INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT VOLUME 12 NUMBERS 1/2 MARCH/JUNE 2004

The Importance of Organizational Justice in

Personnel Selection: Defining When Selection
Fairness Really Matters
Donald M. Truxillo* Dirk D. Steiner
Portland State University Laboratoire de Psychologie
Experimentale et Quantitative,
University of Nice Sophia Antipolis

Stephen W. Gilliland
University of Arizona

The purpose of this paper is to examine the usefulness of the organizational justice
approach to applicant reactions. We begin with an overview of the research relating the
fairness of selection procedures (selection fairness) to individual and organizational
outcomes. Next we propose boundary conditions defining when fairness should matter,
the appropriate outcomes to examine in applicant reactions research, and methodological
issues limiting the contribution of much of the current literature. We then consider a range
of questions that remain to be addressed and new issues such as high-tech testing. Finally,
we propose a series of applied questions and recommendations based on both theory and
empirical research.

Introduction Ryan, & Bennett, 1999; Truxillo, Bauer, Campion, &

Paronto, 2002).

W ith the advent of models of applicant reactions

(Arvey & Sackett, 1993; Gilliland, 1993) and the
recognition that test fairness includes reactions to selection
decisions (Schmitt & Gilliland, 1992), interest in appli-
cants perceptions has grown substantially. Gilliland
(1993) presented an organizational justice-based model
of applicant reactions proposing that perceptions of the
fairness of selection procedures would lead to important
organizational and individual outcomes. Subsequently,
research focusing on the fairness of selection procedures
proliferated (e.g., Bauer, Maertz, Dolen, & Campion,
1998; Gilliland, 1994; Steiner & Gilliland, 1996; Ployhart,
*An earlier version of this paper was presented at the second
International Organizational Justice Roundtable in Vancouver, BC,
Canada, September 2001.
Address for correspondence: Donald M. Truxillo, Department of
Psychology, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA. Email:
Truxillod@pdx.edu
Now that a substantial body of research on the perceived
fairness of selection procedures (selection fairness) has
accumulated, the time seems ripe to assess the contribution
of organizational justice theory to applicant reactions. In
this paper, we evaluate research on the relationship
between selection fairness and individual and organiza-
tional outcomes. In examining methodological and theo-
retical issues in this area, we describe crucial questions that
have not been addressed, particularly the boundary
conditions within which selection fairness matters, and
recommend directions for future research. Our review is
organized around four major sections. First, we provide an
overview of the research relating selection fairness to
various types of outcomes. Then, we analyze this literature
in terms of potential boundary conditions defining when
fairness should matter, the appropriate outcomes to
examine in this type of research, and methodological issues
limiting the contribution of current research. The third
section provides a consideration of various questions that

r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 39
40 DONALD M. TRUXILLO, DIRK D. STEINER AND STEPHEN W. GILLILAND
remain to be addressed in this literature and also introduces
high-tech testing as a new area for exploration by selection
fairness researchers. Finally, we propose areas of applica-
tion based on the knowledge acquired to date.
Overview of Selection Fairness Research
Initial research on reactions to selection procedures focused
on specific selection techniques, such as interviewing
(Schmitt & Coyle, 1976), work sample tests (Schmidt,
Greenthal, Hunter, Berner, & Seaton, 1977), and compu-
ter-based screening (Martin & Nagao, 1989). Much of this
work lacked a consistent theoretical framework. In 1993,
Gilliland developed a model of applicant reactions based in
organizational justice theory (e.g., Deutsch, 1975; Le-
venthal, 1980). Gilliland proposed that perceptions of
procedural justice (process fairness) of selection procedures
derive from formal characteristics of the procedures (e.g.,
job-relatedness), explanations for procedures (e.g., timely
feedback), and interpersonal treatment of applicants (e.g.,
two-way communication). Perceptions of distributive
justice (outcome fairness) derive from equity of outcomes,
equality of outcomes, and perceived need for outcomes.
According to the model, these perceptions of process and
outcome fairness in turn affect reactions and behaviors
during and after hiring (e.g., job acceptance, self-efficacy,
litigation).
Since that time, the dominant framework in the
applicant reactions literature has been this selection
fairness approach, focusing on the relationship between
fairness of selection procedures from the applicants
perspective and a range of outcomes. Fairness has typically
been assessed by asking participants to evaluate whether a
technique or selection procedure is fair for hiring appli-
cants. In addition, some studies have assessed fairness
perceptions in terms of aspects of selection procedures,
such as opportunity to perform, job-relatedness, and face
validity (see Gilliland, 1993). Most of the studies we found
in the literature focused on these perceptions of fairness.
However, others include manipulations of process fairness
through test procedures or fairness-based explanations
(e.g., Ployhart & Ryan, 1998), and we note these in our
review.
Due to the accumulation of selection fairness research,
the focal point of our review is the relationship between
selection fairness and individual and organizational out-
comes. Our aim is to determine when selection fairness
seems to matter and to guide future applicant reactions
research using an organizational justice approach. As such,
we do not examine research on test-taking motivation (e.g.,
Arvey, Strickland, Drauden, & Martin, 1990; Sanchez,
Truxillo, & Bauer, 2000) except where motivation is
conceptualized as an outcome of selection fairness, nor do
we discuss other applicant and test-taker research that does
not explicitly examine the relationship between fairness
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
and outcomes (e.g., Chan, Schmitt, Jennings, Clause, &
Delbridge, 1998a; DeShon, Smith, Chan, & Schmitt, 1998;
Horvath & Ryan, 2000).
In addition, we do not examine the effects of outcome
fairness except as it is used as a control variable in analyses
(e.g., outcome favorability) or where it moderates the
effects of process fairness. There are three reasons for this.
First, despite the importance of outcome fairness to
applicant perceptions (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000), and
although outcome fairness may color perceptions of
process fairness through self-serving bias, most applicant
reactions research has focused on process rather than
outcome fairness, using the latter as a control or moderator
variable. Second, because in most selection situations
applicants are exposed to procedures first and outcomes
later (i.e., they receive feedback relatively late in the
selection process), procedural justice elements have im-
portant early influence on reactions in the selection process
due to primacy (Lind, 2001; see discussion below). Finally,
and most importantly, organizations have greater control
over the selection process than the outcomes applicants
receive. Therefore, the main effects of outcome fairness are
a separate issue beyond the primary focus of our review.
Selection Fairness: Effects on Hard and
Soft Outcomes
Recent reviews (e.g., Anderson, Born, & Cunningham-
Snell, 2001; Steiner & Gilliland, 2001) showed great
variability in the perceived fairness of different selection
techniques. Generally, interviews, resumes, and work
samples were positively evaluated, and handwriting
analysis and personal contacts were negatively evaluated;
personality and ability tests received intermediate evalua-
tions. Practices are viewed as fair when they are perceived
as relevant to the job and when applicants feel that they can
demonstrate their abilities.
Similarly, Ryan and Ployharts (2000) review examined
the determinants and consequences of applicant percep-
tions. They highlighted the consistent result that whether
an applicant is accepted or rejected influences perceptions
of the selection process and that not all selection
procedures within the same broad category (e.g., cognitive
ability tests) lead to the same applicant reactions. They also
underscored the importance of the context (e.g., type of
job, information provided) in shaping applicants reac-
tions. Ryan and Ployhart also challenged the value of this
line of research: few studies assessed the actual behavior of
applicants, and when they did, the impact of selection
fairness on important outcomes was limited.
Our goal is to explore some possible reasons for these
discouraging results and to recommend areas for research.
We provide an overview of research on the relationship
between selection fairness and a range of important
outcomes in Table 1. Particularly notable from this table
is that most studies have focused on soft outcomes, such
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
SELECTION FAIRNESS AND OUTCOMES
as perceptual variables (e.g., organizational attractiveness)
and behavioral intentions (e.g., job acceptance intentions).
Relatively few studies have examined hard outcomes,
those that concern tangible actions and behaviors (e.g.,
applicant withdrawal) and perceptual outcomes that occur
after applicants are hired and have direct consequences for
the organization (e.g., organizational commitment).
Effects on Soft Outcomes. The research conducted
to date demonstrates that selection fairness relates to the
soft outcomes of satisfaction with the selection process
(e.g., Macan, Avedon, Paese, & Smith, 1994), self-efficacy
(e.g., Bauer et al., 1998), legal intentions (e.g., Bauer et al.,
2001), and test-taking motivation (Chan, Schmitt, DeShon,
Clause, & Delbridge, 1997). Although common method
variance (i.e., the use of self-report questionnaires for both
fairness perceptions and outcomes) may be an issue in
interpreting the true magnitude of some of these effects
(Macan et al., 1994), some of these relationships have been
found longitudinally (e.g., Bauer et al., 1998; Truxillo
et al., 2001). Some support has also been found for effects
on organizational attractiveness (e.g., Ployhart, Ryan, &
Bennett, 1999), but these effects may decrease over time
(Cunningham-Snell et al., 1999) and may be affected by
characteristics of the applicant pool (Truxillo et al., 2002).
On the other hand, relationships between selection fairness
and job acceptance intentions (Macan et al., 1994; Truxillo
et al., 2002) and intentions to recommend the hiring
organization (Bauer et al., 1998; Bauer et al., 2001) remain
equivocal, and the relationship with customer purchase
intentions has not been supported (Macan et al., 1994).
Moreover, it is unclear to what extent effects on intentions
actually translate into effects on behavior.
Effects on Hard Outcomes. Gilliland (1993) suggested
that fairness perceptions can affect such outcomes as job
acceptance decisions, legal challenges, and later job
performance and job satisfaction. Table 1 illustrates that
empirical evidence for effects on hard outcomes are
equivocal. Gilliland et al. (2001) found that selection
fairness related to later reapplication among rejected
applicants. Thorsteinson and Ryan (1997) found that
selection fairness related to the validity of a cognitive
ability test but not of a personality test; similarly, other
research (Chan, 1997; Chan, Schmitt, Sacco, & DeShon,
1998b) found that fairness was related to cognitive ability
test performance but not to personality test performance.
However, consistent relationships have not been found
between selection fairness and applicant withdrawal (e.g.,
Schmit & Ryan, 1997; Truxillo et al., 2002) and later
commitment and/or satisfaction (e.g., Ambrose & Cro-
panzano, 2003; Cunningham-Snell et al., 1999), and no
relationship has been found with job performance (Gilli-
land, 1994) or later turnover among those hired (Truxillo et
al., 2002). More importantly, it is clear from Table 1 that
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
41
the relationship between selection fairness and hard out-
comes has been examined in only a handful of studies, such
that one cannot draw definite conclusions regarding the
relationship between selection fairness and hard outcomes.
Moreover, whereas a few hard outcomes have been studied,
other important outcomes (e.g., legal action) remain
unexplored. Although this may be due largely to the
difficulty of exploring these issues in organizational
settings, this dearth of research on hard outcomes hinders
understanding of the importance of selection fairness.
Summary
This review suggests that selection fairness has consistent
effects on some soft outcomes, and that these effects may
last over time. On the other hand, effects on hard outcomes
have received scant research, and that research has
produced equivocal results. Nevertheless, recent reviews
have shown that fairness really does matter in many non-
selection organizational contexts (e.g., performance ap-
praisals), affecting a range of important outcomes (e.g.,
Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Simons &
Roberson, in press). Thus, because fairness in general
affects numerous organizational behaviors and attitudes,
selection fairness should also affect similar behaviors and
attitudes. So why the equivocal findings?
One reason for these findings may be that researchers
may have been asking the wrong questions regarding the
effects of selection fairness. Specifically, researchers have
not identified boundary conditions within which selection
fairness should matter, nor have they studied those
outcomes most likely to relate to selection fairness. Further,
an in-depth analysis of which outcomes should be relevant
to selection fairness has not been conducted. Finally, some
methodological issues limit past research. We treat each of
these issues in turn.
A Critical Review
When Will Selection Fairness Matter?
Potential Boundary Conditions
One key question is under what conditions selection
fairness could be expected to affect applicant reactions.
In this section, we review the conditions under which
selection fairness is most likely to matter.
When Treatment Is Unfair, Not Just Less Fair. In most
studies, participants are asked to rate their perceptions of a
selection procedure or situation on a Likert scale. Mean
ratings on these scales tend to be on the positive side the
most negative ratings recorded are actually towards the
middle of the rating scale (3 on a 5-point scale); that is, few
applicants indicate that they have been unfairly treated.
Thus, clear behavioral consequences may not have been
Volume 12 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2004
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Table 1. Summary of Research Relating Selection Fairness to Soft and Hard Outcomes
Soft Outcomes
 Satisfaction with
selection process
 Organizational attractiveness
 Customer purchase intentions
 Job acceptance intentions
 Intentions to recommend
the hiring organization to others Baker, Dew, Polly, & Langdon (2001);
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
 Self-efficacy
Relevant Research
Macan, Avedon, Paese, & Smith (1994);
Truxillo, Bauer, & Sanchez (2001)
Bauer, Maertz, Dolen, & Campion (1998);
Bauer, Truxillo, Sanchez, Craig, Ferrara, &
Campion (2001); Cunningham-Snell,
Anderson, & Fletcher (1999);
Macan et al. (1994); Ployhart,
Ryan, & Bennett (1999)
Cunningham-Snell et al. (1999); Truxillo,
Bauer, Campion, & Paronto (2002)
Macan et al. (1994)
Cunningham-Snell et al. (1999);
Macan et al. (1994)
Ployhart & Ryan (1997);
Truxillo et al. (2002)
Bauer et al. (2001); Gilliland, Groth,
Ployhart & Ryan (1997); Smither,
Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, & Stoffey (1993)
Bauer et al. (1998); Gilliland (1994);
Ployart & Ryan (1997);
Truxillo et al. (2002)
Main Effects: Bauer et al. (1998);
Cunningham-Snell et al. (1999)
Fairness X Outcome Interaction:
(Bauer et al. (1998); Ployhart &
Ryan (1997); Truxillo et al. (2001)
42
Support for Relationship? Comments and Interpretation
Yes Fairness perceptions are related to perceptions
of the selection process, and this lasts over time.
Yes Relationship between fairness and organizational
attractiveness, but effects may not last over time
(Cunningham-Snell, 1999). Effects may be
moderated by characteristics of the applicant
pool (Truxillo et al., 2002).
No
DONALD M. TRUXILLO, DIRK D. STEINER AND STEPHEN W. GILLILAND
No Fairness not related to customer purchase
intentions.
Yes Relationship is unclear.
No
Yes Fairness may relate to recommendation intentions,
but this relationship may weaken over time.
No
Yes Support for main effects of process fairness and
the interaction of process fairness and outcomes
on test-taking self-efficacy and job-related
Yes self-efficacy.
 r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004

SELECTION FAIRNESS AND OUTCOMES

 Intentions to pursue legal action Bauer et al. (2001); Ostberg, Truxillo, Yes These laboratory studies may not capture factors
& Bauer (2001) affecting litigation in actual hiring context.
Litigation intentions and actual legal
claiming may have different antecedents
(e.g., Goldman, 2001; Groth, Goldman,
Gilliland, & Bies, 2001). Possible common
method variance, as data were collected
cross-sectionally.

 Test-taking motivation Chan, Schmitt, DeShon, Clause, & Yes Face validity related to test-taking motivation,
Delbridge (1997) although no confirmation in field.

Hard Outcomes

 Applicant withdrawal Schmit & Ryan (1997) Yes Effects of fairness on withdrawal behaviors
may be moderated by characteristics of
Ryan, Sacco, McFarland, & Kriska (2000); No applicant pool.
Truxillo et al. (2002)

 Reapplication Gilliland et al. (2001) Yes Actual rejected applicants receiving fairness
information were more likely to reapply.

 Test validity Thorsteinson & Ryan (1997) Yes Higher validity may be associated with more
positive fairness perceptions, although findings
have not been confirmed in a field setting.
Volume 12 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2004

 Test Performance Chan (1997); Chan, Schmitt, Sacco, & Yes Job-relatedness of test related to cognitive
DeShon (1998b) ability test performance, but not personality
test performance.
 Job Performance Gilliland (1994) No Test job-relatedness negatively related to work
quantity and quality. No field research.

 Organizational commitment/ Ambrose & Cropanzano (2003); Yes Fairness may relate commitment, but effects
satisfaction may decrease over time.
Bauer et al. (2001)
Cunningham-Snell et al. (1999) No

 Turnover Truxillo et al. (2002) No Providing fairness information did not affect
later turnover.

 Legal challenges ? No research to date on actual legal challenges.

43
Note: A narrative summary of the studies in this table relative to selection fairness and its outcomes may be obtained from the first author.
44 DONALD M. TRUXILLO, DIRK D. STEINER AND STEPHEN W. GILLILAND
observed in most research to date because perceptions of
extreme unfairness may be necessary to incite such
behavior, and truly unfair treatment is rare in most
applicant reactions research.
However, a bias may exist in field research on applicant
reactions, since only companies with fair selection practices
are likely to allow investigation of their hiring procedures.
In addition, much research in this area is done in the United
States, where companies are concerned with the possibility
of litigation. Nevertheless, scandalous practices do exist.
When an interviewer inquires too insistently on a womans
marital status, strong feelings of unfairness may arise.
When in France a candidate for an industrial psychologist
position withdraws from the hiring process when told she
must submit to a handwriting analysis, selection fairness
has likely affected self-selection. These examples illustrate
the importance of studying cases of selection unfairness as
opposed to situations that are evaluated only as somewhat
less fair.
The Threshold of Unfairness. Gilliland and Chan (2001)
discussed a threshold for unfairness, initial evidence for
which was provided by Gilliland, Benson, and Schepers
(1998). Using layoff scenarios they found a threshold of
violations, beyond which acts of justice were irrelevant:
once three violations had been committed, it did not matter
how many non-violations had occurred when it came to
making decisions about courses of action.
Given that there appears to be a threshold for unfairness,
it is important to consider what factors might affect the
level of this threshold in the selection context. Obviously,
the violation of a range of justice rules (e.g., job relatedness,
feedback, interpersonal treatment) could potentially affect
perceptions of justice. For this reason, future research
assessing which types of justice rule violations are
considered the most unfair (e.g., Chapman & Ployhart,
2001) seems particularly promising in this regard. How-
ever, there may be other factors outside of the organiza-
tions control that affect this threshold and that might
explain when selection fairness does and does not affect
outcomes. For the most part, these factors have been
largely ignored in the empirical selection research to date.
In particular, we focus on applicant expectations, applicant
familiarity with the selection procedures, and individual
differences such as gender, ethnicity, cultural differences,
and applicant personality.
Applicant fairness expectations. Lind (2001) argues that
although peoples general fairness judgments are stable,
they can be changed when new information is received that
falls outside of expectations or during times of transition.
Should such events occur, the person returns to a judgment
phase in order to determine a new general fairness
judgment. Similar arguments about the importance of
expectations (e.g., about the organization, the process, or
ones own performance) have been made by other theorists
as well (Bies, 2001; Cropanzano & Ambrose, 2001;
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Steiner, 2001). If unmet expectations can bring about
perceptions of unfairness in applicants, research should
examine the effects of providing information to applicants
early in the process so that they have realistic expectations.
For example, if there are many applicants for a position
such that few are likely to receive job offers, explaining this
to applicants early in the process may decrease negative
consequences. On the other hand, efforts to make
applicants feel that they will receive a satisfactory outcome
might backfire if applicants do not receive that expected
outcome. At the very least, research should include
applicants expectations among the perceptions measured
early in the process to assess their role in later applicant
reactions.
Applicant familiarity with selection procedures. An-
other sort of expectation may influence selection unfair-
ness: the procedures with which applicants are familiar or
which they expect to encounter in the selection process.
Gilliland (1993) argued that applicants experiences could
be an important influence on perceptions of fairness, and
Brockner, Ackerman, and Fairchild (2001) suggest that
familiarity with processes can increase perceptions of their
legitimacy. Although this has received little empirical
scrutiny in the applicant reactions literature, some research
suggests the importance of applicants prior selection
experiences. For example, a consistent finding is that
applicants prefer unstructured interviews to other selection
procedures such as cognitive ability tests (e.g., Steiner &
Gilliland, 1996). Although this may be due to other factors
(e.g., process control), the unstructured interview is a
selection method that nearly all applicants have been
exposed to and expect to encounter, and this may partially
account for their positive reactions to it. This familiarity
and expectations factor has been used to explain the less
negative reactions sometimes found towards drug testing
(Mastrangelo, 1997).
Further, Steiner and Gilliland (1996) found that the
perception that a selection technique was widely used was
highly correlated with perceptions of the techniques
fairness; in other words, applicants may not have direct
experience with a method, but may be familiar with it
through friends or the media. We encourage applicant
reactions researchers to assess applicants past experiences
with different selection methods, their expectations of how
likely they are to encounter the method, and their
expectations of what the selection process involves. The
issues of applicant familiarity and expectations are
particularly relevant to research on new high-tech recruit-
ment and screening methods, discussed later.
Individual differences. Individuals are likely to differ in
terms of their threshold, with some individuals being more
tolerant of unfairness than others. For example, Chapman
and Ployhart (2001) found gender differences in the
magnitude of perceived unfairness of various selection
scenarios, such that women reacted more negatively than
men to certain types of unfairness (e.g., being asked
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
SELECTION FAIRNESS AND OUTCOMES
questions about family). Truxillo, Bauer, Campion, and
Paronto (2003) found a relationship between Big Five
personality factors (e.g., Digman, 1990) and outcomes (e.g.,
perceptions of the organization), with personality account-
ing for variance in outcomes beyond that accounted for by
selection fairness. Thus an area for future research is the
identification of individual differences that might affect the
threshold of unfairness to determine when selection fairness
is likely to matter. Variables that may affect the unfairness
threshold include ethnicity (cf. Chan & Schmitt, 1997),
cultural differences (see Anderson et al., 2001; Steiner &
Gilliland, 2001), amount of time and energy invested by the
applicant, personality (e.g., agreeableness), and applicant
privacy concerns (cf. Harris, Van Hoye, & Lievens, in press).
Moderators: What Factors Cause Unfairness to Lead to
Action? Even if unfairness reaches the threshold where it
could affect perceptions or behavior, this does not mean
that it necessarily will lead to action. Various moderator
variables may play a role in determining when unfairness
will lead to important outcomes.
The instrumentality of outcomes. A key unexamined
issue in understanding the link between unfairness and
action is the instrumentality of outcomes, that is, the costs
and benefits to the applicant of taking action. For example,
if an applicant believes the treatment received is blatantly
unfair, this applicant may never do anything about it
because the costs of taking legal action may be considered
too great. On the other hand, there are situations where it is
instrumental to take action. For example, in unionized
organizations legal resources may be available to candi-
dates for promotion and may facilitate their taking legal
action. The instrumentality of taking action may also be
determined by the alternatives available to applicants, such
that applicants may overlook unfair selection practices in
times of high unemployment. We will return to this
instrumentality concept later in the paper in focusing on
the logical consequences of fairness.
Contextual and social factors. Social influences on the
threshold to taking action deserve further study. In the area
of legal claiming in the employment context, social
encouragement and support have been found to be stronger
predictors of filing claims than perceived discrimination
(Goldman, 2001). Similarly, applicants threshold for
action may be strongly influenced by the social support
and interpretation of the event by friends and family.
Cultural and national differences. Steiner and Gilliland
(2001) discussed various cultural factors relevant to the
relationship between selection fairness and action, such as
Hofstedes (1980) notion of uncertainty avoidance and
characteristics of political and legal systems. For example,
because discrimination laws are explicit in the United
States, Americans may be more aware of the possibility to
act in response to the perceived unfairness of discrimina-
tion due to media attention to such cases. The effects of
these cultural influences deserve further study.
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
45
Personality and other individual differences. Just as
individual differences may affect the threshold of unfair-
ness, individual difference may also influence the like-
lihood that applicants take action in unfair situations. For
example, applicants high on agreeableness may be less
likely to take action against an employer. In addition, when
applicants limit their job searches geographically or are in
great financial need, the effects of fairness on certain
outcomes (e.g., withdrawal from the process) may be
lower.
Summary. Conceptual work on the meaning and role of
unfairness in the applicant reactions context is lacking. In
particular, understanding factors affecting both the unfair-
ness threshold and the link between unfairness and
attitudinal and behavioral outcomes merits further re-
search to delineate the conditions under which selection
fairness matters and under which organizational efforts to
improve fairness will lead to the greatest payoff.
The Relevant Outcomes of Selection Fairness
A second major issue in the applicant reactions literature is
that researchers may not have always considered the
essence of what fairness really is and thus what its
outcomes are likely to be. In addition, entry-level selection
may be too far removed from certain outcomes (e.g., job
performance) both temporally and in terms of the
organizational processes and identity. And there may be
certain unexplored outcomes that are related to selection
fairness: those that are directly associated with the selection
process, such that few other variables are likely to affect
them; or those that are also temporally associated with the
selection process. We now turn our attention to theoretical
and conceptual approaches to delineating the likely
outcomes of fairness.
What Are the Right Outcomes? Gilliland (1993) origin-
ally proposed three categories of outcome variables for
applicant reactions to selection: (1) reactions during hiring;
(2) reactions after hiring; and (3) self-perceptions. Simi-
larly, in discussing the consequences of perceptions of
unfairness in hiring, Gilliland and Steiner (2001) limited
the variables considered to applicant decisions (withdrawal
from the selection process and job offer acceptance
decisions), legal challenges, and spillover effects (recom-
mending the company to friends, purchasing the companys
products). The only variables they retained in the reactions
after hiring category were initial attitudes toward the
organization (initial job satisfaction and commitment) and
attitudes toward the supervisor, particularly when the
supervisor participated in the hiring process (as inter-
viewer, for example).
We suggest, however, that a number of relevant out-
comes have remained unexplored or under-explored.
Volume 12 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2004
46 DONALD M. TRUXILLO, DIRK D. STEINER AND STEPHEN W. GILLILAND
Specifically, the selection fairness literature should focus on
a more narrowly defined set of outcomes, specifically,
outcomes theoretically and logically associated with
selection fairness, applicant motivation and behavior, and
self-perceptions. We also note the importance of assessing
the instrumentality of outcomes for applicants in a given
situation, and the base-rate problem for certain types of
outcomes.
The logical consequences of fairness. At the basic level,
an analysis of the essence of what fairness is likely to affect
should guide research on potential outcomes of selection
fairness. For example, Lind (2001) argues that judgments
concerning fair treatment are closely related to issues of
interpersonal trust, and thus fair treatment leads people to
cooperate with others. Therefore, Lind reasons that fair-
ness judgments should relate to very specific sorts of
outcomes related to the group, such as organizational
citizenship behavior and social identity.
We suggest that future applicant reactions research focus
particularly on outcomes related to trust and cooperation,
particularly those proximal to the hiring process. Cropan-
zano, Byrne, Bobocel, and Rupp (2001) argue that fairness
perceptions that are generated by a particular entity (e.g.,
supervisor) are likely to affect reactions to that entity.
Accordingly, Ambrose, Seabright, and Schminke (2002)
found that sources of injustice (organizational versus
individual) were the most likely targets of employee
retaliatory behavior. Thus, fairness perceptions of ones
supervisor should affect perceptions about the supervisor
(e.g., leader-member exchange), whereas fairness percep-
tions of the organization should affect perceptions of the
organization (e.g., commitment); perceptions of the super-
visor and the organization are not orthogonal, but they are
conceptually different.
Two particular organizational sub-entities relevant to the
selection process are the future supervisor and the human
resources (HR) department. Applicants may have positive
perceptions of an employer developed through prior
experience, but may develop negative impressions of an
individual supervisor. Thus, a potential future supervisor
who during an interview seems disrespectful may cause the
applicant to develop a negative fairness judgment about that
supervisor, which could lead to turning down a job offer. But
the applicant may maintain a positive impression of the
organization as a whole. Moreover, even if an applicant
takes the job, there may be difficulties in the relationship
between the applicant and the supervisor. For this reason,
outcomes focused on the supervisor-subordinate relation-
ship (e.g., leader-member exchange, Sparrowe & Liden,
1997) deserve greater scrutiny. Similarly, because processes
used to hire are often associated with the organizations HR
department, perceived fairness should be related to percep-
tions of it. Given that in most organizations the HR
department may already be viewed negatively or at least
as unimportant (Rynes & Trank, 1999), selection fairness
may be a mechanism through which the HR image can be
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
improved. Once applicants become organizational mem-
bers, their impressions of HR become even more important,
and these impressions are likely formed from their initial
exposure to HR during the selection process.
Applicant motivation and behavior. Another important
set of outcomes that may be related to selection fairness is
applicant motivation during the selection process and later
job search behavior. Although the relationship between
fairness and motivation has only received minimal scrutiny
(Chan et al., 1997), the extant research suggests a
relationship between selection fairness and motivation.
We believe that selection fairness is most likely to affect the
motivation dimensions of expectancy and instrumentality
(Sanchez et al., 2000; Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). For
example, if applicants feel that a selection process is unfair,
they may conclude it is not worth making the effort to
apply or to take the test or to continue in the selection
process. We suggest that future research focus on the
relationship between fairness and applicant motivation and
later job-seeking type behaviors.
Applicant self-perceptions. Gillilands (1993) self-per-
ceptions category also merits greater consideration. Vari-
ables such as self-esteem and self-efficacy can be affected
immediately by selection outcomes and procedures; they
therefore fulfill the proximal requirement as dependent
variables of interest. Further, these variables are highly
related to ideas from the group value model of procedural
justice (e.g., Lind & Tyler, 1988), which argues that process
fairness is valued because it provides information about
status in a group.
Instrumentality of outcomes. As noted earlier, it is
important to assess the role of the instrumentality of
outcomes for applicants. Factors such as the jobs desir-
ability to the applicant may reduce the effects of fairness on
attraction sorts of outcomes, since applicants may want the
job no matter how they are treated. Truxillo et al. (2002)
used this to explain why selection fairness information did
not affect organizational attractiveness and continuing in
the selection process: the participants appeared to be highly
attracted to the organization from the start. One important
example is legal types of outcomes. Unless a selection
process is perceived as extremely unfair, or unless legal
services are readily available, applicants may never bring
legal action, since it is not instrumental to them in terms of
lost time and energy involved in a lawsuit.
Base rate issues. There are serious methodological and
practical difficulties in exploring some selection fairness
outcomes in organizational settings due to base rate
problems. Legal challenges are relatively infrequent in
organizations so that their causes are difficult to study
through traditional quantitative research methods. Further,
the overwhelming majority of legal challenges in the U.S.
are brought by former or current employees, rather than by
job applicants, and for administrative decisions involving
termination or discriminatory treatment, rather than for
hiring decisions (U.S. EEOC, 1996). We suggest, however,
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
SELECTION FAIRNESS AND OUTCOMES
that other, surrogate outcomes be explored in organiza-
tional settings, such as the filing of formal protests among
applicants as is often found in government selection
settings; if a relationship between fairness and applicant
protests could be demonstrated, this could be useful
information in itself.
Justice/injustice asymmetry and differential outcomes.
The concept of injustice may also be relevant to determin-
ing the effects of selection fairness on outcomes, specifi-
cally, the idea of justice/injustice asymmetry (Gilliland &
Chan, 2001). That is, justice and injustice are likely to be
associated with different outcome variables: outcomes of a
negative nature (e.g., litigation, withdrawal from the hiring
process) arise only in clear cases of unfair treatment that
meet a certain threshold. For example, Ambrose et al.
(2002) found that organizational injustice was related to
workplace sabotage. In contrast, positive outcomes (e.g.,
being attracted to a job) are associated with neutral to
positive perceptions of the selection process. Thus, selec-
tion fairness perceptions below the unfairness threshold
may lead to negative outcomes, but once the threshold is
reached, there is no relationship between selection fairness
and negative outcomes and a simple linear relationship
between selection fairness and positive outcomes.
Methodological Issues
The third area that has been problematic in past selection
fairness research concerns methodological issues. We have
already addressed some of these issues that are related
to more theoretical concerns, such as the base rate of
unfairness. Here we consider measurement, design, and
context issues of importance to selection fairness research.
Measurement and Construct Issues. Although models of
applicant reactions have existed for several years (e.g.,
Arvey & Sackett, 1993; Gilliland, 1993), carefully devel-
oped measures of process fairness and outcomes have only
recently been developed to tap these models (Bauer et al.,
2001). Ryan and Ployhart (2000) suggest that construct
definitions need to be clarified before real progress can be
made in the development of measures. Until recently, many
of the scales used in applicant reactions research have been
ad hoc measures (e.g., Bauer, Truxillo, & Paronto, 2003).
However, Colquitt (2001) recently developed and vali-
dated a measure assessing organizational justice facets.
Similarly Bauer et al. (2001) developed and validated a
measure focused specifically on selection fairness, the
Selection Procedural Justice Scale (SPJS), to tap the process
fairness facets of Gillilands model as well as two higher-
order factors (structural and social fairness). Ultimately,
the development of valid measures of fairness should
advance our understanding of the relationship between
specific dimensions of selection fairness and various
outcomes (e.g., attitudinal versus behavioral; perceptions
of the organization versus self-perceptions).
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
47
Longitudinal Research and Effects on Outcomes. As noted
in our review, the relationship found between fairness and
some outcomes may be a result of common method
variance. Research also suggests changes in applicant
perceptions pre- and post-testing (e.g., Chan et al.,
1998b), and that the effects of procedural and distributive
justice on outcomes may change over time (e.g., Ambrose
& Cropanzano, 2003). Thus, the increased use of long-
itudinal designs to reduce the effects of common method
variance and to assess the lingering effects of different types
of fairness is necessary. In addition, longitudinal studies
where applicants have received feedback on their perfor-
mance in the selection process may suggest whether
fairness really matters once a decision has been made.
Longitudinal designs will also allow researchers to explore
the primacy effects suggested by fairness heuristic theory
(Lind, 2001). Longitudinal designs combined with the use
of data analytic approaches such as hierarchical linear
modeling may also allow for an exploration of applicants
fairness trajectories and an explicit exploration of the role
of time in applicant reactions (cf. George & Jones, 2000).
The Importance of Field Research. Laboratory studies have
provided important information about applicant reactions
in general, and about the effects of selection fairness on
outcomes in particular. However, as noted earlier, appli-
cants will rely less on selection information in making
judgments about an organization where other factors and
information are involved. Because a rich context for the
selection decision is missing in most laboratory contexts,
we encourage research on the effects of selection fairness
field settings.
New and Unexamined Questions
Our review of recent work on organizational justice theory
highlights a number of issues in the applicant reactions
research that remain unexamined. These issues necessitate
a greater consideration of both basic theory in organiza-
tional justice and new contexts for selection fairness
research.
Contributions from Organizational Justice Theory
Recent work on justice shows the potential relevance
of studying the role of fairness in reducing uncertainty,
in applicants first impressions, and in the context of
promotions as areas for enlarging research perspectives.
The Role of Uncertainty in Selection. Some fundamental
theoretical reasons support the importance of fairness in
the selection context. Van den Bos and Lind (e.g., Lind &
van den Bos, 2002; van den Bos & Lind, 2002) have
presented a thorough analysis of why fairness judgments
matter. Based on a review of a large number of studies on
Volume 12 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2004
48 DONALD M. TRUXILLO, DIRK D. STEINER AND STEPHEN W. GILLILAND
procedural and distributive fairness, they make the case
that fairness perceptions are particularly important in
contexts high in uncertainty. They argue that uncertainty is
threatening and that fairness perceptions may function to
make things seem more certain and/or by making
uncertainty more tolerable. Further, in organizational
contexts, much uncertainty arises regarding concerns of
social interdependence and relations to authority. Clearly,
the hiring context is often characterized by a high degree of
uncertainty, because applicants do not know their chances
of succeeding in the hiring process and are likely to possess
little information on what it will be like to work for the
employer. In particular, applicants possess little informa-
tion regarding their future social relations and their
position with respect to authority in the organization.
Van den Bos and Lind (2002) argue that when information
is lacking, fairness judgments play an important role in
determining reactions, providing a heuristic substitute for
more directly relevant information. One implication of this
reasoning is that applicants who have much information
about what it is like to work for a particular company (e.g.,
through a friend who works there) will be less influenced by
their fairness perceptions in determining whether to accept
a job and in their attitudes surrounding the selection
context. For example, Truxillo et al. (2002) concluded that
in their sample (police applicants) organizational attrac-
tiveness was relatively high initially, since applicants may
know a lot about the job already, and that fairness
information is less likely to matter.
First Impressions. In addition, entry-level selection fair-
ness should matter because it occurs early in a persons
relationship with the organization. Linds (2001) fairness
heuristic theory holds that fairness perceptions derive from
a persons general fairness judgment, which develops
through a series of episodes. Once the general fairness
judgment is developed, however, it becomes more stable
and difficult to change. Therefore, there is a primacy effect,
such that the earliest episodes will have the greatest effect
on the developing general fairness judgment (Van den Bos,
Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997). Moreover, once the general
fairness judgment or heuristic is established, it will affect
the interpretation of subsequent information about the
organization. This approach is similar to Cropanzano and
Ambroses (2001) monistic view of justice, such that
procedural and distributive fairness perceptions are related
through the influence early perceptions have on later
perceptions. And in the absence of any other information, a
person will rely on this general fairness heuristic to
determine the fairness of organizational actions. Thus,
Lind (2001) argues that it is essential for organizations to
positively influence employees earliest fairness episodes.
From the standpoint of selection fairness, we argue that
early fairness episodes, such as those a person experiences
in the selection process, will have the greatest impact on the
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
general fairness judgment, which will, in turn, influence the
lens through which the person perceives the organization.
Research should explore this primacy issue in the selection
context and its effects on reactions, such as whether
fairness information has a greater impact when presented
earlier in the selection process.
Selection in the Promotion Context. Selection in promo-
tion contexts is another potentially fruitful area of
research. Although the effects of fairness may be weaker
in the promotion situation due to the ample contextual
information available to employees, the few studies that
have been done on reactions in the promotion context
suggest otherwise (Ambrose & Cropanzano, 2003; Trux-
illo & Bauer, 1999). The fairness of promotion procedures
may be of even greater importance than entry-level
selection since disgruntled employees stay with the
organization and can have a direct impact on organiza-
tional performance. And while the effects of fairness on
litigation among entry-level applicants may be minimal
since they have little at stake and scant information about
the selection process, its effects may be greater in
promotional contexts where employees are invested in
the situation and know more about the process. These
effects may be even stronger for those receiving a negative
outcome. Linds (2001) fairness heuristic theory may be
relevant to understanding employees fairness perceptions
regarding promotions, since this approach focuses on
peoples perceptions of long-term relationships. Because of
the important outcomes involved, the promotion process
itself should affect fairness heuristics regarding the
organization, the process, and those responsible for it.
Although there has been little empirical work on the
fairness of promotion procedures, we believe that appli-
cants investment in the results of the promotion process
will enhance the effects of outcome fairness and outcome
favorability relative to procedural justice. For example,
Truxillo and Bauer (1999) found that current employees
had much stronger reactions to banding (treating ranges of
test scores as equivalent to promote diversity) than did
entry-level applicants, partly due to their perceived out-
comes. Similarly, Ambrose and Cropanzano (2003) found
that distributive justice regarding promotions influenced
employee attitudes one year later. In addition, employees in
the promotion context should have greater information
about those who were and were not promoted and their
relative talents; for these reasons, equity comparisons
should be more easily made by employees in promotional
contexts.
A New Arena: High-Tech Selection and
Organizational Justice
The most revolutionary change in applicant recruitment
and selection is the development of high-tech (HT)
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
SELECTION FAIRNESS AND OUTCOMES
methods for screening applicants such as internet screening
and interactive voice response technology. These methods
provide employers with a number of advantages over paper
methods, including lower cost; applicants benefit in terms
of obtaining more information about the job (e.g., Dineen,
Ash, & Noe, 2002), and quick feedback (Lievens & Harris,
in press). Because perceptions of unfairness may be
associated with some forms of HT screening due to their
being impersonal or frustrating, the importance of the
relationship between selection fairness and outcomes may
be heightened. However, recent reviews on HT screening
(e.g., Anderson, 2003; Lievens & Harris, in press) note that
given this sweeping change, relatively little research has
focused on applicant perceptions of these new methods and
that most work has been atheoretical. We believe that the
advent of HT screening introduces a new arena for
applying organizational justice theory to applicant reac-
tions, but that this may require some fine-tuning and
augmentation of existing applicant reactions models. We
develop these new considerations relevant to HT screening.
Privacy Issues. One of the greatest concerns with many
HT screening methods is the issue of privacy. For example,
some large testing companies have data on hundreds of
thousands of applicants. According to some critics in the
U.S., there is a risk that applicant data could be shared
across organizations, something that was virtually impos-
sible with paper screening. Similarly, personal information
sent via the internet could fall into the wrong hands.
Gillilands (1993) model develops the potential role of
the invasion of privacy in applicant reactions, noting the
particular relevance of this issue to drug testing. Because of
the ease with which information can be shared or
disseminated via HT methods, we anticipate greater
importance of privacy and security issues in applicant
reactions research. Stone, Gueutal, Gardner, and McClure
(1983) found that values, beliefs, and attitudes regarding
information collection, storage, and release were related to
outcomes such as willingness to participate in subsequent
research. Similarly, applicant perceptions regarding the
security of their application data could affect factors
such as their willingness to apply and organizational
attractiveness.
Individual Differences. Earlier we described the potential
role of individual differences in affecting the unfairness
threshold and moderating the relationship between fairness
and outcomes. Likewise, we believe that individual
differences will affect perceptions of HT selection methods.
For example, those who are less familiar with these
methods, or who have less access to the internet, will
perceive the methods to be less fair and thus have negative
perceptions of the organization and lower self-efficacy
regarding these methods. In particular, older workers and
groups who have less easy access to the internet (the
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
49
digital divide), such as certain ethnic minorities or those
of lower socioeconomic status, may have negative reac-
tions to HT selection and may use such methods less. Other
individual differences (e.g., openness to experience) may
also affect the perceived fairness of novel selection and
screening devices.
Salience of Fairness Dimensions. In HT selection situa-
tions, certain fairness dimensions become more salient;
others become irrelevant. For example, applicants should
experience certain HT selection methods as inferior in
terms of interpersonal treatment. As an illustration, Chap-
man, Uggerslev, and Webster (2003) found that face-to-
face interviews were seen as more fair and were associated
with greater job acceptance intentions than video or
telephone interviews. On the other hand, the process itself
may be seen as more fair: applicants can receive quick
feedback concerning whether they passed or failed on
many HT tests and screening methods. In addition, certain
types of HT screening may lead to greater perceptions of
simulation fidelity (the applicant finds the procedure close
to the job situation) and therefore greater perceptions of
job-relatedness and validity (e.g., Richman-Hirsch, Olson-
Buchanan, & Drasgow, 2000). Given these considerations,
it is likely that many applicants would be willing to trade
the personal touch for quick feedback and greater
fidelity, particularly at early stages of the screening process.
Ironically, the lack of a test administrator may be seen as
an advantage by some applicants, as this could lead to
greater objectivity and consistency across applicants.
Different Types of HT Screening. It is important to note
key differences in HT screening methods. For example,
internet screening and interactive voice response (IVR)
screening are both HT recruitment methods, but differ on a
number of important dimensions. Internet screening
requires internet access on the part of the user, something
that cannot be assumed for all applicant pools. It also has
the potential to provide the applicant with a great deal of
information about the employer. In contrast, since IVR
screening is provided by telephone, it is accessible to most
applicants, but it provides relatively little information
about the company. Accordingly, Richman-Hirsch et al.
(2000) concluded when comparing a multimedia version
computerized test with a standard version, the multimedia
test was seen as superior by applicants although both were
delivered via computer and could be seen as computerized
testing.
Clearly, the benefits of these methods will continue to
make them attractive to employers, and the development of
new technologies will reduce the limits on what can be
done in HT selection. For this reason, we conclude this
discussion of HT selection with two important points.
First, it is important to recognize that what is considered to
be novel or high-tech by applicants today will change over
Volume 12 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2004
50 DONALD M. TRUXILLO, DIRK D. STEINER AND STEPHEN W. GILLILAND
time, such that the sheer novelty of a method will become
less of an issue. Second, it is essential that future research
address the issue of making HT selection methods more
accessible and acceptable to applicants.
Focus on Application: Improving Fairness
to Improve Outcomes
In this final section we consider how researchers can apply
what is already known about selection fairness to develop
new interventions in the hiring process. Whereas there are
many avenues to pursue, the literature suggests that face
validity measures and explanations of selection procedures
hold promise. In addition, we suggest that future research
consider interventions focused on interactional (interper-
sonal) fairness and situations where selection unfairness
occurs.
Face Validity
The literature suggests that perceptions do lead to
increased organizational attractiveness (e.g., Bauer et al.,
2001). Moreover, face valid selection procedures tend to be
perceived as more fair by applicants (e.g., Gilliland, 1994;
Rynes & Connerley, 1993; Smither, Reilly, Milsap, Pearl-
man, & Stoffey, 1993), and the perceived job-relatedness of
selection techniques is central to perceptions of fairness
(Steiner & Gilliland, 2001). Thus these results suggest that
using more face valid selection methods rather than more
abstract methods should have applied benefits.
Explaining Selection Procedures
An alternative to using face valid techniques is a greater use
of informational justice, a key organizational justice
concept (e.g., Colquitt et al., 2001). Thus, providing
information and explanations to applicants regarding the
job-relatedness (i.e., validity) of tests should be considered,
as suggested by recent research (e.g., Gilliland et al., 2001;
Ployhart et al., 1999; Truxillo et al., 2002), although
explanations may not always affect applicant reactions
(Lievens, De Corte, & Brysse, 2003). Research is needed on
the types of information that can be presented to applicants
(e.g., job-relatedness; detailed information about the job),
how the information should be presented, and the
consequences of providing such information. Such prac-
tices are likely to reinforce perceptions of justice because
they include the informational dimension, but also because
they allow for clarifying the role of other procedural justice
dimensions that may not be readily obvious to applicants
(e.g., the accuracy of information). For example, organiza-
tions that use paper-and-pencil or cognitive ability tests do
so because they are cost-effective methods for managing
large applicant pools and they have high validities.
Clarifying the cognitive demands of the job to applicants
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
and why the tests assess the ability to successfully handle
these demands could improve applicants reactions to these
techniques.
Interactional Fairness
Although the HR personnel component of selection has
received little scrutiny, research should explore interven-
tions such as training test administrators or interviewers in
order to improve perceptions of interactional fairness. The
use of applicant reactions models and research on
interviewers and training can guide the development of
such organizational interventions. Along these lines, two
experiments reported by Steiner, Amoroso, and Hafner (in
press) recently showed that interviewer characteristics and
behaviors affect procedural justice dimensions in simulated
interviewers.
Reducing Selection Unfairness
Because much of the research has examined reactions to
relatively fair selection methods, research is needed on
common situations that are unfair. For example, at certain
companies, applicants who fail a battery of tests are given
their results publicly by being told that they are free to
leave. In both the U.S. and in Europe, female applicants are
still frequently asked about their marital and family status.
And companies often do not put much effort into
softening the blow for rejected applicants in terms of
explanations and sensitive treatment, interventions whose
effectiveness are suggested in the research (e.g., Gilliland
et al., 2001; Ployhart et al., 1999). Our point is that
researchers should focus on areas where companies most
often treat applicants unfairly so that selection research can
have the greatest utility for organizations.
Influencing both Organizational and
Individual Outcomes
From the organizational perspective, enhancing selection
fairness may affect the capacity to attract the best
applicants and to instill an initial positive climate through
attitudes and motivation and to avoid the negative, hard
outcomes. However, much more research is needed on the
impact of selection fairness on the individual outcomes of
self-esteem, self-efficacy, and persistence in the job search.
Whereas most private employers may not be motivated to
implement practices to help rejected candidates preserve
their self-image, this may be more likely to happen in
governmental employment agencies or in outplacement
consulting firms where applicant self-efficacy is viewed as
an important outcome (cf. Eden & Aviram, 1993).
In concluding our discussion of methods to improve
applicant reactions, we make two final points. First, we
urge applicant reactions researchers to use more interven-
tion types of studies rather than correlational designs.
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
SELECTION FAIRNESS AND OUTCOMES
Whereas correlational designs may help in understanding
the relationship between constructs, it is now time to begin
to explore the effects of different sorts of actual interven-
tions on fairness perceptions and personal and organiza-
tional outcomes. Second, it is our experience that some HR
practitioners may object to some interventions to improve
fairness (e.g., because they believe providing information
to applicants enables them to pursue litigation).
Conclusion
Our purpose has been to review the effects of selection
fairness on organizational outcomes and to examine the
empirical literature with a critical eye. While fairness has
been found to affect some key variables (e.g., self-efficacy),
it has not been found to affect others (e.g., job perfor-
mance). However, implicit in our analysis is the idea that
applicant reactions researchers have not utilized the
organizational justice framework to its fullest extent. In
failing to do so, they have sometimes asked inappropriate
questions, studied outcomes with limited relevance, and
ignored important issues.
Considerable energy has been focused on applicant
reactions in the last decade, and organizational justice
theory has provided the dominant framework. But to move
forward, the next wave of work should begin with a careful
re-examination of organizational justice theory and a
carefully assessment of when it applies to the personnel
selection context. Having begun that re-examination in this
paper, we believe that selection fairness really does matter
for important outcomes.
References
Ambrose, M.L. and Cropanzano, R. (2003) A longitudinal analysis
of organizational fairness: An examination of reactions to tenure
and promotion decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
266275.
Ambrose, M.L., Seabright, M.A. and Schminke, M. (2002)
Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89,
947965.
Anderson, N. (2003) Applicant and recruiter reactions to new
technology in selection: A critical review and agenda for future
research. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11,
121136.
Anderson, N., Born, M. and Cunningham-Snell, N. (2001)
Recruitment and selection: Applicant perspectives and out-
comes. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil and C.
Viswesvaran (Eds.), International Handbook of Work and
Organizational Psychology (pp. 200218). London: Sage.
Arvey, R.D. and Sackett, P.R. (1993) Fairness in selection: Current
developments and perspectives. In N. Schmitt and W.C. Borman,
and Associates (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp.
171202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Arvey, R.D., Strickland, W., Drauden, G. and Martin, C. (1990)
Motivational components of test-taking. Personnel Psychology,
43, 695716.
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
51
Bauer, T.N., Maertz, C.P. Jr., Dolen, M.R. and Campion, M.A.
(1998) Longitudinal assessment of applicant reactions to
employment testing and test outcome feedback. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 892903.
Bauer, T.N., Truxillo, D.M. and Paronto, M.E. (2003) Measures of
test-taker perceptions. In J. Thomas (Ed.), Comprehensive
Handbook of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 4: Industrial/
Organizational Psychology. New York: Wiley.
Bauer, T.N., Truxillo, D.M., Sanchez, R.J., Craig, J., Ferrara, P. and
Campion, M.A. (2001) Applicant reactions to selection: Devel-
opment of the Selection Procedural Justice Scale (SPJS).
Personnel Psychology, 54, 387419.
Bies, R.J. (2001) Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the
profane. In J. Greenberg and R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in
Organizational Justice (pp. 89118). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G. and Fairchild, G. (2001) When do
elements of procedural fairness make a difference? A clas-
sification of moderating influences. In J. Greenberg and
R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in Organizational Justice
(pp. 179212). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Chan, D. (1997) Racial subgroup differences in predictive validity
perceptions of personality and cognitive ability tests. Journal of
Applied Psychology 82, 311320).
Chan, D. and Schmitt, N. (1997) Video-based versus paper-and-
pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests:
Subgroup differences in test performance and face validity
perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 143159.
Chan, D., Schmitt, N., DeShon, R.P., Clause, C.S. and Delbridge, K.
(1997) Reactions to cognitive ability tests: The relationships
between race, test performance, face validity perceptions,
and test-taking motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
300310.
Chan, D., Schmitt, N., Jennings, D., Claus, C.S. and Delbridge, K.
(1998a) Applicant perceptions of test fairness: Integrating justice
and self-serving bias perceptions. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 6, 232239.
Chan, D., Schmitt, N., Sacco, J.M. and DeShon, R.P. (1998b)
Understanding pretest and posttest reactions to cognitive ability
and personality tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
471485.
Chapman, D.S. and Ployhart, R.E. (2001) Gender and Perceptions
of Justice Violations in the Magnitude of Perceived Injustice. In
R.E. Ployhart and D.M. Truxillo (Chairs), Presenting Selection
Information to Applicants: Theoretical and Practical Implications.
Symposium presented at the 16th annual meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Chapman, D.S., Uggerslev, K.L. and Webster, J. (2003) Applicant
reactions to face-to-face and technology-mediated interviews: A
field investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 944953.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001) On the dimensionality of organizational
justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 386400.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O.L.H. and
Ng, K.Y. (2001) Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic
review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 425445.
Cropanzano, R. and Ambrose, M.L. (2001) Procedural and
distributive justice are more similar than you think: A monistic
perspective and a research agenda. In J. Greenberg and
R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in Organizational Justice
(pp. 119151). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z.S., Bobocel, D.R. and Rupp, D.E. (2001)
Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other
denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 58, 164209.
Volume 12 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2004
52 DONALD M. TRUXILLO, DIRK D. STEINER AND STEPHEN W. GILLILAND
Cunningham-Snell, N., Anderson, N. and Fletcher, C. (1999) A
Longitudinal Analysis of Procedural Justice at an Assessment
Centre: The Immediate, Intermediate and Long-Term Impact.
Paper presented at the International Round Table: Innovations in
Organizational Justice, Nice, France.
DeShon, R.P., Smith, M.R., Chan, D. and Schmitt, N. (1998) Can
racial differences in cognitive test performance be reduced by
presenting problems in a social context? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 438451.
Deutsch, M. (1975) Equity, equality, and need: What determines
which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice?
Journal of Social Issues, 313, 137149.
Digman, J.M. (1990) Personality structure: Emergence of the five-
factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417440.
Dineen, B.R., Ash, S.R. and Noe, R A. (2002) A web of applicant
attraction: Person-organization fit in the context of web-based
recruiting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 723734.
Eden, D. and Aviram, A. (1993) Self-efficacy training to speed
reemployment: Helping people to help themselves. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 352360.
George, J.M. and Jones, G. (2000) The role of time in theory
building. Journal of Management, 26, 657684.
Gilliland, S.W. (1993) The perceived fairness of selection systems:
An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 18, 694734.
Gilliland, S.W. (1994) Effects of procedural and distributive justice
on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 691701.
Gilliland, S.W., Benson, L. III. and Schepers, D.H. (1998) A
rejection threshold in justice evaluations: Effects on judgment
and decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 76, 113131.
Gilliland, S.W. and Chan, D. (2001) Justice in organizations:
Theory, methods, and applications. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones,
H.K. Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), International Hand-
book of Work and Organizational Psychology (pp. 143165).
London: Sage.
Gilliland, S.W. and Steiner, D.D. (2001) Causes and consequences of
applicant perceptions of unfairness. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.),
Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice. Volume 2.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gilliland, S.W., Groth, M., Baker, R.C.IV, Dew, A.F., Polly, L.M.
and Langdon, J.C. (2001) Improving applicants reactions to
rejection letters: An application of fairness theory. Personnel
Psychology, 54, 669703.
Goldman, B.M. (2001) Toward an understanding of employment
discrimination claiming: An integration of organizational justice
and social information processing theories. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 54, 361386.
Groth, M., Goldman, B.M., Gilliland, S.W. and Bies, R.J. (2001)
The Blame Game: The Influence of Attributions on Employee
Legal-Claiming Commitment. Manuscript under review.
Harris, M.M., Van Hoye, G. and Lievens, F. (2004) Privacy and
attitudes towards internet-based selection systems: A cross-
cultural comparison. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Cultures Consequences: International Differ-
ences in Work-related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Horvath, M. and Ryan, A.M. (2000) The influence of explanations
for selection test use, outcome favorability, and self-efficacy on
test-taker perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 83, 310330.
Leventhal, G.S. (1980) What should be done with equity theory?
In K.J. Gergen, M.S. Greenberg and R.H. Willis (Eds.), Justice
and Social Interaction (pp. 167218). New York: Springer-
Verlag.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Lievens, F. and Harris, M.M. (in press) Research on internet
recruitment and testing: Current status and future directions.
The International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology. Chichester, England: John Wiley.
Lievens, F., De Corte, W. and Brysse, K. (2003) Applicant
perceptions of selection procedures: The role of selection
information, belief in tests, and comparative anxiety. Interna-
tional Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 6575.
Lind, E.A. (2001) Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments
as pivotal cognitions in organizational settings. In J. Greenberg
and R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in Organizational Justice
(pp. 5688). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988) The Social Psychology of
Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.
Lind, E.A. and van den Bos, K. (2002) When fairness works: Toward
a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 24, 181223.
Macan, T.H., Avedon, M.J., Paese, M. and Smith, D.E. (1994) The
effects of applicants reactions to cognitive ability tests and an
assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47, 715738.
Martin, C.L. and Nagao, D.H. (1989) Some effects of computerized
interviewing on job applicant responses. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 7280.
Mastrangelo, P.M. (1997) Do college students still prefer companies
without employment drug testing? Journal of Business and
Psychology, 11, 325337.
Ostberg, D.E., Truxillo, D.M. and Bauer, T.N. (2001) Effects of Pre-
Test Information on Applicants Perceptions of Selection Fair-
ness. In R.E. Ployhart and D.M. Truxillo (Chairs), Presenting
Selection Information to Applicants: Theoretical and Practical
Implications. Symposium presented at the 16th annual meeting
of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San
Diego, CA.
Ployhart, R.E. and Ryan, A.M. (1997) Toward an explanation of
applicant reactions: An examination of organizational justice
and attribution frameworks. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 72, 308335.
Ployhart, R.E. and Ryan, A.M. (1998) Applicants reactions to the
fairness of selection procedures: The effects of positive rule
violations and time of measurement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 316.
Ployhart, R.E., Ryan, A.M. and Bennett, M. (1999) Explanations
for selection decisions: Applicants reactions to informational
and sensitivity features of explanations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 87106.
Richman-Hirsch, W.L., Olson-Buchanan, J.B. and Drasgow, F.
(2000) Examining the impact of administration medium on
examinee perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 85, 880887.
Ryan, A.M. and Ployhart, R.E. (2000) Applicants perceptions of
selection procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda
for the future. Journal of Management, 26, 565606.
Ryan, A.M., Sacco, J.M., McFarland, L.A. and Kriska, S.D. (2000)
Applicant self-selection: Correlates of withdrawal from a multi-
ple hurdle process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 163179.
Rynes, S.L. and Connerley, M.L. (1993) Applicant reactions to
alternative selection procedures. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 7, 261277.
Rynes, S.L. and Trank, C.Q. (1999) Behavioral science in the
business school curriculum: Teaching in a changing institutional
environment. Academy of Management Review, 24, 808824.
Sanchez, R.J., Truxillo, D.M. and Bauer, T.N. (2000) Development
and examination of an expectancy-based measure of test-taking
motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 739750.
Schmidt, F.L., Greenthal, A.L., Hunter, J.E., Berner, J.G. and
Seaton, F.W. (1977) Job sample v. paper-and-pencil trades and
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
SELECTION FAIRNESS AND OUTCOMES
technical tests: Adverse impact and examinee attitudes. Person-
nel Psychology, 30, 187197.
Schmitt, N. and Coyle, B.W. (1976) Applicant decisions in
the employment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61,
184192.
Schmitt, N. and Gilliland, S.W. (1992) Beyond differential predic-
tion: Fairness in selection. In D.M. Saunders (Ed.), New
Approaches to Employee Management: Fairness in Employee
Selection (pp. 2146). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Schmit, M.J. and Ryan, A.M. (1997) Applicant withdrawal: The
role of test-taking attitudes and racial differences. Personnel
Psychology, 50, 855876.
Simons, T. and Roberson, Q. (in press) Why managers should care
about fairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on
organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Smither, J.W., Reilly, R.R., Millsap, R.E., Pearlman, K. and Stoffey,
R.W. (1993) Applicant reactions to selection procedures.
Personnel Psychology, 46, 4977.
Sparrowe, R.T. and Liden, R.C. (1997) Process and structure in
leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22,
522552.
Steiner, D.D. (2001) Cultural influences on perceptions of dis-
tributive and procedural justice. In S.W. Gilliland, D.D. Steiner
and D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in Social Issues in Management
(pp. 111137). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Steiner, D.D. and Gilliland, S.W. (1996) Fairness reactions to
personnel selection techniques in France and the United States.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 134141.
Steiner, D.D. and Gilliland, S.W. (2001) Procedural justice in
personnel selection: International and cross-cultural perspec-
tives. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 114.
Steiner, D.D., Amoroso, S. and Hafner, V. (in press). Les perceptions
de la justice organisationnelle en entretien de recrutement: Deux
experimentations par simulation [Perceptions of organizational
justice in the selection interview : Two simulation experiments].
Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations.
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
53
Stone, E.F., Gueutal, H.G., Gardner, D.G. and McClure, S. (1983) A
field experiment comparing information-privacy values, beliefs,
and attitudes across several types of organizations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 68, 459468.
Thorsteinson, T.J. and Ryan, A.M. (1997) The effect of selec-
tion ratio on perceptions of the fairness of a selection test
battery. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5,
159168.
Truxillo, D.M. and Bauer, T.N (1999) Applicant reactions to teSt
score banding in entry-level and promotional contexts. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 84, 322339.
Truxillo, D.M, Bauer, T.N. and Sanchez, R.J (2001) Multiple
dimensions of procedural justice: Longitudinal effects on
selection system fairness and test-taking self-efficacy. Interna-
tional Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 336349.
Truxillo, D.M., Bauer, T.N., Campion, M.A. and Paronto, M.E.
(2002) Selection fairness information and applicant reactions: A
longitudinal field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
10201031.
Truxillo, D.M., Bauer, T.N., Campion, M.A. and Paronto, M.E.
(2003) Big Five Personality and Applicant Reactions: A Field
Study. Paper presented at the 2003 Academy of Management
Conference.
United States Equal Opportunity Commission (1996) Fourth
Quarter Report to Chairman. Office of Program Operations.
Van den Bos, K. and Lind, E.A. (2002) Uncertainty management by
means of fairness judgments. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 34 (pp. 160). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R. and Wilke, H.A.M. (1997) Procedural
and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what
comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 95104.
Van Eerde, W. and Thierry, H. (1996) Vrooms expectancy models
and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 575586.
Volume 12 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2004