Detalhes bibliográficos
Ano de defesa: |
2014 |
Autor(a) principal: |
Schleich, Aurélie |
Orientador(a): |
Andrade, Eduardo Bittencourt |
Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
Idioma: |
eng |
Instituição de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
Departamento: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
País: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
Link de acesso: |
https://hdl.handle.net/10438/12033
|
Resumo: |
Recruiters make many inferences about applicants' abilities and interpersonal attributes on the basis of applicants' resumes. For example, every once in a while, a good resume leaves a strong positive impression and the recruiter creates a high expectation for the selection interview. What if a disappointing interview follows? Will the great resume help or hurt the candidate? The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of a good resume on the recruiter’s evaluation of a candidate when a non-enthusiastic interview follows as well as the interacting role of gender. The results of two online experiments (n=454) where participants played the role of the recruiter, showed that, on average, a very good resume (vs. no resume) before a non-enthusiastic interview did not affect the recruiter’s evaluation of the candidate. However, when the recruiter’s and the candidate’s gender were taken into consideration, a different picture emerged. While no effect was found for male recruiters, the candidate’s resume had a clear significant impact on female recruiter’s evaluations: when the candidate was also a female, the good resume shown before the non-enthusiastic interview performance tended to help, whereas when the candidate was a male, the good resume had a significant negative effect on female recruiters’ evaluation of the candidate. In sum, in situations where the resume had a strong impact on the recruiter’s evaluation (female recruiters), the direction of the effect was moderated by the candidate’s gender. Gender differences in information processing as well as in-group/out-group biases due to gender matching are used to hypothesize and explain the main findings. |