Outline Definition The interview as test Types of question Types of interview Principles of effective interviewing Problems the interviewer may face

1. Definition An interview is a conversation with a purpose Purpose: gathering information about the person being interviewed. Outcome: data for description, evaluation, and prediction

2. The interview as test Huffcutt et al.: Employment interviews are not like other tests Don’t tell us something specific Designed to allow a conclusion – e.g., should we hire this person? Outcome: complex function of many dimensions

2. The interview as test Huffcutt et al. (2001) Meta-analysis Reviewed 47 studies of the employment interview Concluded that interviews tell us about: Personality Social skills Mental ability Huffcutt, Conway, Roth, & Stone (2001) reviewed 47 studies of the employment interview to find out what underlying psychological constructs these studies focused on. They found 338 ‘dimensions’ measured in these studies, of which 35% fit into the category personality tendencies (e.g., assertive, dependable, friendly), 28% fit into the category applied social skills (e.g., communication skills, working with others, leadership), 16% assessed mental ability (e.g., analytical ability, problem solving, creativity), and 10% focused on knowledge and skills (e.g., technical knowledge, use of tools, grades in school). In other words, between them, those 47 studies found that the most common ‘target’ of the employment interview was the category personality characteristics while the second most common result was measurement of social skills.

3. Types of question Open-ended Closed-ended

Open-ended questions tailored to individual interviewee cannot be answered specifically responsive to what interviewee just said interviewee decides what is important to discuss, which tells you something about them

Closed-ended questions can be answered specifically interviewee has to recall something same questions for all interviewees

Comparison of the two types Open-ended What kinds of cars do you like? Tell me about your father Closed-ended Do you like sports cars? Is your father strict?

4. Types of interview Unstructured Structured Semi-structured Group

Unstructured interviews Questions follow from previous response – they’re not set ahead of time Follow up with understanding responses to encourage more disclosure

Unstructured interviews Advantages: Lots of data Unexpected things learned Disadvantages: subjective evaluation may wander off topic non-standardized – can’t be replicated

Structured interviews same procedure for all interviewees same questions asked in same sequence closed, short, clearly-worded questions follow a flow-chart (include/exclude some questions depending on answers to others)

Structured interviews Advantages: standardized format objective evaluation Disadvantage: one size may not fit all

Semi-structured interviews Shares some features with structured interview, some features with unstructured interview Guided by a script which gives focus Allows you to explore interesting responses

Group interviews Usually 3 – 10 people at one time May be structured or unstructured Really dependent upon skilled moderator

Group interviews Advantages Disadvantages: rich data variety of views expensive “loud-mouths” may dominate conformity pressure?

5. Principles of effective interviewing Be responsible Plan ahead Keep the interaction flowing Have the appropriate attitude

A. Be responsible Interviewer sets the tone Interviewer is responsible for success or failure of interview Professionals accept responsibility This principle of being responsible for your work sets professionals apart from non-professionals. If a bridge falls down, the engineer who supervised its construction is personally responsible for that failure. An engineer “signs” his work. Psychologists are professionals

B. Plan ahead Who will be interviewed? Where? When? What is the purpose? Which questions will you ask? In what order? Will you record?

C. Keep interaction flowing Conversation skills Comprehension monitoring Verbatim playback Paraphrasing Restatement Summarizing Clarifying Understanding Verbatim playback: repeat the interviewee’s last response Paraphrasing: accurate rewording of interviewee’s last response Restatement: rewording interviewee’s last response – less similar than paraphrase, but does not add new meaning Summarizing: integrates meaning of several of interviewee’s responses Clarification: clarifies interviewee’s response – interviewer states how he understands response, so interviewee can rephrase if necessary Understanding: shows that interviewer understands how the interviewee feels

Types of understanding response Carl Rogers created a typology of interviewer’s responses to interviewee 5 levels varying in how well the response connects to what interviewee just said Each level represents a degree of empathy Levels 4 and 5 primarily relevant for therapeutic interviews

Types of understanding response To be avoided: Level 1 – a series of non-sequiturs Level 2 – little connection with interviewee’s last response For unstructured interviews: Level 3 – interviewer’s response is interchangeable with interviewee’s last statement Each level represents a degree of empathy Levels 4 and 5 primarily relevant for therapeutic interviews

Types of understanding response Primarily used in therapeutic interviews: Level 4 –adds “noticeably” to interviewee’s response Level 5 – adds “significantly” to interviewee’s response Each level represents a degree of empathy Levels 4 and 5 primarily relevant for therapeutic interviews

D. Have appropriate attitude Interpersonal attraction predicts interpersonal influence Be warm, genuine, accepting, understanding, open, honest, fair

6. Problems interviewer may face Social facilitation Spotlight effect Validity & reliability issues

A. Social facilitation Occurs when people act like other people around them May not know you are doing this May communicate something E.g., Goldstein & Cialdini (2007) – spyglass effect Chartrand & Bargh (1999) – chameleon effect Akehurst & Vrij (1999) Interview may include not only deliberate spoken communication, but also subtle, unspoken communication participants may not be aware of. Imitation has been shown to build bonds, improve affect, social feeling. Akehurst & Vrij (1999): If one participant in an interview is more active, the other one becomes more active, too. They observed police officers interviewing criminal suspects and reported that when the officers moved (e.g., fidgeted) more, the suspects moved more, too – and the suspects’ fidgeting was interpreted as ‘suspicious’ so that the suspect was regarded as less credible.

B. Spotlight effect Gilovich et al (2000): People tend to believe that the social spotlight shines more brightly on them than it really does. You think other people notice all your mistakes and silliness But they don’t Gilovich, Medvec, & Savitsky (2000). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (2), 211-222

B. Spotlight effect Especially common in people who feel “different” to others around them on some dimension E.g., one student in a room full of professors; one woman in an office full of men Gilovich, Medvec, & Savitsky (2000). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (2), 211-222

C. Problems of validity predictive validity scores for interview data range from .09 to .94 (Wagner, 1949) consider interview data as tentative – a source of hypotheses to be tested against other data

C. Problems of validity Halo effect (Thorndike, 1920) tendency to judge specific traits on the basis of a general impression generalize judgments from limited experience Generalize judgments from limited experience – some information is better than none. Making objective, accurate observations is not natural. That’s why we invented science!

C. Problems of validity General standoutishness (Hollingworth, 1922) general judgment made on basis of one notable characteristic beautiful people often rated as more witty, likable, socially skilled, intelligent, warm (Feingold, 1992) Controllable characteristics (e.g., grooming) most important – were they controlled? Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304 – 341.

C. Problems of validity Cross-cultural interviews: lots of potential for misunderstanding Be flexible; introspect; learn about groups you will be in contact with

C. Problems of validity E.g., Darou et al. (2000): northern Quebec Cree ejected 7 of 8 psychologists who came to study them. Researchers asked Cree for self-disclosure, which is socially inappropriate among the Cree So the Cree were offended and the researchers didn’t learn anything (except about the taboo on asking for self-disclosure). (Darou, Kurtness, & Hum, 2000)

C. Problems of reliability inter-interviewer agreement twice as high for structured as for unstructured interviews may be low because 2 interviewers spontaneously focus on different things if so, train interviewers to focus on specific things that matter