The? Influence of Attraction Effect on Hiring Decisions: Does Experience Matters??

Authors

Aqbal Hafiz Jasin Correctional Center
Alizi Alias Group Human Capital General Manager at Medic IG Holdings Sdn Bhd

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31580/jrp.v2i3.1726

Keywords:

Attraction effect, Decoy Candidate, Phantom Candidate, Hiring Decision, Job-Finalist Choice

Abstract

Evidence suggests that the contextual factor of attraction effects such as decoy and phantom candidates affect the task of choosing a single job candidate from a small set of comparable finalists. Nevertheless, the number of studies of the attraction effect on the job-finalist choice is relatively small and bound to methodological gaps (i.e., vulnerable to invariant sample and individuals’ differences). The present study examined the influence of decoy and phantom candidates on job-finalist choice as well as differences of such influence based on participants’ background. By using a within-subject, experimental design, 98 participants of different backgrounds (i.e., personnel selection workers and personnel selection students) were recruited to play the roles of hiring managers in three simulated employee selection scenarios. Results from McNemar’s chi-square revealed the following: (i) participants tend to choose the target candidate in decoy condition over control condition, (ii) participants tend to choose the target candidate in phantom condition over control condition and (iii) no difference in the number of participants who chose the target candidate in decoy and phantom conditions. Besides, results from further analysis on participants’ backgrounds showed: (i) the effect of a decoy candidate is significant among students but not among workers (ii) the effect of phantom candidate is not significant among both workers and students, and (iii) the difference between the effects of decoy and phantom candidates is significant among workers but not among students. The implications of these findings were discussed, and recommendations for future research are provided.

Author Biographies

Aqbal Hafiz, Jasin Correctional Center

Aqbal currently works as a Psychology Officer at the Jasin Correctional Center Melaka under the Malaysian Prison Department. He graduated with a bachelor’s degree from Universiti Perguruan Sultan Idris (UPSI), Tanjung Malim, Perak in 2016. He enrolled in the master’s programme under the Department of Psychology, Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge & Human Sciences (KIRKHS), International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). He graduated in 2018, specialising in the Industrial and Organisational Psychology
Alizi Alias , Group Human Capital General Manager at Medic IG Holdings Sdn Bhd

Alizi Alias (PhD) currently works as the Group Human Capital General Manager at Medic IG Holdings Sdn Bhd. He also involved in consultancy activities. Previously, he works in his alma mater as an Assistant Professor at the Department of Psychology, Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge & Human Sciences (KIRKHS), International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). He obtained his PhD from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, specialising in the Industrial and Organisational Psychology

Contact: alizialias@gmail.com ; +60132881602

References

REFERENCES

Banerjee, P., Chatterjee, P., Mishra, S. & Mishra, A. A. (2020). When should we not expect ?attraction effect? The moderating influence of analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of ?Strategic Marketing, 28(5), 399-416. ?

Bhatia, S. (2014). Confirmatory search and asymmetric dominance. Journal of Behavioral ?Decision Making, 27, 468-476.?

Connolly, T., Reb, J. & Kausel, E. E. (2013). Regret salience and accountability in the decoy ?effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(2), 136-149.?

Doyle, J. R., O'Connor, D. J., Reynolds, G. M. & Bottomley, P. A. (1999). The robustness of ?asymmetrically dominated effect: Buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in-store ?purchases. Psychology & Marketing, 16(3), 225-243.?

Edwards, W. (1983). Human cognitive capabilities, representativeness, and ground rules for ?research. In Weiss, J. W., & Weiss, D. J. (eds.). 2008. A Science of Decision Making: The ?Legacy of Ward Edwards, 339-346.?

Guney, B. & Richter, M. (2015). An experiment on aspiration-based choice. Journal of ?Economic Behavior and Organization, 119, 512-526.?

Hedgcock, W. M., Rao, R. S. & Chen, H. (2016). Choosing to choose: The effects of decoys ?and prior choice on deferral. Articles in Advance, 1-25.?

Highhouse, S. (1996). Context-dependent selection: The effects of decoy and phantom job ?candidates. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(1), 68-76.?

Highhouse, S., & Johnson, M. A. (1996). Gain/loss asymmetry and riskless choice: loss ?aversion in choice among job finalists. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision ?Processes, 68(3), 225-233.?

Highhouse, S. (1997). Understanding and improving job-finalist choice: The relevance of ?behavioral decision research. Human Resource Management Review, 7(4), 449-470.?

Huber, J., Payne, J. W. & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: ?Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90-??98.?

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and ?Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.?

Keck, S., & Tang, W. (2015). Choice sets and gender bias in hiring decisions: The role of ?decoys. Paper presented at the 25th Subjective Probability, Utility, and Decision Making ??(SPUDM) Conference, 16-20 August, Budapest.?

Keren, G. B., & Raaijmakers, J. G. (1988). On between-subjects versus within-subjects ?comparisons in testing utility theory. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision ?Processes, 41(2), 233–247.?

Koscielniak M., Rydzewska, K. & Sedek, S. (2018). Commentary: The attraction effect in ?decision making: superior performance by older adults. Frontier Psychology. ?https://www.frontiersin.org/. Retrieved on 20 July 2019.?

Maurer, R. (2015). Morale, productivity suffers from bad hires. Society for Human Resource ?Management. http://shrm.org/. Retrieved on 4 February 2016.?

Mohr, P. N. C., Heekeren, H. R. & Rieskamp, J. (2017). Attraction effect in risky choice can ?be explained by subjective distance between choice alternatives. Scientific Reports. ?https://www.nature.com/scientificreports/. Retrieved on 12 April 2018. ?

Pettibone, J. C. & Wedell, D. H. (2007). Testing alternative explanations of phantom decoy ?effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 323-341.?

Pettibone, J. C. & Wedell, D. H. (2000). Examining models of nondominated decoy effects ?across judgment and choice. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(2), ??300-328.?

Ratneshwar, S., Shocker, A. D. & Stewart, D. W. (1987). Toward understanding the ?attraction effect: The implications of product stimulus meaningfulness and familiarity. ?Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 520–533. ?

Rosati, A. G. & Stevens, J. R. (2009). The adaptive nature of context-dependent choice. In ?Watanabe, S., Young, A., Blaisdell, A. & Yamazaki Y. (eds.). Rational Animal, Irrational ?Human. Tokyo: Keio University Press.?

Scarpi, D. & Pizzi, G. (2013). The impact of phantom decoys on choices and perceptions. ?Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 451-461.?

Sivakumar, K. (2016). A unified conceptualisation of the attraction effect. Academy of ?Marketing Science Review, 6(1), 39-58.?

Slaughter, J. E. (2007). Effects of two selection batteries on decoy effects in job-finalist ?choice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(1), 76-90.?

Slaughter, J. E., Bagger, J. & Li, A. (2006). Context effects on group-based employee ?selection decisions. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 47-59.?

Slaughter, J. E., Sinar, E. F. & Highhouse, S. (1999). Decoy effects and attribute-level ?inferences. Journal of Applied Psychology 84(5): 823-828.?

Trueblood, J. S. & Pettibone, J. C. (2015). The phantom decoy effect in perceptual decision ?making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(2), 157-167.?

Wang, J. & Kleiner, B. (2004). Effective employment screening practices. Management ?Research News, 27(4), 99-107.?

Wedell, D. H., & Pettibone, J. C. (1999). Preference and the contextual basis of ideals in ?judgment and choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(3), 346-361.?