THE IMPORTANCE OF COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL

PSYCHOLOGY TO ENSURING RELIABLE AND VALID METHODS OF

RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION ARE USED WITHIN THE WORKPLACE

STUDENT ID: 14068621

BUSINESS PSYCHOLOGY
PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY & APPLICATIONS AT THE WORKPLACE
2014

2
This essay is bound to show the importance of cognitive and social
psychology to ensuring reliable and valid methods of recruitment and
selection are used within the workplace. To do so, first there will be a brief
discussion regarding the determinants of a hiring procedure thanks to Schmidt
& Hunters article (1998). Moving on to the first component of the discussion
Cognitive Testing theres a discussion citing Thomas and Scroggins (2006)
regarding adverse impact when using cognitive ability testing as well as what
are its ups and downs, and how it could be counter balanced.
Robertson & Smith (2001), as well as Hunter & Schmidt (1990) are then cited
providing useful information regarding meta-analysis and how it influenced
testing validity over the years. Another interesting issue regarding Cognitive
Ability Testing is the variability of validity related to job complexity, and that is
shown by Hunter & Hunter (1984).
In the second part, however focus is given to the Social Psychology issues,
firstly when using Interviewing as a means of assessment. Facts about what
types of interviews exist, as well as the pros and cons of certain ways are
highlighted from Arnold (2005). Last but not least, Biodata assessment is
discussed alongside with its categories and what approaches is Biodata
conducted by, also showing its strengths and weaknesses.

STUDENT ID: 14068621

3
The validity of a hiring procedure is a direct determinant of its actual
value, but not the only one. Another is job performance variability. In extreme
scenarios, if say variability would be zero, all applicants would have the same
level of performance when latest jobs come to concern. Then the practical
worth of selection procedures would be again zero, because in this
hypothetical case it doesnt matter who is hired as all applicants are alike.
From another angle, when performance validity is great, it is imperative to pick
the best performing candidate and then the practical use of valid selection
methods would also be great. This extreme case turns out to be a normal
case when most jobs are considered (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998, p. 262).
If Cognitive Psychology traits are of concern when recruiting and
selection takes place, the most notable way of assessment are clearly
Cognitive Ability tests. According to Schmidt & Hunter, job skill gain and
performance prediction validity for cognitive ability tests has been widely
confirmed. Also confirmed is the organisations economical value gain with the
selection of higher-level candidates (1998). Cognitive ability has been
variously defined, but there is still dispute over whether cognitive ability is a
general intelligence ability or a group of particular and distinct abilities, such
as thinking, perception, reasoning, verbal or mathematical skills. But one thing
is certain, with these cognitive ability tests employers spend the least when it
comes to personnel assessment, costing even less than 5$ per applicant
(Thomas and Scroggins, 2006, p.31).
It has been proven though by several researchers like Cleary, Humphreys,
Kendrick & Wesnan, Hartigan & Wigdor, Wigdor & Gamer, that this kind of
testing creates group differences, also known as adverse impact, thus few

STUDENT ID: 14068621

4
companies use them as selection tools. Heneman, Judge & Heneman and
also Lubenski state that this means some groups, Hispanics and African
Americans for example score worse than the rest, while others, like Asian
Americans score higher (as cited in Thomas & Scroggins, 2006, p.32). These
studies were made in the U.S. though and results from the rest of the World
might be slightly different.
Nevertheless, some proposed that linking the cognitive ability tests with
personality tests would reduce adverse impact (Ryan, Ployhart & Friedel,
1998). Cognitive ability tests show high validity in job performance as high
levels of cognitive ability relate with acquiring job knowledge faster and better,
so as increasing performance. Personality traits however may amplify ones
power to apply intellectual capacity, while others may limit its application
(Kaufman & Lichtenberger, 1999). As Thomas and Scroggins state, the utility
of personality testing is proven more and more as researchers find
associations of personality traits with the importance of relationships for work
organisations (2006, p.34). So, they add that its best to build a predictor
composite which includes, besides a cognitive ability test, an extra measure,
such as the one above mentioned. As the composite predictors are unrelated
they show an unique variance in job performance prediction, thus enhancing
incremental validity and prediction (2006, p.36).
Validity was shown in different manners over the years, but in the
1980s personnel selection literature became more trustworthy than before.
This might have been due to the beginning of using meta-analysis in
research, as Hunter & Schmidt state (1990). This means that if artefactual
consequences of sampling error, range restriction and measurement reliability

STUDENT ID: 14068621

5
are not taken into consideration, then the meta-analysis shows us the true
validity of personnel selection, much higher than the initial one (Robertson &
Smith, 2001, p. 442). Figure 1 shows how validity figures when overall job
performance is used as a criterion are higher than when training is used as
the criterion.
Fig. 1: Accuracy of selection methods

Source: Robertson, I. T. and Smith, M., (2001), Personnel Selection, Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, p. 443

STUDENT ID: 14068621

Cognitive ability or General Mental Ability tests are often used to describe the
same thing cognitive tests. Even if validity tends to remain the same across
personnel selection situations, job complexity is found to be a notable
moderator variable in GMAs (General Mental Ability) relation to job
performance (Hunter & Hunter, 1984). GMA shows the ability to learn and
adapt, with special attention given to the importance of complex information
processing through problem solving, conceptual thinking and reasoning
(Ones, Viswesvaran & Dilchert, 2005). Schmidt & Hunter have reported the
results in figure 2, results that look pretty reliable as theyre obtained from 425
different validity studies (2004). So, as the complexity of the position gets
higher, GMA validity gets better, showing that the use of only cognitive ability
tests for unskilled jobs could be somehow rendered useless.

STUDENT ID: 14068621

7
Fig.2 : Validity of the GMA Measure in the General Aptitude Test Battery

Source: Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work:
Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86 (1), Table 2 p. 165

Though current literature provides proof of high validity levels when using
GMA testing, some limitations do occur. One is that GMA is usually used as a
predictor of job performance when it could be of similar use studying the
validity of particular cognitive abilities (Bertua, Anderson & Salgado, 2005).
Another limitation lies in the fact that most rely on U.S. sample studies only.
Even if said to be generable to other countries by Herriot & Anderson, it does
not allow for the awareness of a potential impact of differences in cultural,
social, recruitment and performance between U.S. and the rest of the world
STUDENT ID: 14068621

8
(as cited from Green & Macqueen, 2008, p.10).
On the social psychology side, because they imply analysis of
behavioural patterns, interviews are another form of assessment. Despite
their popularity amongst organisations, they have been criticized of being
vulnerable to bias, subjective, or just suffering from little reliability (Arnold,
2005, p.178). But on the other hand, Huffcutt, Conway, Roth and Stone found,
during a meta-analysis study, that interview validity proves to be even greater
than in cognitive ability tests (2001).
Interviews are of two types: behavioural and situational ones. Because it is
assumed that past behavior predicts future behavior, the behavioural pattern
description interviews (BPDIs) involve making interviewees talk about past
behavior situations which are relevant fort the workplace position (Arnold,
2005, p.180). An example of such a question could be : Could you please
describe a situation when you had to sell something to someone? How did it
go?. Situational interviews on the other hand, dont rely on the past, but on
hypothetical situations presented. They assume that how one intends to
behave in a certain situation predicts future job-related behavior (Arnold,
2005, p. 180). For example: Imagine you were a store manager, and one day
you find that staff members are on strike, demanding salary raises and
improved working conditions. What will you do first?.
Interviewers will be using BARS (behaviourally anchored rating scale) to
measure responses, while there isnt actually only one correct answer, but
sets of typical responses. However, some problems arise with these kinds of
personnel assessments. Situational interviews for instance dont take
personal experience into account and somebody with experience over the

STUDENT ID: 14068621

9
years in a field may hold an edge over an inexperienced applicant. Another
issue, for both situational and behavioural interviews is that there maybe a
possibility that individuals may say something different than what they would
actually do, looking only to impress (Arnold, 2005, p. 180).
Another selection tool, which uses Social Psychology facts is using
Biodata, because, like Interviews, it also analyses ones behaviour. The main
rule in its use is that past behavior is again a predictor of future performance.
It involves using biographical information and criterion measures such as work
performance or absenteeism, and then empirically correlating them by using a
concurrent validation study (also known as empirical approach). Even so,
chance factors may intervene when correlating the biodata items with the
criterion. Its then necessary to cross validate, usually using a second sample.
It doesnt stay stable in time though and it needs frequent revalidation.
Biodata consists mostly of two categories: hard items (such as verifiable
information from the past, qualifications, diplomas) and soft items (like
hobbies and interests). Though validity coefficients are decent (0.48), issues
arise from the imprecise use of empirical derived items. So while some items
have been found to predict a criterion, there is no explanation of why does it
predict it. Biodata is in this way atheoretical. The problems that are of
concern are that the perceived Biodata may be a substitute for another
variable, or that even if some items provide predictive value, they dont
necessarily help in understanding the elements of job success (Arnold, 2005,
p.189). An example of the first problem could be when linking family status to
future job performance. This could actually mean that some specific social or
ethnic groups within or related to family have to do with future performance,

STUDENT ID: 14068621

10
as family status is a vague variable.
Because of these problems, development of Biodata displays is done by
rational approach. This approach displays attempts of developing a theoretical
rationale for Biodata predictive validity. With the use of rational approach
come clear hypotheses about particular job-relevant constructs like ability to
work in a team, which may be used by particular Biodata units (membership
of clubs or societies). Now only items with a rational link to the criterion will be
tried out. In terms of ease of explanation, this approach is more interesting,
but there is evidence suggesting it has poorer validity than the empirical
approach. But the benefit of fairness and more understanding could counter
balance this loss (Arnold, 2005, 190).

STUDENT ID: 14068621

11
This essay was about demonstrating the importance of cognitive and
social psychology to ensuring valid and reliable methods of recruitment and
selection are used at the workplace.
As a conclusion, in terms of validity, interviews, which analyse ones
behavior in past and future situations, tend to show the greatest value
according to Huffcutt et al. (2001). But their downside is that they can be
vulnerable to bias, subjective and considered unreliable. Unreliability comes
from the fact that people may lie when asked about past situations, or may
just look to impress, thus not mirroring their actual ways of dealing with an
incident. Even more, situational interviews in particular, dont take previous
experience into account, so an experienced worker may prove better than an
inexperienced candidate only because of that.
Cognitive ability testing proves to show decent validity values, but
when further researched by Hunter & Hunter (1984) it was proven that validity
rises as job complexity gets greater. It indeed shows high validity (0.58) but
mainly when managerial jobs are taken into account, rendering the use of
cognitive testing only for unskilled workers somehow useless (validity 0.23).
There is also the matter of adverse impact that comes to play, as different
ethnic groups tend to show different sets of scores when assessed. A definite
good side of cognitive ability testing though is its low cost, barely reaching
5$/applicant as Thomas & Scroggins state (2006).
Biodata is the third assessment form showed, one which again
analyses behavior, but this time in terms of biographical data from ones past.
It shows decent validity (0.48), but problems do exist. The need of frequent
revalidation is a downside, while perceived data maybe a substitute for

STUDENT ID: 14068621

12
another variable, so it isnt that clear. While its validity when making job
performance prediction is good, it doesnt help in understanding why does it
predict that, thus being rather vague.
All in all, the most reliable measure for assessing job applicants at the
workplace is a combination of tests rather than one on its own, like cognitive
ability and personality testing for that matter.

STUDENT ID: 14068621

13
REFERENCES

Arnold, J., Silvester, J., Patterson, F., Robertson, I. ,Cooper, C. and

Burnes, B. (2005), Understanding Human Behaviour at the Workplace (4th
ed.), Pearson Education Limited. Essex.
Bertua, C., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. (2005). The predictive validity
of cognitive ability tests: A UK meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and
Organisational Psychology, 78, 387-409.
Green, T. and Macqueen P. (2008). Cognitive Ability: How Important?,
Compass Consulting, retrieved from
http://www.compassconsulting.com.au/icms_docs/31265_Cognitive_Ability_H
ow_Important.pdf
Huffcutt, A.I., Conway, J.M., Roth, P.L. and Stone, N.J. (2001)
Identification and metaana- lytic assessment of psychological constructs
measured in employment interviews, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 86,
pp. 897913.
Hunter, I. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative
predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.
Hunter, J.E. and Schmidt, F.L. (1990) Methods of Meta-analysis.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (1999). Essentials of WAIS- III
Assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

STUDENT ID: 14068621

14
Ones, D., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilchert, S. (2005). Cognitive ability in
personnel selection decisions. In A. Evers, N. Anderson & O. Voskuijl (Eds.),
The Blackwell handbook of personnel selection (pp. 143- 173). Victoria,
Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Robertson, I. T. and Smith, M., (2001), Personnel Selection, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 441-472.
Ryan, A. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Friedel, L. A. (1998). Using personality
testing to reduce adverse impact: A cautionary note. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83 (2), 298-307.
Schmidt, F. L. and Hunter, J. E. (1998). The Validity and Utility of
Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical
Implications of 85 years of Research findings. Psychological bulletin, 124, 2,
262-274.
Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of
work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 86 (1), 162-173.
Thomas, S. L. and Scroggins, W. A. (2006) Psychological Testing in
Personnel Selection: Contemporary Issues in Cognitive Ability and Personality
Testing. Journal of Business Inquiry. 28-38.

WORD COUNT: 2098 words

STUDENT ID: 14068621

15

STUDENT ID: 14068621