Applicant Perspectives During Selection: A Review Addressing “So What?,” “What’s New?,” and “Where to Next?”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We provide a comprehensive but critical review of research on applicant reactions to selection procedures published since 2000 ( n = 145), when the last major review article on applicant reactions appeared in the Journal of Management. We start by addressing the main criticisms levied against the field to determine whether applicant reactions matter to individuals and employers (“So what?”). This is followed by a consideration of “What’s new?” by conducting a comprehensive and detailed review of applicant reaction research centered upon four areas of growth: expansion of the theoretical lens, incorporation of new technology in the selection arena, internationalization of applicant reactions research, and emerging boundary conditions. Our final section focuses on “Where to next?” and offers an updated and integrated conceptual model of applicant reactions, four key challenges, and eight specific future research questions. Our conclusion is that the field demonstrates stronger research designs, with studies incorporating greater control, broader constructs, and multiple time points. There is also solid evidence that applicant reactions have significant and meaningful effects on attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. At the same time, we identify some remaining gaps in the literature and a number of critical questions that remain to be explored, particularly in light of technological and societal changes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".