following the logic of the Brunswik lens model, if
cues are being utilized by those who make interview ratings,
and those same cues are related to the criterion of job
performance, then the validity of the judgments, as a
function of these two relations, may be enhanced.
Assuming raters of the interview are utilizing nonverbal
cues and those cues are related to performance, two outcomes
are still possible for the third research question. The
first possibility is that raters attend to and utilize
nonverbal cues, but do not weight them sufficiently when
making their ratings. In this case, the addition of
independently measured nonverbal cues to interview ratings
will explain significantly more variance in the criterion
even though raters already took those nonverbal cues into
account. Alternatively, if interview raters utilized those
cues appropriately, and the information they provide was
sufficiently incorporated into the interview ratings, then
nonverbal cues would not significantly add to the validity of
interview ratings alone.
Again assuming that raters of the interviews are
utilizing nonverbal cue information, and that those cues are

92
related to performance, there are also two possible outcomes
for the fourth research question. Even if raters attend to
and utilize nonverbal cues, other information, not provided
by nonverbal cues, but utilized by raters, can contribute to
validity. Therefore, interview ratings would significantly
increase validity over nonverbal cues alone. Alternatively,
if raters of the interviews took into account only
information provided by nonverbal cues, then the addition of
interview ratings would not contribute significantly to
validity because it would be redundant.
Methods and Procedures
In this section, the research design and methodology
will be described and explained. First, interview,
performance, and nonverbal cue measures will be presented.
Second, the preparation of the experimental interview tapes
and the experimental nonverbal cue tapes will be explained.
Third, the resulting sample of interviewees will be
described. Finally, procedures followed for the collection
of interview ratings and nonverbal cue ratings will be
discussed.

93
Development of Measures
Interview and performance measures
The interviews developed and administered on videotape
in the first preliminary study, were the stimulus in the
current study. The performance ratings collected from
supervisors in the same preliminary study were also used as
the criterion in this current study (see previous chapter for
details).
Nonverbal cue measures
The development of nonverbal cue measures took place in
two steps. First, nonverbal cues were operationally defined,
and then the scoring sheets and rating scales were developed.
As noted in the first chapter, few researchers of
nonverbal behaviors provide explicit definitions of the cues
they study. As a result, there are no widely accepted
guidelines for defining and measuring nonverbal cues. The
following definitions of the five dynamic cues, two static
cues, and one paralinguistic cue of interest in this study
were derived from definitions of cues from other nonverbal
behavior research (Knapp and Hall, 1992; Mehrabian, 1972;
Parsons and Liden, 1984; Rasmussen, 1984). These definitions
are as follows:

94
Gaze? occurs when the interviewee looks in the direction
of the interviewer's face or head.
Smiling occurs when the corner of the lips are curled
upward.
Hand movement occurs when the interviewee moves one or
both hands, which includes the part of the body from the
wrist to the fingertips.
Back/side lean occurs when the interviewee's body is
tilted in a backward or sideways direction.
Parallel body orientation occurs when the interviewee's
body is oriented toward the interviewer.
Physical attractiveness is the degree of appeal of the
interviewee's physical appearance.
Dress is categorized according to type and color.
Vocal Attractiveness is the degree of appeal of the
interviewee's voice.
Next, the scoring sheets and rating scales to measure
each of the nonverbal cues were developed. Three different
types of measures were needed for the dynamic cues,
attractiveness cues, and dress cues, respectively.
Dynamic cues, including gaze, smiling, hand movements,
back/side lean, and parallel body orientation, were measured
using a counter/timer device. A switch activated the
counter/timer each time it was pressed, and a cumulative
record was kept of the duration and frequency of each
behavior. Independent judges recorded the duration, in
seconds, and frequency of the behavior from the counter/timer
device onto the scoring sheet. Scoring sheets are located in
Appendix D. For the purposes of the current study, however,
the actual time an interviewee spent exhibiting specific
nonverbal behaviors was determined to be theoretically and

95
practically more interesting than the frequency, or number of
switches from behaving to not behaving. Accordingly, for the
current study, the frequency of dynamic cue behaviors was
dropped from further analysis.
Both physical and vocal attractiveness were measured
using the same 5-point scale. This scale ranged from very
attractive (=5) to very unattractive (=1). These rating
scales are located in Appendix D.
Dress ratings were divided into three categories for
both men and women, and included the type of clothing,
presence of accessories, and dominant color of clothing. A
3-point scale was developed to rate the type of clothing
according to the level of formality (2=blazer or suit coat,
l=no jacket/dress shirt (men) or blouse (women),
O=other/casual shirt). A 2-point scale was developed to rate
the presence of accessories (l=tie (men) or one or more
accessories (women), 0=no tie (men) no accessories (women)).
And, a 3-point scale was developed to rate the dominant color
of interviewees' dress (3=dark, 2=medium darkness, l=white or
light). These rating scales can be found in Appendix D.
Preparation of Die Experimental Videotapes
Tapes for interview ratings
The original 65 videotaped interviews were divided into
quartiles according to their total performance score. Sixty

96
interviews were grouped into 15 sets of 4 by randomly drawing
one interview from each performance quartile for each set.
As a result, each set of 4 interviews represents the full
range of criterion scores. The order of interviews in each
set was determined randomly to avoid any relation between
order of presentation and performance score. The gender
make-up of each set was assessed and appropriate changes were
made to ensure that 2 men and 2 women were presented in each
set. Due to a lesser number of women in the sample, two sets
contained 3 males and 1 female.
Tapes for nonverbal cue ratinas
The videotapes prepared for the rating of nonverbal cue
ratings were extracted from the interview tapes described
above. Three new sets of tapes were created. One set was
for dynamic cue ratings, a second for physical attractiveness
and dress ratings, and a third for vocal attractiveness
ratings.
For the dynamic cue ratings, 6 2-minute segments were
taken from each original interview. Two segments ("A" and
"B") were from the beginning, 2 ("A" and "B") from the
middle, and 2 ("A" and "B") from the end of each interview.
For example, a 12 minute interview was divided as in Figure
3.1. For interviews longer than 12 minutes, 2 2-minute
segments were taken from the beginning, 2 2-minute segments
from either side of the midpoint, and 2 2-minute segments
from the end. For interviews less than 12 minutes, the

97
interview was divided into 3 equal parts (beginning, middle,
and end) and 2 2-minute segments were taken from each part.
For interviews = 12 minutes or more: (no overlap)
|BEGINNING | MIDDLE | END |
A | 0:00-2:00 | |2:00-0:00 | |4:00-2:00 |
B| 12:00-4:00 | 10:00-2:00 | 12:00-0:00
TOTAL 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00
MINUTES
Figure 3.1. An illustration of the division of interviews
into six segments for dynamic cue ratings.
Therefore, for interviews that were less than 12 minutes in
duration, segments "A" and "B" overlapped within, but not
across beginning, middle and end segments. The shortest
interview was 8 minutes and the longest was 36 minutes, with
a mean of 16.4 minutes.
For the dynamic cues two groups of videotapes were
prepared. One group of tapes included portion "A"
(beginning, middle, and end) from each of the 60 interviews.
A second group of tapes contained portion "B" (beginning,
middle, and end) from each of the 60 interviews. These tapes
were recorded without the sound. Additionally, a 15-second
pause was recorded between each 2-minute segment (beginning,
middle, and end), and between each interviewee presented.
Judges were able to make their ratings during these pauses.
A different videotape was prepared for the physical
attractiveness and dress ratings. On this tape 15-second
segments were recorded from the beginning of each interview

98
where the interviewee was neither moving nor talking. These
15-second segments were recorded without the sound. A 15-
second pause was recorded between the presentation of each
interviewee to give judges time to make their ratings.
A third videotape was created for the vocal
attractiveness ratings. A videotape was used for these
recordings, rather than an audiotape, in order to preserve
the quality of the reproduction of the interviewees' voice.
When judges rate vocal attractiveness the picture was
concealed. On this tape 15-second segments were recorded of
each interviewee talking. The portion of the interview used
for these recordings was when the interviewer asked each
interviewee which type of interview question they preferred.
The actual question was, "As you know, we used two types of
questions in this interview, past-oriented and the
hypothetical. Which type do you think applicants would
prefer? Which type seemed more relevant to your job?". This
portion was chosen because of its neutral content and also
because responses were similar across participants. A 15-
second pause was recorded between the presentation of each
interviewee to give judges time to make their ratings.
Sample of Interviewees
Of the 60 total interviewees, 15 were from company A, 18
from company B, 12 from company C, and 15 from company D.
Thirty-two interviewees were male and 28 female, with a mean

99
age of 29 years. With regard to race, 43 of the interviewees
were white, 10 Black, 2 Asian, 2 Hispanic, and 3 of other
races. Fifteen interviewees had job tenure of 6 months or
less, 18 had been on their current job between 7 and 12
months, 6 were between 13 to 18 months, 10 had job tenure
between 19 and 24 months, 7 had job tenure between 25 and 30
months, and 4 interviewees had been on their current job for
more than 30 months.
Procedures
First, the procedures for training student raters and
collecting interview ratings will be described. Next, the
procedures for training nonverbal cue judges and collecting
nonverbal cue ratings from those judges will be explained.
Interview ratings
Rater demographics. There were 167 raters of the
interview dimensions. Raters were undergraduate students
enrolled in an introductory management class at a large
Southeastern university. Participation was voluntary. Those
who participated received two extra credit points.
Fifty-three percent of the interview raters were male,
and 47% female. Their ages ranged from 19 to 40 years old,
with a mean age of 21.2. The majority of the raters, 136,
were white, 5 were black, 13 Hispanic, 10 Asian, 1 classified

100
him/herself as "other" in race, and 2 raters did not report
their race. Most were college juniors (59%).
Rater training. Instructions to raters of the
interviews were delivered via videotape. The instructional
video lasted approximately 12 minutes. Subjects followed
along in their training packet.
Raters were told that they would watch and listen to
simulated interviews of people pretending to apply for a
management job in a telecommunications company. They were
told to imagine that the applicant pool had been narrowed to
two candidates. Their job was to assess the candidates on
four dimensions (Leadership, Teamwork, Drive, and Planning
and Organizing) based on their performance in the mock
interview. The raters were then introduced to each of the
four interview dimensions and scales on which they would rate
the interviewees. The trainer defined each dimension and
read the behavioral anchors of each scale. Next, the trainer
read each of the four interview questions. Interview raters
were instructed that although each question was designed to
tap one particular interview dimension, that there would most
likely be some overlap of dimensions in interviewees'
responses. Finally, the trainer recommended that raters use
the space provided under each question in their packet to
take notes regarding interviewees' responses. They were also
instructed to wait until the end of each interview to make
their ratings on each interviewee. They could refer back to
their notes when making their ratings.

101
At this point, raters watched a practice interview and
made practice interview ratings. This gave them an
opportunity to listen to an interviewee's responses, see an
interviewee, and make ratings on the four scales (see
Appendix A).
Collection of interview ratings. After viewing the
instructional tape and practice interview, raters watched and
listened to four interviews. After they viewed each
interview they made their ratings.
At the end of the session, raters answered three
manipulation check questions and provided demographic
information. The three manipulation check questions were:
(1) How concerned were you with making accurate ratings of
the interviewees? (5=very concerned; 1= not very concerned);
(2) Were the definitions and levels (high, moderate, low) of
the rating dimensions - leadership, teamwork, drive, planning
and organizing - clear and understandable to you? (5=very
clear; l=very unclear); (3) How much information did you
feel you had to make the ratings? (5=a great deal of
information; l=hardly any information).
Each group of raters watched 4 interviews. This
resulted in 15 different groups who viewed all 60 interviews.
Viewing groups consisted of a minimum of 9 and a maximum of
15 raters. There were 167 total raters. The entire session,
including training, and the viewing and rating of the
interviewees, took approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes.

102
Nonverbal cue ratings
Dynamic cue ratinas. Dynamic cues were scored by six
judges. Dynamic cue judges were graduate students in the
colleges of business and journalism. There were 3 males and
3 females, all of whom were white, with a mean age of 33
years.
Dynamic nonverbal cue judges were individually trained.
During these training sessions the trainer defined each
dynamic cue and taught judges how to rate each behavior.
Then the judges watched three examples of each cue on
videotape. The interviewees in those sample tapes were not
part of the group of 60 which were later rated. Judges were
taught how to use the event recorder and were able to
practice using it with the sample interviews. Training
lasted approximately 45 minutes.
After each judge was trained they rated 20 interviewees
on each dynamic nonverbal cue. Table 3.1 illustrates how the
interviews were assigned to judges. First, each pair of
dynamic cue judges rated different sets of interviewees for
different nonverbal cues. For each nonverbal cue, each pair
of judges rated 20 interviewees. For example, for "gaze" the
first pair of judges rated interviewees 1 through 20, the
second pair of judges rated 21 through 40, and the third pair
rated 41 through 60.

103
Second, each pair of judges rated different sets of
interviewees for each nonverbal cue. For example, the first
pair of judges, who rated interviewees 1 through 20 for
"gaze", rated interviewees 21 through 40 for "smile", 41
Table 3.1. Assignment of interviews to dynamic cue judges.
DYNAMIC CUE JUDGES
VARIABLES
1
2
2
A
2
2
Gaze
01-20
01-20
21-40
21-40
41-60
41-60
A
B
A
B
A
B
Smile
21-40
21-40
41-60
41-60
01-20
01-20
A
B
A
B
A
B
Hand
41-60
41-60
01-20
01-20
21-40
21-40
Movement
A
B
A
B
A
B
Back/Side
01-20
01-20
21-40
21-40
41-60
41-60
Lean
B
A
B
A
B
A
Parallel
21-40
21-40
41-60
41-60
01-20
01-20
Orientation
B
A
B
A
B
A
Note: Numbers in cells represent interviewees (1-60) and
letters in cells represent the portion of the interview rated
(A or B). Portions "A" and "B" each include 3 2-minute
segments from the beginning, middle, and end of each
interview.
through 60 for "hand movements", 1 through 20, again, for
"back/side lean", and 21 through 40, again, for "parallel
body orientation".
Third, within pairs, each judge rated either the "A" or
"B" portion of the segments. For example, for the first pair
of judges rating "gaze", judge #1 would rate portion "A" for
interviewees 1 through 20, and judge #2 would rate portion
"B" for the same interviewees. When the set of interviewees

104
was repeated, the judge who had rated portion "A" previously
would then rate portion "B" for the same interviewees, and
vice versa for the other judge. Therefore, no judge ever
rated the same interviewee on the same behavior twice (see
Table 3.1).
To summarize, each dynamic cue judge rated 20
interviewees on each dynamic cue. It took judges
approximately 2 hours and 20 minutes to rate each dynamic
cue. Judges made their ratings over a three day period.
Static and paralinguistic cue ratings. The static and
paralinguistic cues of physical attractiveness, dress, and
vocal attractiveness were judged by either 4 or 5 different
judges. Four of these judges were middle managers at a
large, local bank and the fifth judge was a local furniture
store manager. Judges received definitions of these cues,
and were instructed how to use the rating form. Each judge
rated all interviewees.
For the physical attractiveness ratings, 5 judges were
shown 15 second segments of the interview. Judges made
ratings of physical attractiveness after each interviewee was
shown.
Next, for the vocal attractiveness ratings, judges
listened, without the picture, to 15-second segments of each
interviewee talking. Judges made their ratings of vocal
attractiveness after each interviewee was presented.
Dress was rated by 4 of the same judges (2 males and 2
females). Judges, once again, watched 15 second segments of

105
the interviewees without the sound and rated interviewees on
the type, accessories, and color of their attire. See
Appendix D for an example of each type of rating scale.
Reliabilities
After interview, performance and nonverbal cue ratings
were collected their respective reliabilities were calculated
before further analyses. These reliabilities are reported in
this section, along with descriptions of the computations of
an interview score, a performance score, and several
nonverbal cue scores.
Reliability of Raters of the Interview and the Creation of
Average Interview Dimension Scores
The intraclass correlation for a single rater was .55.
The corrected intraclass correlation was .92 for a minimum of
9 raters, .95 for a maximum of 15 raters, and .93 for an
average of 11 raters (Shrout and Fleiss, 1979). Interview
dimension scores were averaged across raters, according to
the number of raters per interviewee.
Reliability of Interview and Performance Dimensions and the
Creation of Total Scores
The intercorrelations of the 4 interview dimension
scores made by student raters ranged from .71 to .84, with an
average correlation of .79 (N=60). As a result, the

106
dimension scores were combined into a total interview score
for each interviewee.
The intercorrelations of the 4 performance dimension
scores made by supervisors ranged from .43 to .61, with an
average correlation of .52 (N=60). The performance dimension
scores were combined to form a total performance score for
each interviewee.
Reliability of Nonverbal Cue Judges and the Creation of
Individual Nonverbal Cue Scores
Reliabilities of dynamic cue ratings
The determination of the reliability of dynamic
nonverbal cue judges took place in two steps. First, the
reliability of the beginning, middle and end segments of the
interview was calculated. Second, the reliability of
portions "A" and "B" was determined. According to these
reliability results, a total duration and total frequency
score was computed for each dynamic cue, for each
interviewee.
Recall that judges recorded the duration of nonverbal
behavior for three 2-minute segments for each interviewee
they saw. For each judge, the duration scores for the
beginning, middle and end segments were correlated. This
resulted in three correlation coefficients. These three
coefficients were averaged for each judge. This resulted in
six average correlations of duration, one for each judge.

107
The range of those six average correlations is presented in
the first column of Table 3.2. The correlations in the first
column correspond to each cell for each dynamic cue in Table
3.1.
Table 3.2. Correlations between the beginning, middle, and
end interview segments for six judges.
one
judge
two
judges
Dynamic Cues
Range
Average
r
Corrected
r
Gaze
O
1
-J
oo
. 61
.76
Smile
.26-.71
.48
.65
Hand Movements
.61-.77
.69
.82
Back/Side Lean
.74-.92
.84
.91
Parallel Body
Orientation
oo
o
l
CO
.86
.92
The second column in Table 3.2 is the average
correlation across the six judges, or the average of column
one. The second column represents the average across each
row in Table 3.1.
The average correlation coefficients in the second
column were corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula for two
judges. These corrected average correlations are reported in
the third column of Table 3.2. Based on these results the
three segments were summed.
Next, correlations were computed between interview
portions "A" and "B", which was equivalent to correlating

108
within pairs of judges. In other words, pairs of judges who
rated different portions of the same interviews were
correlated with one another (i.e. 1 with 2, 3 with 4, and 5
with 6). This resulted in three correlations, one for each
pair of judges. The range of these three correlations are
represented in the first column of Table 3.3. The second
Table 3.3. Correlations between two judges rating interview
portions "A" and "B".
one two
judge
judges
Dynamic Cues
Ranae
Average
r
Corrected
r
Gaze
.19-.73
.47
.64
Smile
.53-.96
.75
.86
Hand Movements
.78-,91
.84
.91
Back/Side Lean
.69-.85
.76
.86
Body Orientation
.43-.90
.68
.81
column is the average of the three correlations in the first
column. The average correlation was corrected using the
Spearman-Brown formula for two judges. The corrected
correlation is reported in the third column.
The corrected intraclass correlations between two judges
ratings interview portions "A" and "B" based on a sample size
of 60 were: .68 for gaze, .69 for smile, .86 for hand
movement, .82 for back/side lean, and .82 for parallel body
orientation.

109
These results indicate the reliability of dynamic
nonverbal cue ratings. Therefore, the ratings made by each
pair of judges were summed to form one score for each dynamic
cue for each interviewee.
Reliabilities of static and paralinguistic cue ratings
Physical and vocal attractiveness were ratings made by
five judges of all 60 interviewees were correlated. The
average correlation was .36 for physical attractiveness, and
.30 for vocal attractiveness (N=60). The Spearman-Brown
formula was used to determine the correlation for five
judges. The corrected correlation for physical
attractiveness was .74, and .68 for vocal attractiveness.
Ratings made by the five judges were averaged to form a mean
physical attractiveness score and mean vocal attractiveness
score for each interviewee.
Ratings of dress were made by four of the same judges.
All four judges rated all 60 interviewees. The average
correlation across these four judges for the type of dress
was .89, for the accessories of dress was .64, and for the
color of dress was .85. The four judges' ratings for each
aspect of dress were summed and intercorrelated. The
correlation between type and accessories was .21, between
type and color was .57, and between accessories and color was
.08 (N=60). Based on the results of these two analyses, that
there was less agreement on the aspect of accessories between

110
judges, and there were small correlations between accessories
and other aspects of dress, the accessory variable was
dropped from further consideration.
A dress total score was computed for each interviewee by
judge which was the sum of the type and color of dress
scores. Therefore, each interviewee had four dress total
scores corresponding to the four judges' ratings. The
correlations between these four scores ranged from .91 to
1.00, with an average correlation of .94 (corrected by
Spearman-Brown for four judges = .98). As a result, an
average dress score was computed for each interviewee, which
was the average of the four judges' dress total scores.
The Creation and Reliability of a Composite Nonverbal Cue
Variable
In the current study, nonverbal cues were defined and
measured at a microscopic level. These measures allow for
the analysis of nonverbal cues as either individual variables
or in combination. The primary analysis will use a
combination of all eight of the nonverbal cues measured in
this study. This composite cue represents a meaningful whole
of interviewees' nonverbal behavior.
The single composite nonverbal cue variable was
calculated by adding together standardized values of gaze,
smile, hand movements, back/side lean (reverse scored),
parallel body orientation, physical attractiveness, dress,
and vocal attractiveness. Standardized variables were used

Ill
due to substantial differences in the standard deviations of
nonverbal cues.
It is important to note that these cues were combined
on theoretical and logical grounds, not because they were
highly intercorrelated or represented one common factor. In
fact, the individual nonverbal cues had generally low
intercorrelations, indicating that they were independent of
one another. The Brunswik lens model requires that multiple
cues not be highly correlated with one another (Paunonen,
1989). Paunonen (1989) argued that low intercorrelations,
and thus minimal redundancy, are desirable to ensure that
each nonverbal cue has a unique contribution for the
prediction of the criterion.
Intercorrelations of the individual nonverbal cue
variables which comprise the total cue variable are displayed
in Table 3.4. The intercorrelations between the cues are low
and generally nonsignificant. The average correlation among
all cues is .13. However, gaze was significantly and
positively correlated with parallel body orientation and
physical attractiveness, and negatively with dress. Also,
note the significant correlation between back/side lean and
parallel body orientation. This relation is not surprising,
given that both of these variables are elements of posture.
Nonverbal cues can also be analyzed individually at the
microscopic level. Two additional sets of cues will also be
included in the data analysis. These secondary analyses will

112
be conducted to obtain a better understanding of the
underlying effects of the composite nonverbal cue variable.
Table 3.4. Intercorrelations among individual nonverbal cue
variables.
Nonverbal Cues 1 2 3 4 5 6 1
1. Gaze
2. Smile .16
3.
Hand Movement
.13
-.01
4 .
Back/Side Lean
.23
00
o
-.15
5.
Parallel Body
Orientation
.28*
. 14
.17
. 44**
6.
Physical
Attractiveness
.26*
.24
.07
-.11
.02
7 .
Dress
-.32**
-.04
-.19
00
o
1
-.14
-.05
8.
Vocal
Attractiveness
.01
.06
l
o
.06
l
o
.06
.01
N=60
p<.05; p<.01 (two-tailed).
First, nonverbal cues were divided according to the type
of cues represented, dynamic and static, and a new variable
was computed for each type of cue. The dynamic cue variable
consisted of the sum of gaze, smiling, hand movements,
back/side lean (reverse scored), and parallel body
orientation. The static cues of physical attractiveness and
dress were combined to form another composite variable.

113
Vocal attractiveness remained independent as the only
paralinguistic cue.
The third set of nonverbal cue variables was comprised
of eight independent cues. Vocal attractiveness in this set
of variables is the same as the paralinguistic cue in the set
of categorical variables.
Data Analysis
In order to address the first research hypothesis, a
one-tailed correlation analysis was conducted between
nonverbal cues and interview ratings. If there is a
significant correlation between nonverbal cues and interview
ratings, then interviewers are utilizing the nonverbal cues.
Second, another one-tailed correlation analysis between
nonverbal cues and supervisory performance ratings was
conducted. This analysis addresses the second research
hypothesis. If there is a significant correlation between
nonverbal cues and performance ratings, then nonverbal cues
are related to performance.
For the third step of the analysis, two multiple
regression analysis were conducted to determine the effect of
nonverbal cues on validity. The dependent variable in both
regression models was supervisors' performance ratings.
The first model corresponds to the third research
question. Interview ratings were entered into the regression
equation first, then the nonverbal cues were added. If the
change in the multiple correlation is significant then

114
nonverbal cues are contributing to validity, above and beyond
interview ratings alone.
The second model corresponds to the fourth research
question. Nonverbal cues were entered into the regression
equation first, then the interview ratings were added. If
the change in the multiple correlation is significant then
interviews are contributing to validity, above and beyond
nonverbal cues alone.
These analyses were carried out for the entire sample of
60 interviewees. Then, the same analyses were conducted
within the sex of the interviewee.

RESULTS
Manipulation Check Questions
Subjects who rated the interviews on the four dimensions
of Leadership, Teamwork, Drive and Planning and Organizing
responded to three manipulation check questions. They rated
on 5-point scales their concern for accuracy, the clarity of
the dimensions, and the amount of information they felt they
had to make the ratings.
Although the use of student raters may have implications
for the generalizability of these research results, the
manipulation check indicates that students were considerably
concerned (mean 3.79, s.d. 0.68) about the accuracy of their
ratings. Next, raters reported that the interview dimensions
were clear and understandable (mean 4.25, s.d. 0.67).
Finally, student raters reported that, on average, they had a
moderate to considerable amount of information to make their
ratings (mean 3.44, s.d. 0.77).
Total Sample Analyses
Descriptive Analyses of Variables
The means and standard deviations of the interview
scores, performance scores, and nonverbal cue total are found
115

116
in Table 4.1. Correlations of these variables with
interviewees' sex, age, race, and job tenure are also
presented. A clearer interpretation of the nonverbal cue
total can be achieved by looking at the individual nonverbal
cues, whose means, standard deviations, and correlations with
demographic variables are also presented in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Means and standard deviations of interview,
performance, and nonverbal cue variables and their correlations
with demographic variables.
Correlatians
Job
Variables
Mean
s .d. 1
Sex
Acre
Race
Tenure
Interview Score
18.76
1
4.28 |
-.04
-.14
-.18
.01
Performance
26.73
1
4.27 |
i
-.08
-.30*
.27*
-.07
Nonverbal Cue
Total (stdzed)
0.00
1
1
2.94 |
.16
-.21
.02
.01
Gaze
312.23
1
53.60 |
.01
-.19
.15
-.38**
Smile
46.55
1
51.10 |
i
.21
.06
.01
.32**
Hand Movements
176.32
1
130.01 |
i
-.11
-.05
-.04
-.08
Back/Side Lean
361.05
1
291.14 |
i
-.10
.11
-.04
.17
Parallel Body
Orientation
447.67
1
1
293.41 |
i
.25*
-.01
-.12
.10
Physical
Attractiveness
2.84
1
1
0.60 |
i
.10
-.36**
-.06
-.08
Dress
3.69
i
1.18 |
i
.06
.14
-.17
.13
Vocal
Attractiveness
3.01
1
1
0.56 |
.03
-.12
.26*
.19
N=60
* p < .05, ** p <
.01 (two
-tailed).

117
None of the demographic variables were associated with
interview ratings or total nonverbal cues. However, age and
race were significantly correlated with performance ratings.
Age and race were also marginally correlated with each other
at -.25 (p=.06). There is a pattern of older, minority
incumbents and younger, white incumbents in this sample. Due
to this intercorrelation clear conclusions can not be drawn
from the correlations with performance.
Only a few nonverbal cues were individually associated
with demographic variables. Overall, women seem to orient
themselves more directly to the interviewer than do men,
younger interviewees are more attractive than older
interviewees, and the more experience someone has on their
the job the more they smile and the less they gaze.
Correlations of the Nonverbal Cue Total with Interview and
Performance Ratings
In order to address the first two research questions and
corresponding hypotheses, a one-tailed correlation analysis
was conducted for the nonverbal cue total and interview and
performance ratings. The nonverbal cue total correlated .33
(p<.01, N=60) with interview ratings, and .21 with
performance (p<.05, N=60). Nonverbal cues were significantly
associated with both interview and performance ratings. This
supports Hypotheses 1 and 2 and indicates that raters are
utilizing nonverbal cues and those cues are valid.

118
Correlations of Categorical and Individual Nonverbal Cues
with Interview and Performance Ratings
In order to obtain a better understanding of the
underlying effects of the nonverbal cue total, the effects of
each type of cue - dynamic and static, and vocal - and
individual cues were examined. The correlations of the
categorical cues and the individual cues with interview and
performance ratings are found in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2. Correlations of categorical and individual nonverbal
cues with interview and performance ratings.
Nonverbal Cues Interview Performance
Dynamic Cues
.23*
. 13
Static Cues
.15
.17
Gaze
.20 +
.20 +
Smile
.08
.07
Hand Movement
.07
-.10
Back/Side Lean
.05
-.14
Parallel Body
Orientation
.16
-.02
Physical
Attractiveness
.18
.21*
Dress
.02
.02
Vocal Attractiveness
.21*
.10
N=60
t p=.06, * p < .05 (one
-tailed).

119
These correlations indicate that dynamic cues together,
gaze in particular, and vocal attractiveness are related to
interview ratings. Gaze and physical attractiveness are
related to performance. The finding that gaze is correlated
.20 with both interview ratings and performance ratings is
very interesting. This is the only valid cue that was also
utilized by interview raters. Also note that the correlation
of gaze with performance is nearly identical to that of the
total nonverbal cue and performance (.20 and .21,
respectively). When other nonverbal cues are added to gaze
for as a composite of dynamic cues, the correlation of those
combined variables with performance decreases to .13. Gaze
seems to be a key nonverbal cue for interview validity.
The Incremental Validity of Interview Scores and Nonverbal
Cues
Before assessing the incremental validity of interview
ratings and nonverbal cues, the correlation between interview
ratings and performance was computed. This correlation was
.35 (p<.01), indicating that there was significant concurrent
validity of the interview.
Next, the third and fourth research questions were
tested by determining the incremental validity of interview
ratings and nonverbal cues. This analysis was conducted in
two steps.
First, the regression model with only interview scores
was compared to the model with interview scores and the

120
nonverbal cue total. This step addressed the third research
question, which asks: Do nonverbal cues contribute
incrementally to validity after interview ratings are taken
into account?
Second, the regression model which included only the
nonverbal cue total was compared to the model with nonverbal
cues and interview scores. This step corresponds to the
fourth research question which asks: Do interview ratings
contribute incrementally to validity after nonverbal cues are
taken into account.
Significance is achieved if R-squared in the model with
both interview score and nonverbal cues is significantly
greater than either one alone. The test for significance is
an F-test. The change in R-squared and the values of the
test for significance of that change are presented in Table
4.3.
Nonverbal cues did not contribute, incrementally, to
validity. The addition of nonverbal cues did not
significantly increase the variance explained beyond
interview scores alone.
Interview scores, on the other hand, incrementally
contributed to validity. The inclusion of interview scores
explained significantly more variance in performance than did
nonverbal cues alone.

121
Table 4.3. Regression analysis of incremental validity of
nonverbal cues and interview scores.
Dependent variable = Performance Score
Incremental Validity of Nonverbal Cues
Independent Variables
Ar2
.12
.01
Interview
E
0.72
Scores
Interview Score
Nonverbal Cues
Incremental Validitv of
Independent Variables
Ar2
E
Nonverbal Cues
.04
Interview Score
.09
5.60*
N=60
* p<.05, ** p< .01.
Summary pf Results for
the Total
Sample
Nonverbal cues, taken together, were utilized by raters
of the interview, and were also related to supervisory
ratings of performance. Gaze was the only independent
nonverbal cue which was both utilized by interview raters and
related to performance ratings. The interview was a valid
predictor of performance, but nonverbal cues did not
contribute incrementally to that validity.
Analyses By Interviewee Sex
The total sample was divided according to the sex of the
interviewee. There were 32 males and 28 females. First, it
was determined whether nonverbal behavior differed according
to the sex of the interviewee. This was accomplished by

122
examining differences in the means and intercorrelations of
nonverbal cues. Next, the same correlational and regression
analyses carried out in the total sample were also conducted
for these subsamples.
Sex Differences in Interview and Performance Ratings and
Nonverbal Behavior
Mean differences
Means and standard deviations of interview scores,
performance scores, and the nonverbal cues are presented in
Table 4.4. Mean differences for the variables by sex of the
interviewee were tested using t-tests, and are also reported
in Table 4.4. Results revealed that the mean interview score
and performance score did not differ significantly by sex of
the interviewee. The only nonverbal cue that differed
significantly by sex was parallel body orientation. Women
spent more time oriented toward the interviewer.
Table 4.4. Means and standard deviations of interview,
performance, and nonverbal cue variables by interviewee sex.
Males Females
Variables
Mean
s. d.
Mean
s .d.
t
Interview Score
18.94
4.64
18.56
3.89
.36
Performance
27.03
4.44
26.39
4.13
.58
Nonverbal Cue
Total (stdzed)
-.42
2.74
.48
3.14
-1.20
Gaze
311.75
50.52
312.79
57.85
-.07
Smile
44.36
36.47
58.07
59.35
-1.62
Hand Movements
190.03
130.47
160.64
130.05
.87

123
Table 4.4—continued
Back/Side Lean
333.94
308.08
392.04
272.73
-.77
Parallel Body
Orientation
378.72
302.93
526.46
265.88
-2.01*
Physical
Attractiveness
2.78
0.56
2.90
0.64
-.76
Dress
3.62
1.39
3.77
0.89
-.51
Vocal
Attractiveness
2.99
0.55
3.03
0.59
-.24
Males, N=32; Females, N=28.
* p<.05
Intercorrelations of individual nonverbal cues
Although nonverbal behavior does not seem to differ
according to the sex of the interviewee, intercorrelations
between individual nonverbal cues did differ by sex.
Intercorrelations of individual nonverbal cue variables for
men and women are displayed in Table 4.5.
Strong intercorrelations between back/side lean and
parallel body orientation were found for both sexes, but
other significant correlations differed by sex. For men,
gaze was significantly related to back/side lean, and
physical and vocal attractiveness were significantly related
to each other. For women, significant correlations included
gaze with hand movement, gaze with dress (negatively), and
smiling with parallel body orientation. These different
intercorrelations imply that, while individual cues do not
differ according to the sex of the interviewee, sex does play

124
a role in the relationship, and possibly co-occurence, of
behaviors.
Table 4.5. Intercorrelations between individual nonverbal cue
variables by sex of interviewee.
Nonverbal Cues 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8.
1.
Gaze
.28
.39*
.04
.27
.31
-.51**
.13
2.
Smile
.01
-.02
.03
.24
.31
-.18
.06
3.
Hand Movement
-.12
.06
-.12
.23
. 13
-.29
.03
4 .
Back/Side Lean
.39*
.09
-.15
.40*
-.19
.13
.13
5.
Parallel Body
Orientation
.31
-.05
.19
.45**
-.14
.11
.06
6.
Physical
Attractiveness
.21
.10
.04
-.07
.10
-.15 -
.20
7 .
Dress
-.22
.04
-.13
-.20 -
.30
.00
-
.25
8.
Vocal
Attractiveness
-.11
.04
-.10
.01 -
.15
.34*
.16
For males (N=32)
* p<.05, ** p<.01 (two-tailed).
For females (N=28)
* p < .05, ** p < .01 (two-tailed).
Note: Correlations for male interviewees appear below the
diagonal, and correlations for female interviewees appear
above the diagonal.
Correlations of the Total Nonverbal Cue Variable with
Interview and Performance Ratings
Correlations of the total nonverbal cue variable with
interview and performance ratings were computed separately

125
for male and female interviewees. For men, nonverbal cues
correlated significantly with interview ratings (r=.30,
p<.05, N=32), but not with performance (r=-.18, n.s.). For
women, nonverbal cues were associated with both interview
ratings (r=.39, p<.05, N=28) and performance (r=.67, p<.001,
N=28). The correlation coefficients of nonverbal cues with
performance were significantly different between men and
women (z=-3.11, p<.001). These results indicate that
nonverbal cues influence interview ratings for both male and
female interviewees, but nonverbal cues are related to
performance only for women. In order to better understand
these results, categorical and individual cues were
correlated with interview and performance ratings for male
and female interviewees.
Correlations of Categorical and Individual Nonverbal Cues
with Interview and Performance Ratings
First, dynamic and static cues were correlated with interview
and performance ratings separately for men and women using a
one-tailed test. These results are displayed in Table 4.6.
Because a one-tailed test was used, negative correlations can
not be interpreted.
For men, neither of the categorical nonverbal cue
variables were significantly related to interview ratings.
Dynamic cues were negatively correlated with performance.
For women, dynamic cues were significantly associated with

126
both interview ratings and performance. Static cues also
correlated significantly with performance for women.
Next, individual nonverbal cues were correlated with
interview and performance ratings, separately for men and
women. These results are also reported in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6. Correlations of interview and performance scores with
categorical and individual nonverbal cue variables for male and
female interviewees.
Males Females
Nonverbal Cues
Intvw.
Perf.
Intvw.
Perf.
Dynamic Cues
.18
-.34
.31*
.56***
Static Cues
. 18
.05
.11
.37*
Gaze
.30*
.08
.08
.35*
Smile
-.03
-.20
.21
.34*
Hand Movement
-.06
-.46
.24
.33*
Back/Side Lean
-.01
.06
-.10
-.39
Parallel Body
Orientation
.14
-.06
.22
.10
Physical
Attractiveness
.28 +
.05
.08
.40*
Dress
-.00
.03
.06
.02
Vocal
.22
.09
.21
.11
Attractiveness
Males N=32, Females N=28
* p< .05, *** p< .001 (one-tailed).
For men, gaze was significantly correlated with
interview score, and physical attractiveness was marginally
related (p=.06). For women, none of the individual nonverbal

127
cues correlated with interview ratings. However, several
nonverbal cues correlated significantly with performance for
women, including: gaze, smile, hand movement, and physical
attractiveness. Back/side lean correlated in an unexpected
negative direction with performance for women.
The Incremental Validity of Interview Scores and Nonverbal
Cues
Before assessing incremental validity the correlation
between interview ratings and performance was computed
separately for men and women. For men, the correlation
between interview ratings and performance was .26 (p=.07),
and for women it was .46 (p<.01). The interview is valid for
women, but because of the small sample sizes and reduced
statistical power, the validity of the interview for men can
not be ruled out.
The test of the incremental validity of interview
ratings and nonverbal cues for men and women was conducted in
two steps. First, the regression model with only interview
scores was compared to the model with interview scores and
the total nonverbal cue variable. Second, the regression
model that included only the total of nonverbal cues was
compared to the model with both nonverbal cues and interview
scores.
Significance is achieved if R-squared in the model with
both interview score and nonverbal cues is significantly

128
greater than either one alone. The test for significance is
an F-test. The change in R-squared and the values of the
test for significance of that change are presented in Table
4.7.
The incremental validity of the nonverbal cues differed
according to sex. For men, nonverbal cues did not add
significantly to the variance after interview ratings were in
the regression equation. For women, however, when nonverbal
cues were entered, variance was significantly increased
beyond that explained by interview ratings alone.
Table 4.7. Regression analysis of the incremental validity
of nonverbal cues for male and female interviewees.
Dependent variable = Performance Score
Incremental. Validity. c.f Nonverbal Cues
Males Females
Independent Variables
Ar2
E
Ar2
E
Interview Score
.07
.21
Nonverbal Cues
.08
2.73
.29
14.50***
Incremental Validity of Interview Scores
Males Females
Independent Variables
AR2
E
Ar2
E
Nonverbal Cues
.03
.45
Interview Score
.12
4.09
.05
2.50
For males, N=32; for females, N=28.
* P< .05, ** p< .01 *** p< .001.
The incremental validity of interview scores did not
differ by sex. For both men and women interviewees, the

129
inclusion of interview ratings as predictors of performance
did not explain significantly more variance that of nonverbal
cues alone.
Summary of Results for Male and Female Interviewees
Nonverbal cues were utilized by raters of the interviews
for both male and female interviewees. The relation between
nonverbal cues and performance does, however, differ
significantly by sex. Nonverbal cues were strongly related
to performance ratings for women, but not for men. The
incremental validity of nonverbal cues also differed by the
sex of the interviewee. For women only, nonverbal cues added
significantly to the prediction of performance, beyond that
of interview ratings alone. It must be noted that these
results should be interpreted with caution given the low
sample sizes by sex (males=32 and females=28) and the
associated loss of statistical power.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Cue Utilization and the Ecological Validity of Nonverbal Cues
Consistent with several other studies, it was found, in
this study, that interview ratings were favorably influenced
by information provided by interviewees' nonverbal behavior.
Interviewees' who were more nonverbally expressive were rated
more favorably in the interview. These results clearly show
that nonverbal cues are attended to and utilized by raters in
a structured selection interview.
A more unique outcome of this study was that nonverbal
cues were related to performance ratings. This result is
contrary to the prevailing belief that nonverbal cues are
merely invalid distractions and noise that should be ignored
in the selection interview. It is consistent, however, with
results reported by Motowidlo and Burnett (1992) and Ambady
and Rosenthal (1993). Motowidlo and Burnett (1992) found
that ratings based only on visual cues were significantly
correlated with supervisory ratings of performance. Ambady
and Rosenthal (1993) similarly reported that ratings of
nonverbal cues were significantly correlated with ratings of
teacher effectiveness. Thus, it may be inferred that
important and relevant information about an interviewees'
130

131
potential to perform well on the job may be communicated
through interviewees' nonverbal behavior.
This interpretation suggests that supervisors who rated
incumbents' job performance correctly interpreted nonverbal
behaviors exhibited on the job as valid indicators of
management effectiveness. This explanation is based on the
assumption that nonverbal behaviors reflect underlying
traits, and that supervisors are able to infer those traits
from their interactions with incumbents. Accordingly, the
correlation between nonverbal cues and performance ratings
can be explained by their relation to the same relevant
traits.
An alternative explanation is that supervisors may be
erroneously interpreting nonverbal cues exhibited on the job
as indicators of management effectiveness. This alternative
explanation rests on the assumption that nonverbal cues do
not reflect underlying traits, or that the underlying traits
they do represent are not truly related to job performance.
This interpretation is more difficult to defend given the
extensive literature on the accuracy with which personality
traits can be judged by others based on targets' nonverbal
behavior (Ambady and Rosenthal, 1993; Borkenau, 1992;
Borkenau and Liebler, 1992, Kenny et al., 1992; Funder and
Dobroth, 1987; Paunonen, 1989).
Recent studies support this first explanation, that
judges are quite accurate at assessing personality traits
from nonverbal cues (Ambady and Rosenthal, 1993; Borkenau and

132
Liebler, 1992, Kenny et al., 1992). Not only has support
been found for the accuracy of personality judgments by
strangers at, what is called, "zero acquaintance" (Albright
et al., 1988, Kenny et al., 1992), but also the accuracy of
personality judgments varies positively with the degree of
acquaintance between the judge and the target (Funder and
Colvin, 1988; Paunonen, 1989). In this study, incumbents had
been on their current job, with their current supervisor, for
at least six months. Thus, it would seem reasonable that
supervisors, who had a substantial degree of contact with
interviewees (i.e. incumbents), would be able to make
accurate judgments of their personality. If personality
traits were accurately assessed by supervisors as indicators
of performance, and those traits are, in turn, reflected in
nonverbal behaviors, then it seems appropriate to use
nonverbal behaviors to predict job performance.
At the molecular level of analysis, the only nonverbal
cue that was associated substantially with both interview
ratings and supervisors ratings was gaze. It should be noted
that gaze was the least reliably rated dynamic nonverbal cue
(.64). Therefore, this finding is even more surprising.
Gaze is often interpreted as a signal of dominance,
attentiveness, persuasiveness, credibility, or
trustworthiness (Kleinke, 1986) . These traits may be
considered desirable for an effective manager. These
presumptions about personality characteristics are, however,

133
speculative in the absence of any actual personality
assessment.
Incremental Validity
Although nonverbal cues were related to performance, the
tests for incremental validity indicated that interview
ratings alone were the best predictors of performance.
Independent information about nonverbal cues did not
contribute to the prediction of performance ratings beyond
that of interview ratings alone. Since raters were utilizing
nonverbal cues then it is possible that the information
provided by nonverbal cues was sufficiently incorporated into
interview ratings. Thus, independent ratings of nonverbal
cues would not add significantly to the information already
included in those interview ratings.
Furthermore, interview ratings contributed incrementally
to the prediction of performance beyond that of nonverbal
cues alone. Even if raters attended to and utilized
nonverbal cues, other information, not provided by nonverbal
cues, but utilized by raters, could contribute to validity.
Raters had access to both nonverbal information and
interviewees' verbal responses. Any unique, relevant
information provided by interviewees in their responses to
interview questions was most likely used by interview raters.
The utilization of unique information, not provided by

134
nonverbal cues, would explain why interview ratings increased
validity beyond that of nonverbal cues alone.
Sex Differences
Analyses by sex were exploratory in nature. Low sample
sizes by sex and the loss of power which is associated with
small samples make it necessary to interpret these results
with caution. However, the compellingness of these results
lead to an attempt to explain the sex differences.
It was found that the effect of nonverbal cues differed
according to the sex of the interviewee. Nonverbal cues
influenced interview ratings separately for both men and
women, but the ecological validity of nonverbal cues for
women was significantly different than the ecological
validity of cues for men. For men, the relation between
nonverbal cues and performance ratings was nonsignificant and
in an unexpected direction. But for women, nonverbal cues
were positively and strongly associated with ratings of
performance.
On a microscopic level, no single cue, such as gaze in
the total sample, was both utilized by interview raters and
was related to performance. But, for women, dynamic cues
together (gaze, smiling, hand movements, and parallel body
orientation) were utilized by interview raters and were also
significantly related to supervisory ratings of performance.

135
For women, nonverbal cues alone were valid predictors of
performance, and contributed significant incremental validity
beyond that of interview ratings. Interview raters were
utilizing nonverbal cues, but this outcome indicates that
when rating female interviewees they did not utilize
nonverbal cues as efficiently as possible.
Three possible explanations of the differences in the
ecological validity of cues for men and women will be
presented. One possibility is that men and women actually
differ in the nonverbal behaviors they display. A second
possibility is that interpretations of nonverbal behavior
differ according to whether the target is male or female. A
third possibility is that men and women differ in the
accuracy with which they encode relevant information that is
then, in turn, interpreted by others from observing their
nonverbal behavior.
The first explanation suggests that men and women behave
differently. The evidence in this study does not support
this explanation. Nonverbal cues as a whole did not differ
by sex, and the only difference in individual cues was found
for parallel body orientation. Other researchers have
reported that females interact more directly with others than
do males, particularly in same-sex dyads (see Hall, 1984).
Since the interviewer in this study was female, then female
interviewees may have been more likely to orient themselves
directly toward her. However, this single difference is not
sufficient to support the explanation that the differing

136
results for men and women interviewees occurred because they
actually behave different nonverbally.
A second possible explanation is that the same behaviors
are interpreted differently for men than for women. For
example, although gaze did not differ by sex in this study,
it has been reported by other researchers that women gaze at
others more than men do (Hall, 1984). Interpretations of
women's gazing patterns are complicated by the fact that gaze
connotes degrees of dominance and status as well as degrees
of affiliation, openness, and dependence (Kleinke, 1986;
Mehrabian, 1972; Nevill, 1974; Thayer, 1969). These apparent
contradictions may come into play in sex-stereotypic ways
(Henley, 1977). The choice of interpretation is left to the
person judging that behavior. If the judge follows a sex-
stereotypic interpretation, more gazing by women would be
interpreted as a signal of dependence, and more gazing by
men, a signal of dominance.
In this study, interview raters and supervisors may have
been applying different interpretations to the same behaviors
exhibited by male and female incumbents. This is evidenced
by the fact that the direction of the effect of nonverbal
behaviors on performance ratings differed by sex. At the
microscopic level, the direction of the relation of some
individual cues with interview and performance ratings also
differed by sex (i.e. smiling, hand movements, dress, and
dynamic cues as a whole). But, no significant sex
differences existed for performance ratings. There is no

137
clear evidence to support, or rule out this explanation at
this time.
A third possible explanation for the sex differences in
this study suggests that men and women differ in their
ability to accurately encode, or exhibit, traits or emotions
through their nonverbal behavior. There is strong and
prevailing evidence that women are better encoders of
nonverbal cues, than are men (see review by Hall, 1984).
Female interviewees/incumbents may display nonverbal
behaviors on the job that are accurately assessed by
supervisors. Nonverbal cues displayed by men, on the other
hand, may be misinterpreted because men are not, in general,
as skilled at encoding their traits and emotions. Nonverbal
cues may even act as distracters, or noise, when assessing
male interviewees/incumbents.
Results reported by Motowidlo and Burnett (1992) provide
support for this third explanation. They correlated
interview and performance ratings separately by the sex of
the interviewee. Validity was greatest for men when
interview raters only had access to aural information, and
validity was greatest for women when visual cues were
available to raters, either with or without aural
information. These results imply that men and women may
differ in their ability to convey information through verbal
or nonverbal channels. When visual information was removed
for men the raters focused solely on verbal content and were
able to make valid ratings.

138
The latter two explanations for sex differences both
address the issue of communication of traits through
nonverbal behavior and the eventual interpretation of those
traits. Whether the source of variance lies with the male
and female subjects, or with the receivers of those cues can
not be determined at this time.
Contributions and Limitations of Study
Contributions
This study addressed three concerns related to the
research to-date on nonverbal behavior. The first concern
was that the validity of nonverbal cues had not been
sufficiently addressed. Although Ambady and Rosenthal (1993)
made a significant contribution in this regard by utilizing
an ecologically valid criterion of teacher effectiveness,
their study did not have specific implications for selection
interviewing. This current study, however, was not only
conducted within the context of a structured selection
interview, but also supervisory ratings of performance, the
standard criterion for validation studies, were collected.
A second concern that was addressed by this study
regarded the careful definition and microscopic level
measurement of nonverbal cues. The choice of eight cues for
this study was justified according to their implied
relationship with important underlying traits (preliminary

139
study #3). Next, the eight cues were operationally defined
in objective, behavioral terms on a microscopic level. This
methodological difference enabled the investigation of cues
together, as a meaningful whole, and individually at a
molecular level.
Finally, dynamic nonverbal cues were measured by
independent judges using very objective means, and static and
paralinguistic cues were measured by different judges using
5-point rating scales. Therefore, the measurement of
nonverbal cues was not contaminated by the interview ratings
or performance ratings.
Limitations
One potential limitation of this study is that
performance ratings were made by supervisors who may be
subject to the same interpretive errors as interview raters.
The "criterion problem", as it is called, is too complex to
be addressed here (see Austin and Villanova, 1992). It is
acknowledged that since both interview and performance scores
were made by human raters those ratings may share the same
systematic error variance.
Another possible limitation of this study is that
university students served as raters of the interviews rather
than experienced interviewers. Bernstein, Hakel, and Harlan
(1975), however, compared the decision processes of
interviewers and college students in an interview situation.

140
These researchers determined that although student raters
tended to be more lenient no other important differences
existed. In addition, in this study student raters reported
that they were, on average, considerably concerned about the
accuracy of their ratings. The use of student raters was
sufficient for the purposes of this study, but it is
suggested that experienced interviewers also be used as
raters in order to determine the generalizability of these
results.
A third limitation of this study is that the verbal
content of interviewees' answers to the structured interview
questions was not independently measured. If the content of
interviewees' answers was collected, either in the form of
written transcripts, which would remove all nonverbal
behavior from consideration, or in the form of interview
ratings based only on hearing interviewees responses, which
would remove only visually-based cues, then the incremental
validity of verbal and nonverbal information could be
determined.
Summary and Conclusions
Nonverbal cues are utilized by interview raters and are
also related to performance. More interestingly, of the
individual cues, gaze was the only valid cue which was
utilized by interview raters. Nonverbal cues alone were not,
however, sufficient predictors of performance, and did not

141
add to validity beyond that already accounted for by
interview ratings. This suggests that interview raters were
efficiently utilizing information provided by nonverbal cues,
but that nonverbal cues were not the only source of
information used to predict performance.
Furthermore, the sex of the interviewee seems to play
an important role in the validity of nonverbal cues. It is
premature, however, to formulate any specific guidelines for
handling these sex differences. We still have a great deal
to learn about the display, meaning and interpretation of
male and female behavior on the job and in the selection
interview.
This research study has focused on whether nonverbal
cues influence interview ratings and whether or not those
cues are valid. The results of this study provide compelling
and intriguing evidence of the importance and validity of
nonverbal cues in the structured selection interview.

APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL AND INTERVIEW DIMENSIONS

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE INTERVIEWER
When the interviewee enters the room introduce yourself and
ask them to have a seat.
Next, use the following points to introduce the project and
the purpose of the study:
"Let me take a moment to tell you about the project, and how
your participation will help us:
Overview:
My colleagues and I at UF have developed some
experimental interview questions.
We will use these questions in interviews with 200
people across several companies.
All interviews will be videotaped to use for later
research.
Supervisors of each person interviewed will be contacted
and asked to comment on how their employee responds in
general job situations.
How the videotapes will be used:
Videotaped interviews will be used as part of a program
of research at UF over the next several years.
Basically, students will watch the tapes, and the
information gathered will help us to suggest ways to
improve the interview process.
The emphasis of these studies will be on student
observers' reactions and decisions, not on you, the
interviewee.
Confidentiality:
Since this is an independent project by the Univ. of
Florida, information collected will not be part of your
personnel record, nor will it affect your job/career in
any way.
Information from the interview and from supervisors will
not be seen by anyone who is in your company.
Only aggregated, or combined, data will be reported to
the company. Individual information cannot be
distinguished.
143

144
Videotapes will not be used for any purpose other than
for research.
What we are asking from them:
As you answer the interview questions, treat this as a
real job interview.
You may imagine that you are interviewing for your
current job all over again.
I still want you to provide real, truthful answers.
Do you have any questions or concerns?
I will turn the videocamera on now "
With the videocamera on, follow this script:
"Now, I am going to ask you 8 main questions.
For some questions you must use your own past
experiences, and tell me what you did when you were in
those situations. Try to use experiences you had before
you took your current job.
For other questions I will present you with a
hypothetical situation. I will ask you to tell me what
you would do if you were in that situation
I will ask four questions of each type, beginning with
the ones referring to a past experience/hypothetical
situation.
There are no right or wrong answers to these questions.
Just try to be as specific as you can.
Are you ready to begin?"
Begin asking the interview questions (See attachment).

145
Past-oriented Questions:
When answering the first few questions I would like you to
think of specific experiences you have had in the past.
(IP) First, I'd like you to think of a time when you were
working with other people, either on a special project or on
an everyday task, when there was some type of crisis, and it
was necessary for someone to take charge. What was your role
in this situation? (Leadership)
(2P) When we work in groups there are usually many important
decisions to make. Tell me about a time when you were part
of a group that had an important decision to make and you
held a position regarding that decision, but you were
outnumbered by other members of the group who held a position
different from yours. (Teamwork)

146
(3P) Next, I'd like you to tell me about a time when you
were working on an important task but a major obstacle or
disruption got in the way, and forced you to think about
whether or not to continue as you had originally planned.
(Drive)
(4P) Now let's focus on situations where the decisions were
mainly your own, rather than as part of a group. Think about
an important decision you had to make that was especially
complex or challenging. I am really interested in the
process used, or approach you took, to reach that decision.
(Planning & Organizing)

147
Future-oriented Questions:
When answering the remaining questions you should imagine you
are a newly hired manager with a large company.
(IF) I'd like you to imagine that your supervisor has asked
you to join an established task force to fill a vacancy left
by another manager who recently resigned. You have an
interest in the project they are working on and you agree to
at least sit in on a meeting this afternoon. Thirty minutes
into the meeting you feel that the program the task force is
ready to implement is inadequate and will have many problems.
What would you do? (Leadership)
(2F) Picture yourself as a department manager working on an
important report with two other managers who are from
different departments. Your supervisor, who by the way is
not the supervisor of the other two managers, offers to look
over the report before you present it to senior management.
You give her a draft to review. She returns it with many
serious criticisms, all on areas of the report that the other
managers prepared. What would you do? (Teamwork)

148
(3F) Imagine that your supervisor asks you to take over a
group project because the project leader was transferred.
You find out that the project is behind schedule because the
former project leader mishandled some early steps. As a
result, it will be extremely difficult for the group to
complete the project by the deadline in three weeks. What
would you do? (Drive)
(4F) Now I'd like you to imagine that you are offered an
opportunity to transfer to a position in another division of
the company for which you work. This would be a lateral
move, instead of a promotion, and you would also have to move
to another city. How would you go about deciding whether or
not to accept this transfer? (Planning & Organizing)

149
After you have asked all 8 interview questions, use the
following script:
"That is the end of the interview. I would like to take
just a couple more minutes to ask you some follow-up
questions.
First, now that you have heard the interview questions
and your own responses, can we have your permission to
use the videotape of your interview for research
purposes?
Yes No
Also, as I mentioned, as part of the project we will be
contacting the supervisors of every one who is
interviewed,to ask them how you respond in general job
situations. The questions for your supervisor are
different from, but directly related to the interview
questions I have just asked you.
Again, let me emphasize that your supervisor will not
have any access to your individual answers from this
interview, and in turn, his/her comments will not be
shared with or available to anyone who is in the
company.
In order to contact them, we will need your supervisor's
name...
And what is his/her job title?
And what is your current job title?
Could you give me a brief description of what you do on
your job?

150
How long have you been in your current position?
How long have you been with this company?
Could you please tell me your age?
Finally, as you know, I used two types of questions in
this interview.
Which type do you think applicants would prefer?
Past Hypo Both None
Which type seemed more relevant to your job?
Past Hypo Both None
This all the information I need. Do you have any
questions for me?
Thank you so very much for participating in this
project."
Stand up, shake hands, and see them to the door.
Turn off the videocamera. Change tapes if necessary.
Record demographic information below.
Make ratings.
Prepare for next interview.

151
Demographic Information:
Sex: M F
Age:
Race:
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Other
Job Tenure:
30mo.
0-6mo.
7-12mo.
13-18mo.
19-24mo.
25-
Organization
Tenure:
0-6mo.
7-12mo.
13-18mo.
19-24mo.
25-
30mo.
INTERVIEWEE # COMPANY DATE
CURRENT JOB TITLE:
SUPERVISOR INFORMATION:
Name
Job Title

152
LEADERSHIP
Seeking opportunities for leadership; directing and guiding
others toward the accomplishment of tasks by motivating and
assessing their performance/behavior; persuading others to accept
own ideas and exhibiting confidence in those ideas; showing
initiative; taking charge.
Seeks or volunteers for leadership roles in groups.
7
Provides accurate and constructive feedback to
others resulting in improved performance.
HIGH
6
Consistently accomplishes goals through others.
Confidently and forcefully persuades others to
accept own views and ideas.
5
Takes on leadership roles and responsibilities when
offered.
Attempts to motivate others by providing feedback
and encouragement.
4 MODERATE
May recognize, but not always take advantage of,
opportunities to accomplish tasks through others.
3
Expresses own ideas and views to others and
attempts to persuade them to accept the same
opinions.
2
Avoids or declines opportunities for leadership.
Does not motivate or encourage others to exert more
effort toward task accomplishment, or give feedback
to others about performance.
LOW
Does not utilize opportunities to accomplish goals
through others.
1
Does not try to express own views and opinions to
others.

153
TEAMWORK
Emphasizing and showing concern for group interests; cooperating
with others and working to form harmonious workgroups;
prioritizing group interests above individual interests; helping
and listening to others and showing consideration for their needs
and feelings.
Cooperates enthusiastically with others to accomplish
group objectives.
7 Takes full advantage of useful direction and
leadership from others.
HIGH Puts group interests first.
6 Sacrifices personal convenience to assist others when
appropriate.
Solicits suggestions from others and integrates them
into effective compromise solutions.
5
4 MODERATE
Cooperates with others when useful for accomplishment
of group objectives.
Accepts useful direction from others.
Generally shows consideration for others and offers
to assist others when convenient.
3 Recognizes alternative viewpoints and accepts
compromise solutions when offered.
2
LOW
1
Unwilling to cooperate with others.
Rejects direction from others.
Focuses on own individual objectives instead of
group or organizational objectives.
Reluctant to go out of own way to help or show
consideration for others.
Refuses to compromise when presented with other's
suggestions or ideas, even when necessary.

154
DRIVE
Showing concern for task achievement; persisting to solve
problems and overcome obstacles to task accomplishment; doing
extra work and focusing high energy levels to solve problem or
meet difficult deadline; volunteering to handle assignments or
problems outside own area of responsibility.
Actively seeks and volunteers for challenging
assignments.
7
Puts in time and effort above and beyond the call
of duty.
HIGH
Always focuses attention on business at hand.
6
Works hard even when faced with difficult or demanding
tasks.
Volunteers for tasks even when not strictly in own
area of responsibility.
5
Accepts challenging assignments or tasks when given
to him/her.
Shows concern for achievement of tasks by attempting
to meet deadlines with reasonable concern for quality.
4 MODERATE
Refocuses attention on business at hand after
distractions.
3
May become side-tracked by obstacles or delays, but
works to overcome them.
Accepts assignments even when not strictly in own
area of responsibility.
2
Avoids or declines assignments which are difficult
or challenging.
Shows little dedication to work and a reluctance to
put in extra time or energy to accomplish assignments
in a timely fashion.
LOW
Easily distracted from business at hand.
1
Avoids, ignores or procrastinates with obstacles or
special problems.
Refuses to take on problems or tasks when not
strictly in own area of responsibility.

155
PLANNING AND ORGANIZING
Adopting a methodical and systematic approach for solving all
aspects of a problem; giving specific attention to detail;
generating and evaluating alternative solutions thoroughly;
anticipating obstacles and developing plans to meet them; setting
appropriate priorities.
Seeks and gathers as much relevant information as
possible for addressing all aspects of a problem or
decision by efficiently utilizing all available
resources.
7
Effectively structures even ambiguous or complex
situations.
HIGH
Anticipates obstacles and always develops flexible
plans to accommodate contingencies.
6
Takes time to prioritize problems and decisions
appropriately and successfully.
Seeks and gathers enough information needed to address
most aspects of a problem or decision by using most
5 of the available resources.
Approaches most problems or decisions in an organized
fashion.
4 MODERATE
Anticipates obstacles and usually develops plans to
address delays and distractions.
3
Generally sets priorities for problem solving and
decision-making.
Overlooks key aspects of a problem or decision and
does not use available resources efficiently for
obtaining additional information needed.
2
Takes haphazard approach to problem-solving and
decision-making.
LOW
Fails to anticipate obstacles or develop plans to
handle contingencies.
1
Fails to prioritize problems or decisions
appropriately.

APPENDIX B
SUPERVISORY RATING FORMS
Instructions for Supervisors!
Your company has been cooperating with our researchers from
the University of Florida who are conducting a research
project which investigates the effectiveness of the
structured interview. Several entry-level employees in your
company have allowed us to interview them on videotape as
part of this study. These videotaped interviews will be used
as part of a program of research on interviewing at the
University of Florida over the next several years. The
collection of these videotaped interviews provides several
research possibilities which may have significant
implications for interview programs now in place, and for
interviewing, in general.
The person whose name is at the bottom of the following page
is one of those persons who participated in this interview
project. We understand that he or she is someone who reports
to you. They have given us their permission to ask you,
their supervisor, for information about their behavior in
job-related situations.
We are asking you to help by describing this person's job
performance using the attached form.
This information is being collected for research purposes
only. It should not be used in any way that might help or
hurt the career of the employee involved. Accordingly, it
should not become part of this individual's permanent
personnel record.
This questionnaire contains four broad categories of
performance. They are named and defined below:
156

157
Leadership
Seeking opportunities for leadership; directing and guiding
others toward the accomplishment of tasks by motivating and
assessing their performance/behavior; persuading others to
accept own ideas and exhibiting confidence in those ideas;
showing initiative; taking charge.
Teamwork
Emphasizing and showing concern for group interests;
cooperating with others and working to form harmonious work
groups; prioritizing group interests above individual
interests; helping and listening to others and showing
consideration for their needs and feelings.
Drive
Showing concern for task achievement; persisting to solve
problems and overcome obstacles to task accomplishment;
doing extra work and focusing high energy levels to solve a
problem or meet a difficult deadline; volunteering to handle
assignments or problems outside own area of responsibility.
Planning and Organizing
Adopting a methodical and systematic approach for solving all
aspects of a problem; giving specific attention to detail;
generating and evaluating alternative solutions thoroughly;
anticipating obstacles and developing plans to meet them;
setting appropriate priorities.
Rating scales for these performance categories appear on the
following pages, one per page. Notice that the performance
category is defined at the top of the page. Running down the
left side of the page is a 7-point scale broken into three
ranges with 7 and 6 at the HIGH range, 5, 4, and 3 at the
MODERATE range, and 2 and 1 at the LOW range. Each range is
defined with a description of what a person would have to do
to deserve a rating in that range of HIGH, MODERATE, or LOW.
At the bottom of the page is another scale to indicate how
important the performance category is for the job of the
person who is being rated.
Please follow these five steps for making ratings on each
performance category:
First, carefully read the definition of the performance
category at the top of the page.

158
Second, read the descriptions of behaviors for the three
ranges of performance.
Third, decide which of the three descriptions (High,
Moderate, Low) best fits the person you are rating.
Fourth, circle one number within that range that best
represents the performance of the person you are rating.
Fifth, circle one number at the bottom of the page to
indicate how important this performance category is for the
job of the person you are rating.
After you have done this for the four performance categories,
rate the person's Overall Job Performance on the last page of
this questionnaire by circling one number that appears on
that scale.
Thank you very much for your help and cooperation.
The employee named below has participated in the interview
project, and is aware that you have been asked to make the
following ratings.
Employee's name:

159
Leadership
Seeking opportunities for leadership; directing and guiding
others toward the accomplishment of tasks by motivating and
assessing their performance/behavior; persuading others to
accept own ideas and exhibiting confidence in those ideas;
showing initiative; taking charge.
7 Seeks or volunteers for leadership roles in
groups; provides accurate and constructive
HIGH feedback to others resulting in improved
performance; consistently accomplishes goals
6 through others; confidently and forcefully
persuades others to accept own views and ideas.
Takes on leadership roles and responsibilities
5 when offered; attempts to motivate others by
providing feedback and encouragement; may
recognize, but not always take advantage of,
4 MODERATE opportunities to accomplish tasks through
others; expresses own ideas and views to others
and attempts to persuade them to accept the same
3 opinions.
2 Avoids or declines opportunities for leadership;
does not motivate or encourage others to exert
more effort toward task accomplishment, or give
LOW feedback to others about performance; does not
utilize opportunities to accomplish goals
through others; does not try to express own
1 views and opinions to others.
How important is this performance dimension for the job of
the person you are rating? (circle one number below)
0 Not at all important
1 Minor importance
2 Some importance
3 Important
4 Very important
5 Extremely important

160
Teamwork
Emphasizing and showing concern for group interests;
cooperating with others and working to form harmonious work
groups; prioritizing group interests above individual
interests; helping and listening to others and showing
consideration for their needs and feelings.
7 Cooperates enthusiastically with others to
accomplish group objectives; takes full
advantage of useful direction and leadership
from others; puts group interests first;
HIGH sacrifices personal convenience to assist
others when appropriate; solicits suggestions
from others and integrates them into effective
6 compromise solutions.
5
4 MODERATE
3
Cooperates with others when useful for
accomplishment of group objectives; accepts
useful direction from others; generally shows
consideration for others and offers to assist
others when convenient; recognizes alternative
viewpoints and accepts compromise solutions when
offered.
Unwilling to cooperate with others; rejects
2 direction from others; focuses on own
individual objectives instead of group or
LOW organizational objectives; reluctant to go out
of own way to help or show consideration for
others; refuses to compromise when presented
1 with others'suggestions or ideas, even when
necessary.
How important is this performance dimension for the job of
the person you are rating? (circle one number below)
0 Not at all important
1 Minor importance
2 Some importance
3 Important
4 Very important
5 Extremely important

161
Drive
Showing concern for task achievement; persisting to solve
problems and overcome obstacles to task accomplishment;
doing extra work and focusing high energy levels to solve
problem or meet difficult deadline; volunteering to handle
assignments or problems outside own area of responsibility.
7 Actively seeks and volunteers for challenging
assignments; puts in time and effort above and
beyond the call of duty; always focuses
HIGH attention on business at hand; works hard even
when faced with difficult or demanding tasks;
volunteers for tasks even when not strictly in
6 own area of responsibility.
Accepts challenging assignments or tasks when
5 given to him/her shows concern for achievement
of tasks by attempting to meet deadlines with
reasonable concern for quality performance;
4 MODERATE refocuses attention on business at hand after
distractions; may become side-tracked by
obstacles or delays, but works to overcome
3 them; accepts assignments even when not
strictly in own area of responsibility.
2 Avoids or declines assignments which are
difficult or challenging; shows little
dedication to work and a reluctance to put in
extra time or energy to accomplish assignments
LOW in a timely fashion; easily distracted from
business at hand; avoids, ignores or
procrastinates with obstacles or special
problems; refuses to take on problems or
1 tasks when not strictly in own area of
responsibility.
How important is this performance dimension for the job of
the person you are rating? (circle one number below)
0 Not at all important
1 Minor importance
2 Some importance
3 Important
4 Very important
5 Extremely important

162
Planning and Organizing
Adopting a methodical and systematic approach for solving all
aspects of a problem; giving specific attention to detail;
generating and evaluating alternative solutions thoroughly;
anticipating obstacles and developing plans to meet them;
setting appropriate priorities.
Seeks and gathers as much relevant information
7 as possible for addressing all aspects of a
problem or decision by efficiently utilizing all
available resources; effectively structures
HIGH even ambiguous or complex situations;
anticipates obstacles and always develops
flexible plans to accommodate contingencies;
6 takes time to prioritize problems and decisions
appropriately and successfully.
5 Seeks and gathers enough information needed to
address most aspects of a problem or decision by
using most of the available resources;
4 MODERATE approaches most problems or decisions in an
organized fashion; anticipates obstacles and
usually develops plans to address delays and
distractions; generally sets priorities for
3 problem-solving and decision-making.
2 Overlooks key aspects of problems or decisions
and does not use available resources efficiently
for obtaining additional information needed;
LOW takes haphazard approach to problem-solving and
decision-making; fails to anticipate obstacles
or develop plans to handle contingencies;
1 fails to prioritize problems or decisions
appropriately.
How important is this performance dimension for the job of
the person you are rating? (circle one number below)
0 Not at all important
1 Minor importance
2 Some importance
3 Important
4 Very important
5 Extremely important

163
Overall Job Performance
7
HIGH
6
Performs job well in all or almost all
exceeds standards and expectations for
job performance.
areas;
adequate
5
Performs adequately in important areas of the
4 MODERATE job; meets standards and expectations for
adequate job performance.
3
2
LOW
1
Performs poorly in important areas of the job;
does not meet standards and expectations for
adequate job performance.

APPENDIX C
TRAITS ASSOCIATED WITH BEHAVIORAL DIMENSIONS
RATERS INSTRUCTIONS:
Please read each definition of the behavioral dimensions.
These definitions represent the high end of the scale. In
other words, a person rated high on that dimension would be
described in these terms.
Please circle the number (1 to 5) corresponding to whether or
not you think a person described similarly on that dimension
would also be described as possessing each of the traits
listed. The scale corresponds with the degree of the
relationship you think exists between the dimension and each
trait, NOT how high you think the trait would be if the
individual is rated high on that dimension.
For example, on the dimension of leadership and the trait of
neurotic:
5= Yes, I definitely think someone rated high on leadership
would also be neurotic.
3= I think that someone rated high on leadership could
possibly be neurotic.
1= No, I do not think someone rated high on leadership
could be neurotic at all.
Thank you for your help.
164

165
Someone who is rated high on Leadership exhibits behaviors
such as: seeking and volunteering for leadership roles in
groups; providing accurate and constructive feedback to
others resulting in improved performance; consistently
accomplishing goals through others; tactfully persuading
others to accept own views and ideas; showing initiative;
and taking charge.
Someone rated high on Leadership would also be considered:
Definitely
Adaptive 5
Adventurous 5
Agreeable 5
Artistically sensitive 5
Assertive 5
Attentive to people 5
Calm 5
Cheerful 5
Composed 5
Conscientious 5
Conventional 5
Cooperative 5
Cultured 5
Emotionally stable 5
Emotionally mature 5
Energetic 5
Extroverted 5
Frank 5
Good-natured 5
Intellectual 5
Jealous 5
Kind 5
Mild 5
Neurotic 5
Open 5
Orderly 5
Perseverant 5
Placid 5
Poised 5
Responsible 5
Self-sufficient 5
Sociable 5
Talkative 5
Trustful 5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Not at all
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

166
Someone who is rated high on Teamwork exhibits behaviors such
as: cooperating enthusiastically with others to accomplish
group objectives; taking full advantage of useful direction
and leadership from others; putting group interests first;
sacrificing personal convenience to assist others when
appropriate; and soliciting suggestions from others and
integrating them into effective compromise solutions.
Someone rated high on Teamwork would also be considered:
Definitely
Adaptive 5
Adventurous 5
Agreeable 5
Artistically sensitive 5
Assertive 5
Attentive to people 5
Calm 5
Cheerful 5
Composed 5
Conscientious 5
Conventional 5
Cooperative 5
Cultured 5
Emotionally stable 5
Emotionally mature 5
Energetic 5
Extroverted 5
Frank 5
Good-natured 5
Intellectual 5
Jealous 5
Kind 5
Mild 5
Neurotic 5
Open 5
Orderly 5
Perseverant 5
Placid 5
Poised 5
Responsible 5
Self-sufficient 5
Sociable 5
Talkative 5
Trustful 5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Not at all
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

167
Someone rated high on Drive exhibits behaviors such as:
actively seeking and volunteering for challenging
assignments; putting in time and effort above and beyond the
call of duty; always focusing attention on business at hand;
working hard even when faced with difficult or demanding
tasks; and volunteering for tasks even when not strictly in
own area of responsibility.
Someone rated high on Drive would also be considered:
Definitely
Adaptive 5
Adventurous 5
Agreeable 5
Artistically sensitive 5
Assertive 5
Attentive to people 5
Calm 5
Cheerful 5
Composed 5
Conscientious 5
Conventional 5
Cooperative 5
Cultured 5
Emotionally stable 5
Emotionally mature 5
Energetic 5
Extroverted 5
Frank 5
Good-natured 5
Intellectual 5
Jealous 5
Kind 5
Mild 5
Neurotic 5
Open 5
Orderly 5
Perseverant 5
Placid 5
Poised 5
Responsible 5
Self-sufficient 5
Sociable 5
Talkative 5
Trustful 5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Not at all
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

168
Someone rated high on Planning and Organizing exhibits
behaviors such as: seeking and gathering as much relevant
information as possible by efficiently utilizing all
available resources; effectively structuring even ambiguous
or complex situations and problems; anticipating obstacles
and always developing flexible plans to accommodate
contingencies; taking time to prioritize problems
appropriately and successfully.
Someone rated high on Planning and Organizing would also be
considered:
Definitely
Adaptive
5
4
3
Adventurous
5
4
3
Agreeable
5
4
3
Artistically sensitive
5
4
3
Assertive
5
4
3
Attentive to people
5
4
3
Calm
5
4
3
Cheerful
5
4
3
Composed
5
4
3
Conscientious
5
4
3
Conventional
5
4
3
Cooperative
5
4
3
Cultured
5
4
3
Emotionally stable
5
4
3
Emotionally mature
5
4
3
Energetic
5
4
3
Extroverted
5
4
3
Frank
5
4
3
Good-natured
5
4
3
Intellectual
5
4
3
Jealous
5
4
3
Kind
5
4
3
Mild
5
4
3
Neurotic
5
4
3
Open
5
4
3
Orderly
5
4
3
Perseverant
5
4
3
Placid
5
4
3
Poised
5
4
3
Responsible
5
4
3
Self-sufficient
5
4
3
Sociable
5
4
3
Talkative
5
4
3
Trustful
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Not at all
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

APPENDIX D
NONVERBAL CUE RATINGS
Ratings of Dynamic Cues
Instructions:
Thank you for participating in this research project.
For the rating session, you will be scoring the duration and
frequency of the occurrences of 5 nonverbal behaviors for 20
interviewees who participated in a mock job interview. The
cues you will be rating include: gaze, smiling, hand
movements, body lean, and parallel body orientation.
In this training session we will define each nonverbal cue,
discuss how it should be measured, and then watch three
examples of each cue on videotape. You will also have the
opportunity to become familiar and practice with the device
you will use to make your ratings.
The training session should take approximately 30 minutes.
169

170
Gaze
Operational Definition
A gaze occurs when the interviewee looks in the direction of
the interviewer's face or head.
Keys to Rating
a) By looking at the white part of the interviewee's eyes
it is easier to distinguish movement, and, therefore,
when they are gazing.
b) The interviewee's eyes do not have to be fixed to be
considered gazing. In other words, a quick look at the
interviewer, more like a "glance", should be counted as
"gaze".
Examples on Videotape
Notes
Smiling
Operational Definition
A smile occurs when the corner of the lips are curled upward.
Keys to Ratina
a) The teeth may or may not be showing during a smile.
b) The interviewee can talk and maintain a smile at the
same time.
Examples on Videotape
Notes

171
Hand Movements
Operational Definition
A hand movement occurs when the interviewee moves one or both
hands, which includes the part of the body from the wrist to
the fingertips.
Kevs to Rating
a) Score one movement of the hand(s) as long as the hand
is in motion. When the interviewee's hands stop
moving (e.g.. rest on table or in lap) this signals the
end of the hand movement.
b) If you can not see the hands (e.g.. if they are on
their lap, under the table), even though it appears as
though they are moving their hands, you should not rate
it.
Examples on Videotape
Notes
Rack/Side Lean
Operational Definition
A back or side lean occurs when the interviewee's body is
tilted in a backward or sideways direction.
Keys to Rating
a) Focus on the interviewee's torso, not their arms.
Noting the angle of their shoulder plane is helpful.
b) If the interviewee's body is at any angle-backward or
sideways - it is a body lean.
Examples on Videotape
Notes

172
Parallel Body Orientation
Operational Definition
When the interviewee's body is oriented toward the
interviewer then they are in a parallel position.
Keys to Rating
a) If the interviewee's shoulders are at an angle to the
camera then their position is considered parallel to
the interviewer.
b) If the interviewee's shoulders are square to the camera
they are at an angle, not parallel, to the interviewer.
Example.2. Qn yid£Qt.apg.
Notes

173
Interview #
Gaze
Gaze occurs when the interviewee looks in the direction of
the interviewer's face/head.
Segment one
Seconds spent gazing
Frequency
(# switches: gaze at interviewer / look away)
Segment two
Seconds spent gazing
Frequency
(# switches: gaze at interviewer / look away)
Segment three
Seconds spent gazing
Frequency
(# switches: gaze at interviewer / look away)

174
Interview#
Smi1 ing
Smiling occurs when the corner of the lips are curled upward.
Segment one
Seconds spent smiling
Frequency
(# switches: smiling / not smiling)
Segment two
Seconds spent smiling
Frequency
(# switches: smiling / not smiling)
Segment three
Seconds spent smiling
Frequency
(# switches: smiling / not smiling)

175
Interview #
Hand Movements.
A hand movement occurs when the interviewee moves one or both
hands, which includes the part of the body from the wrist to
the fingertips.
Segment one
Seconds spent moving hands
Frequency
(# switches: moving hands / not moving hands)
Segment two
Seconds spent moving hands
Frequency
(# switches: moving hands / not moving hands)
Segment three
Seconds spent moving hands
Frequency
(# switches: moving hands / not moving hands)

176
Interview #
Back/Side Lean
A back or side lean occurs when the interviewee's body is
tilted in a backward or sideways direction.
Segment one
Seconds leaning
Frequency
(# switches: from upright to leaning position)
Segment two
Seconds leaning
Frequency
(# switches: from upright to leaning position)
Segment three
Seconds leaning
Frequency
(# switches: from upright to leaning position)

177
Interview #
Parallel Body Orientation
When the interviewee's body is oriented toward the
interviewer then they are in a parallel position.
Segment one
Seconds spent parallel
Frequency
(# switches: from parallel position to other position)
Segment two
Seconds spent parallel
Frequency
(# switches: from parallel position to other position)
Segment three
Seconds spent parallel
Frequency
(# switches: from parallel position to other position)

178
Ratings of Physical and Vocal Attractiveness and Dress
Instructions:
In this study you will be asked to make ratings of physical
attractiveness, vocal attractiveness, and type of dress of 60
interviewees who participated in a mock job interview.
You will first rate interviewee's physical attractiveness.
You will view a brief segment of each interview. These
segments were chosen for the neutrality of the facial
expression and posture of the interviewee. You will view
each interviewee for 15 seconds, and then have 15 seconds to
make your rating. Total time will be approximately 30
minutes.
Next, you will rate interviewee's vocal attractiveness. You
will listen to a neutral portion of the interview session
that was not part of the interviewees' responses to "actual"
interview questions. As part of the "actual" interview, each
interviewee was asked 8 interview questions. Four of these
questions were past-oriented and required interviewees to
tell the interviewer about a specific experience they had in
the past. The other four questions were future-oriented, in
which the interviewer set-up a hypothetical situation and the
interviewee responded as to what they would do if in that
situation.
At the end of the interview the interviewee was asked follow¬
up questions. One of these questions was:
"As you know I [the interviewer] asked you two types of
questions, the past-oriented and the hypothetical ones. Which
type do you think a job applicant would prefer? Which type do
you think is more relevant for the job (i.e. from company's
perspective)?"
The interviewees' response to this follow-up question is not
important. You should only attend to the way in which they
speak, not the content of their answer. You will hear 15
seconds of the interviewees' response, and then you will have
15 seconds to make your rating. Therefore, this part of the
session should take about 30 minutes.
Finally, you will record the interviewees' type of dress.
You will once again see brief segments of the interviews.
This section should last approximately 30 minutes.
The interview numbers on your rating sheets represent the
order in which you will see or hear the interviewees, rather
than any type of identification. The order is mixed for each
part so the first interviewee you see is not the first
interviewee you will listen to.

179
Physical Attractiveness Ratings
Judge #
Physical Attractiveness
After seeing a still picture of the job applicant, please
make your ratings on this sheet for physical attractiveness
by circling the corresponding number.
Physical attractiveness: the degree of appeal of the
interviewee's physical appearance:
Very
Unattractive
Interview# 1 2
Very
Attractive
3 4 5
1.
2.
3.
4 .
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14 .
15.
16.
17.

180
Physical attractiveness: the degree of appeal of the
interviewee's physical appearance:
Very
Unattractive
Interview# 123
Very
Attractive
4 5
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
40.

181
Physical attractiveness: the degree of appeal of the
interviewee's physical appearance:
Very
Unattractive
Interview# 123
Very
Attractive
4 5
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54 .
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
60.

182
Vocal Attractiveness Ratinas
Judge #
Vocal Attractiveness
After listening to the interview tape for each applicant,
please make your rating on this sheet for vocal
attractiveness by circling the corresponding number.
Vocal attractiveness: the degree of appeal of the
interviewee's voice:
Very Very
Unattractive Attractive
Interview# 1234 5
17.

183
Vocal Attractiveness: the degree of appeal of the
interviewee's voice:
Very Very
Unattractive Attractive
Interview# 12345
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24 .
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
40.

184
Vor.al Attractiveness: the degree of appeal of the
interviewee's voice:
Very Very.
Unattractive Attractive
Interview# 12345
41.
42.
43.
44 .
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54 .
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
60.

185
Dress Ratings
Judge #
Interview #
Dress
After seeing a still picture of the job applicant, please
make your ratings on this sheet by circling the corresponding
number.
Dress: categorized according to type and color:
Males: Type of Clothing
0 = other / casual shirt
1 = no jacket / dress shirt
2 = blazer or suit coat
0 = no tie
1 = tie
Dominant Color
1 = white or light (pastel)
2 = medium darkness (blues, khaki, light gray)
3 = dark (dark gray, navy, black)
Females: Type of Clothing
0 = other / casual shirt
1 = no jacket / dress or blouse
2 = blazer or suit coat
0 = no accessories
1 = one or more accessories
(earrings, necklace, scarf, pin)
Dominant -Color
1 = white or light (pastel)
2 = medium darkness (blues, khaki, light gray)
3 = dark (dark gray, navy, black)

REFERENCES
Albright, L., Kenny, D.A. and Malloy, T.A. (1988). Consensus
in personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 55, 387-395.
Amabile, T.M. and Rabat, L.G. (1982). When self-descriptions
contradict behavior: Actions do speak louder than words.
Social Cognition, 1*. 311-335.
Ambady, N. and Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute:
Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of
nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, M, 431-441.
Anderson, C.W. (1960). The relation between speaking times
and decision in the employment interview. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 29, 480-482.
Anderson, N. and Shackleton, V. (1990). Decision making in
the graduate selection interview: A field study.
Journal of Occupational Psychology. 63,. 63-76.
Argyle, M. (1988). Bodily Communication. 2nd Edition, London:
Methuen and Co.
Argyle, M., Slater, V., Nicolson, H., Williams, M. and
Burgess, P. (1970). The communication of inferior and
superior attitudes by verbal and nonverbal signals.
British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2,
222-231.
Arvey, R.D. and Campion, J.E. (1982). The employment
interview: A summary and review of recent research.
Personnel Psychology. 23, 281-322.
Austin, J.T. and Villanova, P. (1992). The criterion problem:
1917-1992, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 836-874.
Bernstein, V., Hakel, M.D. and Harlan, A. (1975). The college
student as interviewer: A threat to generalizability?,
Journal of Applied Psychology, £ü, 266-268.
Borkenau, P. (1992). Implicit personality theory and the
five-factor model. Journal of Personality. 23, 295-301.
186

187
Borkenau, P. and Liebler, A. (1992). Trait inferences:
Sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 62 , 645-657.
Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the Representative Design
of Psychological Experiments. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Bull, P. (1987). Posture and Gesture. Oxford: Pergamon.
Burgoon, J.K. and Baesler, E.J. (1991). Choosing between
micro and macro nonverbal measurement: Application to
selected vocalic and kinesic indices. Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior. 1£, 57-79.
Campion, M.A., Pursell, E.D. and Brown, B.K. (1988).
Structured interviewing: Raising the psychometric
properties of the employment interview. Personnel
Psychology, 41, 25-42.
Cann, A., Siegfried, W.D. and Pearce, L. (1981). Forced
attention to specific applicant qualifications: Impact
on physical attractiveness and sex of applicant biases.
Personnel Psychology. H*. 65-75.
Cash, T.F. and Killcullen, R.N. (1985). The aye of the
beholder: Susceptibility to sexism and beautyism in the
evaluation of managerial applicants. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology. 15, 591-605.
Cash, T.F., Gillen, B., and Burns, D.S. (1977). Sexism and
"beautyism" in personnel consultant decision making.
Journal of Applied Psychology, £2, 301-310.
Cleeton, G.U. and Knight, F.B. (1924). Validity of character
judgments based on external criteria. Journal of Applied
Psychology, £, 215-231.
Cronshaw, S.F. and Wiesner, W.H. (1989). The validity of
the employment interview: Models for research and
practice. In R.W. Eder and G.R. Ferris (Eds.), The
Employment Interview: Theory. Research and Practice (pp.
269-281). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E. and Walster, E. (1972) What is
beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 24, 285-290.
Dipboye, R.L. (1992) . Selection Interviews: Process
Perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.

188
Dipboye, R.L., Arvey, R.D., and Terpstra, D.E. (1977). Sex
and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as
determinants of resume evaluations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 62, 288-294.
Dipboye, R.L., Fromkin, K. L., and Wiback, K. (1975).
Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and
scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant
resumes. Journal of Applied Psychology. M, 39-43.
Eagly, A.H., Makhijani, M.G., and Klonsky, B.G. (1992).
Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22.
Eder, R.W., Kacmar, K.M. and Ferris, G.R. (1989). Employment
interview research: History and synthesis. In R.W. Eder
and G.R. Ferris (Eds.), The Employment Interview;
Theoryf Research and Practice (pp. 17-31). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Edinger, J.A. and Patterson, M.L. (1983). Nonverbal
involvement and social control. Psychological Bulletin,
52, 30-56.
Feldman, J.M. (1981). Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive
processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied
Psychology, M, 127-148.
Forbes, R.J. and Jackson, P.R. (1980). Nonverbal behavior
and the outcome of selection interviews. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 53 f 65-72.
Funder D.C. (1983). The "consistency" controversy and the
accuracy of personality judgments. Journal of
Personality. 51, 346-359.
Funder, D.C. and Colvin, C.R. (1988). Friends and strangers:
acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of
personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 55. 149-158.
Funder, D.C. and Dobroth, K.M. (1987). Differences between
traits: Properties associated with interjudge agreement,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. ¿2, 409-
418.
Funder, D.C. and Sneed, C.D. (1993). Behavioral
manifestations of personality: An ecological approach to
judgmental accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 479-490.

189
Gangestad, S.W., Simpson, J.A., DiGeronimo, K. and Biek, M.
(1992). Differential accuracy in person perception
across traits: Examination of a functional hypothesis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. £2., 688-
698.
Gifford, R. Ng, C.F. and Wilkinson, M. (1985). Nonverbal
cues in the employment interview: Links between
applicant qualities and interviewer judgments. Journal of
Applied Psychology. IQ, 729-736.
Hakel, M.D. (1989). The state of employment interview theory
and research. In R.W. Eder and G.R. Ferris (Eds.), The
Employment Interview: Theory. Research and Practice (pp.
285-293). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hall, J.A. (1984) . Nonverbal Sex Differences: Communication
Accuracy and Expressive Style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Harris, M.M. (1989). Reconsidering the employment interview:
A review of recent literature and suggestions for future
research. Personnel Psychology, A2, 691-726.
Heilman, M.E. and Saruwatari, L.R. (1979). When beauty is
beastly: The effects of appearance and sex on
evaluations of job applicants for managerial and
nonmanagerial jobs. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance. 23., 360-372.
Henley, N.M. (1977) . Body Politics: Power. Sex, and
Nonverbal Communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Hollandsworth, Jr., J.G., Kazelskis, R., Stevens, J. and
Dressel, M.E. (1979). Relative contributions of verbal,
articulative, and nonverbal communication to employment
decisions in the job interview setting. Personnel
Psychology, 32, 359-367.
Hunt, R.G. and Lin, T.K. (1967). Accuracy of judgments of
personal attributes from speech. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. £, 450-453.
Ilgen, D.R. and Feldman, J.M. (1983). Performance
appraisal: A process focus. In L.L. Cummings and B.M.
Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 5,
pp. 141-197). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Imada, A.S. and Hakel, M.D. (1977). Influence of nonverbal
communication and rater proximity on impression and

190
decisions in simulated employment interviews. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 62. 295-300.
Jackson, L.A. (1983). The influence of sex, physical
attractiveness, sex role, and occupation sex-linkage on
perceptions of occupational suitability. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology. 12, 31-44.
Janz, J.T. (1982). Initial comparisons of patterned behavior
description interviews versus unstructured interviews.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 12, 577-580.
Janz, J.T. (1989). The patterned behavior description
interview: The best prophet of the future is the past.
In R.W. Eder and G.R. Ferris (Eds.), The Employment
Interview: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 158-168).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Janz, J.T., Hellervik, L. and Gilmore, D.C. (1986). Behavior
Description Interviewing: New, Accurate. Cost Effective.
Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kenny, D.A., Horner, C., Kashy, D.A. and Chu, L. (1992).
Consensus at zero acquaintance: Replication, behavioral
cues, and stability. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 62. 88-97.
Kinicki, A.J. and Lockwood, C.A. (1985). The interview
process: An examination of factors recruiters use in
evaluating job applicants. Journal of Vocational
Behavior. 21, 117-125.
Kinicki, A.J., Lockwood, C.A., Horn, P.W., and Griffeth, R.W.
(1990). Interviewer predictions of applicant
qualifications and interviewer validity: Aggregate and
individual analyses, Journal of Applied Psychology. 21,
477-486.
Kleinke, C.L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact: A research
review. Psychological Bulletin. 100, 78-100.
Knapp, M.L. and Hall, J.A. (1992). Nonverbal Communication in
Human Interaction, 3rd Edition, Fort Worth: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Latham, G.P. (1989). The reliability, validity, and
practicality of the situational interview. In R.W. Eder
and G.R. Ferris (Eds.), The Employment Interview:
Theory. Research and Practice (pp. 169-182). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

191
Latham, G.P. and Finnegan, B.J. (1987). The practicality of
the situational interview. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans.
Latham, G.P., Saari, L.M., Pursell, E.D., and Campion, M.A.
(1980). The situational interview. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 65 f 422-427
Lord, R.G. (1985). An information processing approach to
social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement
in organizations. In K.M. Rowland and G.R. Ferris
(Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 7, pp.
87-128), Greenwich, CT:JAI.
Mehrabian, A. (1969). Significance of posture and position in
the communication of attitude and status relationships,
Psychological Bulletin, 71, 359-372.
Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal Communication. Chicago:
Aldine-Atherton.
Mayfield, E.C. (1964). The selection interview: A re-
evaluation of published research. Personnel Psychology,
12, 239-260.
McGovern, T.V. (1976). The making of a job interviewee:
The effect of nonverbal behavior on an interviewer's
evaluations during a selection interview (Doctoral
dissertation, Southern Illinois University).
Dissertation Abstract International. 1977, 22, 4740B-
474 IB.
McGovern, T.V. and Tinsley, H.E.A. (1978). Interviewer
evaluations of interviewee nonverbal behavior. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 12, 163-171.
McGovern, T.V., Jones, B.W. and Morris, S.E. (1979).
Comparison of professional versus student ratings of job
interviewee behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology.
21, 176-179.
McMurray, R.N. (1947). Validating the patterned interview.
Personnel/ 22, 263-272.
Motowidlo, S.J. (1986). Information processing in personnel
decisions. In K.M. Rowland and G.R. Ferris (Eds.),
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management
(Vol. 4, pp. 1-44), Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Motowidlo, S.J. and Burnett, J.R. (1992). Aural and visual
sources of validity. Under review.

192
Motowidlo, S.J., Carter, G.W., Dunnette, M.D., Tippins, N.,
Werner, S., Burnett, J.R. , and Vaughan, M.J. (1992).
Studies of the structured behavioral interview. Journal
of Applied Psychology. 12, 571-587.
Nevill, D. (1974). Experimental manipulation of dependency
motivation and its effects on eye contact and measures of
field dependency. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 21, 72-79.
Norman, W.T. and Goldberg, L.R. (1966). Raters, ratees, and
randomness in personality structure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 681-691.
Orpen, C. (1985). Patterned behavior description interview
versus unstructured interviews: A comparative validity
study. Journal of Applied Psychology. IQ., 774-776.
Parsons, C.K. and Liden, R.C. (1984). Interviewer
perceptions of applicant qualifications: A multivariate
field study of demographic characteristics and nonverbal
cues. Journal of Applied Psychology. 01(4), 557-568.
Passini, F.T. and Norman, W.T. (1966). A universal
conception of personality structure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, A, 44-49.
Paunonen, S.V. (1989). Consensus in personality judgments:
Moderating effects of target-rater acquaintanceship and
behavior observability. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 56, 823-833.
Rasmussen, K.G. (1984). Nonverbal behavior, verbal behavior,
resume credentials, and selection interview outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 01, 551-556.
Raza, S.M. and Carpenter, B.N. (1987). A model of living
decisions in real employment interviews. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 72, 596-603
Scherer, K.R. (1982). Methods of research on vocal
communication: Paradigms and parameters. In K.R. Sherer
and P. Ekman (Eds.), Handbook of Methods in Nonverbal
Behavior Research (pp.136-198), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Schlenker, B.R. (1980). Impression Management. Monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schmitt, N. (1976). Social and situational determinants of
interview decisions: Implications for the employment
interview. Personnel Psychology, 29, 79-101.

193
Schneider, W. and Shiffrin, R.M. (1977). Controlled and
automatic human information processing: I. Detection,
search, and attention. Psychological Review, &1, 1-66.
Schuh, A.J. (1980). Verbal listening skill in the interview
and personal characteristics of the listeners. Bulletin
of the Psychonomic Society, 15., 125-127.
Schwab, D.P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational
behavior. In B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3-43).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Shiffrin, R.M. and Schneider, W. (1977) . controlled and
automatic human information processing:II. Perceptual
learning, automatic attending and a general theory.
Psychological Review, M, 127-190.
Shrout, P.E. and Fleiss, J.L. (1979). Intraclass
correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Psychological Bulletin. M, 420-428.
Sigelman, C.K. and Davis, P.J. (1978). Making good
impressions in job interviews: Verbal and nonverbal
predictors. Education and Training of the Mentally
Retarded, 13. 71-76.
Sterrett, J.H. (1978). The job interview: Body language and
perceptions of potential effectiveness. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 63. 388-390.
Sulsky, L.M. and Balzer, W.K. (1988). Meaning and
measurement of performance rating accuracy: Some
methodological and theoretical concerns. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73, 497-506.
Thayer, S. (1969). The effect of interpersonal looking
duration on dominance judgments. Journal of Social
Psychology, 7 9, 285-286.
Tupes, E.C. and Christal, R.E. (1992). Recurrent personality
factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality,
60. 225-251 (Reprinted from USAF ASD Technical Report,
1961, No. 61-67].
Ulrich, L. and Trumbo, D. (1965). The selection interview
since 1949. Psychological Bulletin. 63. 100-116.
Van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M. (1982). Categories and sequences of
behavior: Methods of description and analysis. In K.R.
Scherer and P. Ekman (Eds.) Handbook of Methods in

194
Nonverbal Behavior Research (pp.362-439) Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wagner, R. (1949). The employment interview: A critical
review. Personnel Psychology. 2, 17-46.
Walker, M.B. (1977) . The relative importance of verbal and
nonverbal cues in the expression of confidence.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 21, 45-57.
Weekley, J.A. and Gier, J.A. (1987). Reliability and
validity of the situational interview for a sales
position. Journal of Applied Psychology. 72, 484-487.
Wiesner, W.H. and Cronshaw, S.F. (1988). A meta-analytic
investigation of the impact of interview format and
degree of structure on the validity of the employment
interview. Journal of Occupational Psychology, ¿1, 275-
290.
Wernimont, P.F. and Campbell, J.P. (1968). Signs, samples,
and criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology. ¿2, 372-376.
Wexley, K.N., Fugita, S.S. and Malone, M.P. (1975). An
applicant's nonverbal behavior and student-evaluators'
judgments in a structured interview setting.
Psychological Reports, 1£, 391-394.
Wright, O.R. (1969). Summary of research on the selection
interview since 1964. Personnel Psychology, 22, 391-413.
Wyer, R.S. and Srull, T.K. (1980). The processing of social
stimulus information. A conceptual integration. In R.
Hastie, T.M. Ostrom, E.B. Ebbesen, R.S. Wyer, D. L.
Hamilton, and D.E. Carlston (Eds.), Person Memory:
Cognitive Pasis for Social Perception. Hillsdale, nj:
Erlbaum.
Young, D.M. and Beier, E.G. (1977). The role of applicant
nonverbal communication in the employment interview.
Journal Of Employment Counseling, 11, 154-165.
Zuckerman, M., Hodgins, H. and Miyake, K. (1990). The vocal
attractiveness stereotype: Replication and elaboration.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 11, 97-112.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Jennifer R. Burnett was born in Abington, Pennsylvania
and grew up in Jacksonville, Florida. In 1988 she graduated
magna cum laude from Rollins College, Winter Park, Florida,
with a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology. After
completing her doctoral work in the Department of Management,
College of Business Administration, at the University of
Florida she will take a position as Assistant Professor of
Management at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
195

I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree
Management
of D
ilosophy.
Ste£>han/ÍTT Motowidlo, Chair
Associate Professor of
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Docttjr of Philosophy.
vtt
A
/o'*
Henry [y. Tosí
Professor of Management
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Docto?
ísley Hhtchinson
^ssociprce Professor of
Marketing
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Norman Markel
Professor of Communication
Processes and Disorders
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the College of Business Administration and to the Graduate
School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of. Philosophy.
ikrvA?
Dean, Graduate School
August, 1993

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08396 396 6