Is Anybody Watching Me? Effects of Information About Evaluators on Applicants' Use of Impression Management in Asynchronous Video Interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Asynchronous video interviews (AVIs) are widely used in hiring, but the lack of social presence (e.g., uncertainty about the identity of evaluators) may hinder effective impression management (IM) for applicants. This study examined whether providing information about evaluators facilitates applicant IM use in AVIs, specifically ingratiation or self‐promotion. It also explored the experience involved in applicants' response generation. In a mock AVI, 160 participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (with or without information about the evaluator). They reported their thoughts after watching their interview recordings. Providing information about the evaluator enhanced ingratiation but did not affect self‐promotion. Qualitative analyses revealed that participants with evaluator information were more likely to reference organizational values and align themselves with the evaluator, whereas those without it concentrated more on demonstrating their job‐relevant skills. Participants' reported thoughts and emotions suggested that formulating suitable answers and interacting with a computer represent major concerns.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".