Predicting Self-Disclosure in Recruitment in the Context of Social Media Screening
- 35 Downloads
Understanding the factors that support the self-disclosure of information by prospective job applicants in recruitment settings provide an important means to understand withdrawal from and completion of applications for job vacancies, particularly in the age of increasing social media screening (also known as cyber-vetting). The general willingness to trust others, the anticipated (mis)use of information (e.g., that may disadvantage applicants), and global privacy concerns may all influence applicant completion and withdrawal behaviors. The purpose of the current study was therefore to examine whether the relationship between perceived vulnerability regarding the use of information and general self-disclosure was mediated by one’s willingness to trust, as well as the link to the completion of applications. The authors collected data from an online sample of 222 student participants who were asked to respond to several hypothetical job scenarios suggesting social media screening. The results indicated that willingness to trust was an independent predictor of self-disclosure. However, while no support for mediation was found, a moderation effect transpired. Specifically, self-disclosure was lowest when both vulnerability and global privacy concerns were high. Follow-up analysis showed that self-disclosure predicted intention to continue with the application process. This suggests that prospective applicants’ willingness to trust, privacy concerns, and perceived vulnerability associated with the use of information about applicants may be important predictors of self-disclosure involved in information sharing (and thus applications submission/completion rates) during recruitment.
KeywordsApplicant behavior Self-disclosure Vulnerability Trust Recruitment
The authors would like to thank the students and colleagues in the Department of Psychology at Northumbria University for their support.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
None of the three authors received any research grants for this study. All three authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Department of Psychology at Northumbria University.
- ADA (2009). A Guide to Disability Rights Laws. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section. Available here: https://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm. Accessed 18 Jul 2018.
- Angwin, J., Scheiber, N., & Tobin, A. (2017). Dozens of Companies Are Using Facebook to Exclude Older Workers From Job Ads. Business Ethics. Published on 21 December 2017. Available here: http://business-ethics.com/2017/12/21/2140-dozens-of-companies-are-using-facebook-to-exclude-older-workers-from-job-ads/. Accessed 18 Jul 2018.
- Bauer, C. & Schiffinger, M. (2015). Self-disclosure in online interaction: A meta-analysis. In Proceedings of the 48 th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, 3621–3630.Google Scholar
- Bauer, C. & Schiffinger, M. (2016). Perceived risks and benefits of online self-disclosure: affected by culture? A meta-analysis of cultural differences as moderators of privacy calculus in person-to-crowd settings. Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul, Turkey, 12–15 June, AIS.Google Scholar
- Botes, J. (2015). Trust me, I'm a doctor...: Employment law. Without Prejudice, 15(10), 41–42.Google Scholar
- Carter, R. (2015). Too much information: The need for stronger privacy protection for the online activities of employees and applicants. Journal of Civil Rights & Economic Development, 28(3), 291–321.Google Scholar
- Disability Inclusion act (2014). https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/acts/2014-41.pdf. Accessed 18 Jul 2018.
- GDPR (2018). General Data Protection Regulation. https://www.eugdpr.org/. Accessed 18 Jul 2018.
- Guskin, S. L. (1982). The effects of knowing someone is handicapped on decision making: A review of the literature. In S. Sherman & N. Robinson (Eds.), Ability testing of handicapped people: Dilemma for government, science, and the public (pp. 165–189). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- IPIP (2016). International personality item Pool. Trust (A1). Available at: http://ipip.ori.org/newNEOKey.htm#Trust. Accessed 18 Jul 2018.
- Jeske, D., & Shultz, K.S. (2019). Social media screening and content effects: implications for job applicant reactions. International Journal of Manpower. ePub. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-06-2017-0138.
- LeBel, T. P. (2011). Invisible Stripes? Formerly Incarcerated Persons' Perceptions of Stigma. Deviant Behavior, 89–107 (ePub). https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2010.538365.
- Macan, T. H., & Dipboye, R. L. (1994). The Effects of the Application on Processing of Information From the Employment Interview. 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(14), 1291–1314.Google Scholar
- Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users' information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information systems research, 15(4), 336-355.Google Scholar
- Nelson, A. H. (2009). Adverse Impact and Disparate Treatment: Two Types of Discrimination. Alexandria: Society for Human Resource Management.Google Scholar
- Offender Rehabilitation Act (2014). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/11/contents. Accessed 18 Jul 2018.
- Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
- Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological process in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In J. Cacioppo & R. Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiology (pp. 153–174). New York: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
- Thorsden, T., Murawski, M., & Bick, M. (2016). The role of non-social benefits related to convenience: Towards an enhanced model of user’s self-disclosure in social networks. In Y.K. Dwivedi et al (Eds). I3E 2016, LNCS 9844, pp. 389–400.Google Scholar
- US Department of Labor (2018). Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Available at: https://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/sec504.htm. (Accessed 18 Jul 2018).