Serious games can be used as self-assessment tools in recruiting processes. We develop a
model explaining jobseekers' intentions to use these applications, which help them to gain
a realistic idea of the job at hand and allows them to submit their application only if
the job truly fits their individual profile. Drawing on organizational justice theory and
the technology acceptance literature, our model is empirically evaluated using data from
1,882 jobseekers. The results indicate that jobseekers' intention to use self-assessments
is driven in particular by its perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, perceived
enjoyment, and perceived selection fairness. In contrast, the issue of privacy security
has no significant impact on jobseekers' intentions. For firms, using serious games as a
self-assessment tool can lead to a reduction in the total number of unsuitable
applications they receive.
BagozziR. P.YiY.
(1988). On the evaluation of structural equation
models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
16(1),
74–94.
2.
BaronR. M.KennyD.
A. (1986). The
moderator-mediator variable Distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6),
1173–1182.
3.
BauerT. N.TruxilloD.
M.SanchezR.
J.CraigJ.
M.FerraraP.CampionM.
A. (2001). Appliant
reactions to selection: Development of the selection procedural justice
scale. Personnel Psychology,
54(2),
387–419.
4.
BhattacherjeeA.PremkumarG.
(2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward
information technology usage: A theoretical model and longituinal test.
MIS Quarterly, 28(2),
229–254.
5.
BondaroukT.RuëlH.
(2009). Electronic human resource management: Challenges in
the digital era. International Journal of Human
Resource, 20(3),
505–514.
6.
BondaroukT.RuëlH.van der
HeijdenB.
(2009). e-HRM Effectiveness in a public sector organization:
A multi-stakeholder perspective. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 20(3),
578–590.
7.
BriefA. P.AldagR.
J. (1977). The
Intrinsic-Extrinsic Dichotomy: Toward Conceptual Clarity.
Academy of Management Review, 2(3),
496–500.
8.
Buzzetto-MoreN.AladeA.
(2006). Best practices in e-assessment.
Journal of Information Technology Education,
5(1),
251–269.
9.
CaligiuriP.
M.PhillipsJ.
M. (2003). An
application of self-assessment: Realistic job previews to expatriate
assignments. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 14(7),
1102–1116.
10.
ChaoD.
L. (2004). Computer
games as interfaces. Interactions,
11(5),
71–72.
11.
ChinW.
W. (1998a). Issues and
opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly,
22(1), vii.
12.
ChinW.
W. (1998b). The partial
least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In MarcoulidesG.
A. (ed.), Modern methods for business
research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
CrookallD.
(2010). Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as
a discipline. Simulation & Gaming,
41(6),
898–920.
14.
DavisF.
D. (1989). Perceived
usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly,
13(3),
319–340.
15.
DavisF. D.BagozziR.
P.WarshawP.
R. (1989). User
acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical
models. Management Science,
35(8),
982–1003.
16.
DavisF. D.BagozziR.
P.WarshawP.
R. (1992). Extrinsic
and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
22(14),
1111–1132.
17.
DineenB. R.NoeR. A.WangC.
(2004). Perceived fairness of web-based applicant screening
procedures: Weighing the rules of justice and the role of individual
differences. Human Resource Management,
43(2–3),
127–145.
18.
EckhardtA.LaumerS.MaierC.WeitzelT.
(2012). Bewerbermanagementsysteme in deutschen
Großunternehmen: Wertbeitrag von IKT für Dienstleistungsproduzierende Leistungs- und
Lenkungssysteme. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft (ZfB)
(Journal of Business Economics), forthcoming.
19.
ElkinsT. J.PhilipsJ.
S. (2000). Job
context, selection decision outcome, and the perceived fairness of selection tests:
Biodata as an illustrative case. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(3),
479–484.
20.
FeldmanD. C.KlaasB.
S. (2002). Internet
job hunting: A field study of applicant experiences with online
recruiting. Human Resource Management,
41(2),
175–192.
21.
FornellC. R.LarckerD.
F. (1981). Evaluating
structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1),
39–50.
22.
GillilandS.
W. (1993). The
perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice
perspective. Academy of Management Review,
18(4),
694–734.
23.
GoodmanL.
A. (1960). On the exact
variance of products. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 55(292),
708–713.
24.
GreenbergJ.CropanzanoR.
(2001). Avances in organizational justice.Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
25.
HausknechtJ.
P.DayD. V.ThomasS.
C. (2004). Applicant
reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 57(3),
639–683.
26.
HullandJ.
(1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic
management research: A review of four recent studies, Strategic
Management Journal, 20(2),
195–204.
27.
IvesB.JunglasI.
(2008). APC forum: Business implications of virtual worlds
and serious gaming. MIS Quarterly Executive,
7(3),
151–157.
28.
KirkleyS.KirkleyJ.
(2004). Creating next generation blended learning
environments using mixed reality, video games and simulations.
TechTrends, 49(3),
42–53.
29.
KonradtU.SargesW.
(2003). E-recruitment and e-assessment.Göttingen:
Hogrefe.
LangS.LaumerS.EckhardtA.
(2011). Drivers, challenges and consequences of e-recruiting
– A literature review. Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGMIS CPR
Conference.San Antonio (TX).
32.
LaumerS.EckhardtA.
(2010). Why do people reject technologies? Towards an
understanding of resistance to IT-induced organizational change.
Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS).
St. Louis (MO)..
33.
LaumerS.EckhardtA.TrunkN.
(2010). Do as your parents say? Analyzing IT adoption
influencing factors for full and under age applicants.
Information Systems Frontiers, 12(2),
169–183.
34.
LaumerS.StettenA.
v.EckhardtA.WeitzelT.
(2009a). Online gaming to apply for jobs -the impact of
self- and e-assessment on staff recruitment. Proceedings of the
42th Hawaii Conference on System Sciences..
35.
LaumerS.von
StettenA.EckhardtA.
(2009b). E-assessment. Business
& Information Systems Engineering1(3),
263–265.
36.
LeeY.KozarK.
A.LarsenK.
(2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and
future. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 12(50),
752–780.
37.
LwinM.WirtzJ.WilliamsJ.
D. (2007). Consumer
online privacy concers and responses: A power-responsibility equilibrium
perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 35(4),
572–585.
38.
MathiesonK.
(1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology
acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior.
Information Systems Research, 2(3),
173–191.
39.
NunnallyJ.
C.BernsteinI.
H. (1994). Psychometric
theory.New York:
McGraw-Hill.
40.
PandelievV.
T.BaeckerR.
M. (2010). A framework
for the online evaluation of serious games. Proceedings of the
International Academic Conference on the Future of Game Design and Technology,
239–242.Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada:
ACM.
41.
PloyhartR.
E.RyanA.
M. (1998). Applicants'
reactions to the fairness of selection procedures: The effects of positive rule
violations and time of measurement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(1),
3–16.
42.
PodsakoffP.
M.MacKenzieS.
B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN.
P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83(5),
879–903.
43.
PrenskyM.
(2003). Digital game-based learning.
Computer Entertainment, 1(1),
21–21.
RuëlH.BondaroukT.Van der
VeldeM.
(2007). The contribution of e-HRM to HRM effectiveness:
Results from a quantitative study in a Dutch ministry. Employee
Relations, 29(3),
280–291.
46.
RyanA. M.PloyhartR.
E. (2000). Applicants'
perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the
future. Journal of Management,
26(3),
565–606.
47.
SchultzeU.OrlikowskiW.
J. (2010). Virtual
worlds: A performative perspective on globally distributed, immersive
work. Information Systems Research,
21(4),
810–821.
48.
ShneidermanB.2004. Designing for fun: How can we design user interfaces to
be more fun?Interactions, 11(5),
48–50.
49.
SobelM.
E. (1982). Asymptotic
confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models.
In LeinhardtS.
(Ed.), Sociological Methodology13 (pp. 290–312). Washington
DC: American Sociological
Association.
50.
SteinkuehlerC.
A. (2004). Learning
massively in multiplayer online games. Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Learning Sciences.Santa Monica, CA, USA.
51.
StrohmeierS.
(2010). Electronic portfolios in recruiting? A conceptual
analysis of usage. Journal of Electronic Commerce
Research, 11(4),
268–280.
52.
SunH.ZhangP.
(2006). Causal relationships between perceived enjoyment and
perceived ease of use: An alternative approach. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 7(9),
618–645.
53.
TsangM.FitzmauriceG.KurtenbachG.KhanA.
(2003). Game-like navigation and responsiveness in non-game
applications. Communications of the ACM,
46(7),
56–61.
54.
UnderwoodJ. D.
M.BanyardP.
E.DaviesM. N.
O. (2007). Students in
digital worlds: Lost in sin city or reaching treasure island?BJEP Monograph Series II, Number 5 – Learning through Digital
Technologies, 1,
83–99.
55.
van der
HeijdenH.
(2004). User acceptance of hedonic information
systems. MIS Quarterly,
28(4),
695–704.
56.
VenkateshV.
(1999). Creation of favorable user perceptions: Exploring
the role of intrinsic motiavtion. MIS Quarterly,
23(2),
239–260.
57.
VenkateshV.
(2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating
control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance
model. Information Systems Research,
11(4), 342.
58.
VenkateshV.BalaH.
(2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda
on interventions. Decision Sciences,
39(2),
273–315.
59.
VenkateshV.DavisF.
D. (1996). A model of
the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test.
Decision Sciences, 27(3),
451–481.
60.
VenkateshV.DavisF.
D. (2000). A
theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field
studies. Management Science,
46(2), 186.
61.
VenkateshV.MorrisM.
G. (2000). Why don't
men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in
technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS
Quarterly, 24(1),
15–139.
62.
VenkateshV.DavisF.MorrisM.
G. (2007). Dead or
alive? The development, trajectory and future of technology adoption
research. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 8(4), Article 10.
63.
VenkateshV.MorrisM.
G.DavisG.
B.DavisF.
D. (2003). User
acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS
Quarterly, 27(3),
425–478.
64.
WeissE.
A. (1990).
Self-assessment. Communiaction of the
ACM, 33(11),
110–132.
65.
WiblenS.GrantD.DeryK.
(2010). Transitioning to a new HRIS: The reshaping of human
resources and information technology talent. Journal of
Electronic Commerce Research, 11(4),
251–267.
66.
WiechmannD.RyanA.
M. (2003). Reactions
to computerized testing in selection contexts. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(2–3),
215–229.
67.
WilliamsM.
D.DwivediY.
K.LalB.SchwarzA.
(2009). Contemporary trends and issues in IT adoption and
diffusion research. Journal of Information Technology,
24(1),
1–10.
