EXAMINATION OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ONLINE AND FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEWS DURING A RECRUITMENT PROCESS IN TERMS OF CANDIDATES’ SELF-EFFICACY LEVELS

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 2, 57 - 66, 30.11.2018

Zeynep Oktuğ

Öz

In today’s work conditions, time constraints and physical boundaries make it difficult to use face-to-face interviews during the recruitment process. Online interviews give the chance to cope with time and place limitations, but the interaction between the candidate and the interviewer is different than the case of sharing the same place. The aim of this study is to examine the differences between self-efficacy levels of participants, depending on their preferences about the type of recruitment interview. The results of the study showed that the participants preferring an online interview have significantly higher self-efficacy levels than participants preferring a face-to-face interview. In terms of gender, women preferring online interview have higher self-efficacy levels than men with the same preference. They also have higher self-efficacy than women and men preferring face-to-face interview. Findings regarding the differences in preference of the type of recruitment interview are discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çevrimiçi Mülakat, Yüz yüze Mülakat, Öz-Yeterlilik

EXAMINATION OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ONLINE AND FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEWS DURING A RECRUITMENT PROCESS IN TERMS OF CANDIDATES’ SELF-EFFICACY LEVELS

Öz

 In today’s work conditions, time constraints and
physical boundaries make it difficult to use face-to-face interviews during the
recruitment process. Online interviews give the chance to cope with time and
place limitations, but the interaction between the candidate and the
interviewer is different than the case of sharing the same place. The aim of
this study is to examine the differences between self-efficacy levels of
participants, depending on their preferences about the type of recruitment
interview. The results of the study showed that the participants preferring an
online interview have significantly higher self-efficacy levels than
participants preferring a face-to-face interview. In terms of gender, women
preferring online interview have higher self-efficacy levels than men with the
same preference. They also have higher self-efficacy than women and men
preferring face-to-face interview. Findings regarding the differences in preference of
the type of recruitment interview are discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Online Interview, Face-to-face Interview, Self-efficacy

Kaynakça

• AYPAY, A. (2010), “Genel Öz Yeterlik Ölçeği’nin (GÖYÖ) Türkçe’ye Uyarlama Çalışması”, İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 11, Sayı 2; 113-131.
• BANDURA, A. (1994), Self-efficacy, In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81), New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mental health, Academic Press, San Diego.
• BANDURA, A. (1995), Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• BANDURA, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, Freeman and Company, New York.
• CLARKE-STEWART, K. S. (1973), “Interactions Between Mothers And Their Young Children: Characteristics And Consequences”, Monographs of the Society for Research in Chi!d Development, Volume 38, Issue 6; 1-109.
• DELLA VIGNA, S., LIST, J. A., MALMENDIER, U., and RAO, G. (2012), “The Importance of Being Marginal: Gender Differences in Generosity”, American Economic Review, Volume 103, Issue 3; 586–590.
• DIPBOYE, R.L. (1982), “Self-Fulfilling Prophecies in the Selection-Recruitment Interview”, The Academy of Management Review, Volume 7, Issue 4; 579-586.
• EAGLY, A. (2013), Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation, Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ.
• GOHAR, D., LEARY, M. R., and COSTANZO, P. R. (2016), “Self‐Presentational Congruence and Psychosocial Adjustment: A Test of Three Models”, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Volume 35; 589–608.
• GUADAGNO, R. E., and CIALDINI, R. B. (2007), “Persuade Him by Email, But See Her in Person: Online Persuasion Revisited”, Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 23, Issue 2; 999–1015.
• HALL, N. C., GRADT-JACKSON, S. E., GOETZ, T., and MUSU-GILLETTE, L. E. (2011), “Attributional Retraining, Self-Esteem, and The Job Interview: Benefits and Risks For College Student Employment”, Journal of Experimental Education, Volume 79; 318–339.
• HOFSTEDE, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
• HOFSTEDE, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London.
• HUFFCUTT, A. I. (2011), “An Empirical Review of The Employment Interview Construct Literature”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Volume 19; 62–81.
• JANGHORBAN, R., ROUDSARI, R.L. and TAGHIPOUR, A. (2014), “Skype Interviewing: The New Generation of Online Synchronous Interview in Qualitative Research”, International Journal Of Qualitative Studies On Health and Well-Being, Volume 9, Issue 1; 1-3.
• JUDGE, T. A. and BONO, J. E. (2001), “Relationship of Core Self- Evaluation Traits- Self-Esteem, Generalized Self-Efficacy, Locus Of Control, and Emotional Stability To Job Satisfaction And Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 86; 80-92.
• NIEMIVIRTA M. and TAPOLA A. (2007), “Self-Efficacy, Interest, and Task Performance”, Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, Volume 21, Issue 3; 241–250.
• OPDENAKKER, R. J. G. (2006), “Advantages and Disadvantages of Four Interview Techniques in Qualitative Research”, Qualitative Social Research, Volume 7, No 4, art.11. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/175/391, Erişim tarihi: 20.03.2018.
• SANCHEZ-FRANCO, M.J., MARTINEZ-LOPEZ, F.J., and MARTIN- VELICIA, F.A. (2009), “Exploring the Impact of İndividualism and Uncertainty Avoidance in Web-Based Electronic Learning: An Empirical Analysis in European Higher Education”, Computers & Education, Volume 52; 588–598.
• SCHMIDT, A.M. and DESHON, R.P. (2010), “The Moderating Effects of Performance Ambiguity on the Relationship Between Self-Efficacy and Performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 95, Isuue 5; 572–581.
• SCHWARZER, R,. and JERUSALEM. M. (1995), Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale, in J. Weinman, S. Wright, and M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). NFER-NELSON, Windsor England.
• SHERER, M., MADDUX, J. E., MERCANDANTE, B., PRENTICE-DUNN, S., JACOBS, B., and ROGERS, R. W. (1982), “The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and Validation”, Psychological Reports, Volume 51; 663-671.
• STEENKAMP, J. B. E. M., HOFSTEDE, F. T., and WEDEL, M. (1999), “A Cross-National Investigation into the Individual and National Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness”,Journal of Marketing, Volume 63, Issue 2; 55–69.
• STEINMETZ, J., SEZER, O., and SEDIKIDES, C. (2017), Impression Mismanagement: People as Inept Self‐Presenters, Social & Personality Psychology Compass, Volume 11, Issue 6; 1-15.
• SULLIVAN, J. R. (2012), “Skype: An Appropriate Method Of Data Collection For Qualitative İnterviews?”, The Hilltop Review, Volume 6, Issue 1; 53-60.
• TAY, C., ANG, S., and VAN DYNE, L. (2006), “Personality, Biographical Characteristics, and Job Interview Success: A Longitudinal Study of the Mediating Effects of Interviewing Self-Efficacy and The Moderating Effects of Internal Locus Of Causality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 91; 446–454.
• VANCOUVER, J. B., and KENDALL, L. (2006), “When Self-Efficacy Negatively Relates to Motivation and Performance in a Learning Context”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 91; 1146 –1153.
• VANCOUVER, J. B., THOMPSON, C. M., TISCHNER, E. C., and PUTKA, D. J. (2002), “Two Studies Examining the Negative Effect of Self-Efficacy on Performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 87; 506 –516.
• WALTHER, J. B. (1992), “Interpersonal Effects in Computer-mediated Interaction: A Relational Perspective.” Communication Research, Volume 19; 52–90.
• WALTHER, J. B. (1996), “Computer-mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction”, Communication Research, Volume 23; 3–43.