major assignment 2 the differing interview performance of ...€¦ · interview perfomance of...

Running Head: INTERVIEW PERFORMANCE OF INTROVERTS 1

Major Assignment 2

The Differing Interview Performance of Introverts and Extroverts

Jayme Keefer

Queens University of Charlotte

12 April 2016

INTERVIEW PERFOMANCE OF INTROVERTS 2

Question

To apply the existing knowledge of personality differences of extroverts and introverts to

the workplace, I plan to explore the question of whether or not female introverts perform

differently than extroverts in structured panel behavioral interview situations. Performance can

be defined in a number of ways that often are specific to the context in which the participant is

being interviewed. For example, the criteria for a job interview for an accounting position would

include objective competencies such as the number of years of experience or performance scores

on certification examinations.

However, the purpose of this research is to focus less on technical competencies and

more so on behavioral responses to the interview process itself. Given this, I plan to define

performance as a quantifiable score for a list of common behavioral indicators. These scores will

be given by a series of interviewers based on their impression of the interviewees’ behavior.

Relevance

This topic is highly relevant to the human resources field. These professionals are

responsible for finding, retaining, and developing talent for their organization. To do this, they

must be well-versed in hiring practices that allow them to locate the candidate that best fits the

requirement of the position for which they are being hired.

With the complications of personality differences, simple personal preferences can be

misinterpreted as indicators of work ethic or qualifications. Typical interviews often judge a

candidate’s qualifications and personality preferences. While these may be simple topics for an

extroverted person to address, talking about oneself to a stranger is a true challenge for an

introvert. The traits often looked for in interviews are traits inherent for extroverts and

uncomfortable for introverts.

I personally experienced a disadvantage in an interview because of my natural personality

as an introvert. In a follow-up meeting about my interview for a research grant program, I was

told that I was more qualified than the other candidates, but the interviewing committee rejected

me because I spoke too softly and took too long to answer questions. These seemed like

ridiculous reasons to me and sparked an interest to discover if other introverts experience similar

treatment in interviews.

Past Research

It appears that there is limited research making direct connections between introversion

and interview performance. Phillips and Bruch (1988) show how “shy” men value assertiveness

in job interviews, and this hopefully will shed some light on the issue. However, this research is

extremely limited to only men and their expectations in interviews. It does not analyze actual

performance. It is also quite outdated and thus in need of updating. My study would be recent,

limited to females, and evaluative of actual practical interview performance rather than

theoretical preferences.


In terms of how interviewers evaluate candidates, research suggests an interviewer’s

perception of a candidate did not always correspond with their actual score of the candidate

(Akhuly & Gupta, 2014). They found that interviewers were highly unlikely to agree with one

another about their overall impressions of potential candidates and they often believe they scored

individuals differently than they actually did. Again, this research does not immediately make

the connection I am striving to make, but it will hopefully provide insight into how interviewers

evaluate personality. Such perception biases will be accounted for in the evaluation rubric and be

addressed in follow-up focus group questions. One way to explore this phenomenon is to ask

“What scores do you believe you gave Interviewee A?” followed by me showing them their

actual score and then asking “Why do you think there is (or is not) a difference in these scores?”

There is some research, however, that may prove more useful in looking at how well an

interviewer can assess the personality of a person in a structured interview setting. Research

from Clemson University suggests that structured interviews with standard questions could be

detrimental to an interviewer accurately determining an interviewee’s personality traits (Van

Iddekinge, Raymark, Roth, 2001). This research, while not specifically referencing introversion

or extroversion, will certainly prove useful in establishing the flawed nature of structured

interviews. Further research will need to be conducted on how introverts respond to such

objective questions. This further research will inform how interviewer participants are briefed

before the experiment scenario and will provide topics of discussion for the interviewee focus

groups.

Common Methods

In the mentioned studies, the data was collected by means of evaluative criteria on

objective, numerical scales where potential interviewees were asked to either rate their

preference for an activity on a Likert-esque scale or potential interviewers gave a high or low

score for a candidate in four categories.

Similarly, I would use a rating system to objectively gauge interviewees’ and

interviewers’ behavior and responses. However, I plan to go further by using qualitative follow-

up interviews to account for more complex observations, insights, and explanations.

For personality assessment instruments, I initially considered using the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator (MBTI) or the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. However, past research has surfaced

other personality instruments I will consider using including the NEO Personality Inventory from

the Van Iddekinge, Raymark, Roth (2001) study which bases assessments on the Big Five

personality traits. Given that there is a 74 percent correlation between the scores given for

extroversion on the Big Five and the MBTI, either instrument will be useful in determining

whether a participant is more introverted or extroverted (Development Edge Consulting, 2000).

A potential problem with this assessment is its classification of participants as either more

extroverted or less extroverted rather than a more categorical approach like the MBTI which

measures participants as either more introverted or more extroverted. The NEO’s lack of the

term “introversion” may cause issues, but a final decision on instrumentation will not be made

until the validity and reliability of all potential instruments have been evaluated.


Contribution to the Body of Work

As stated, the existing research does not test any direct correlation between introversion

and interview performance. My research could be one of the first in the human resources field to

make this direct correlation and provide applicable considerations for hiring professionals in the

future. Such information could provide organizations with the understanding of personality

differences needed to make more educated hiring decisions. Without such research, simple

personality preferences could be misinterpreted as indicators of poor work habits and may

prevent an ideal candidate from being hired. If professionals have this understanding of how

different types of people perform in interviews, they can be more sensitive to these behaviors and

make hiring and professional development decisions that are more beneficial long-term.

Theoretical Lens

While more potential lenses may become applicable as research continues, I plan to use

the lenses of Mead’s theory of symbolic interactionism and Jung’s theory of temperaments.

Symbolic interactionism refers to the co-construction of reality when two or more participants

engage in a communication activity. This is applicable to the research in its explanation of how

two strangers develop impressions of each other as they interact and how individual personality

preferences may influence one’s judgement of another person. The theory of temperament will

illuminate the differences in behavior and expectation of introverts and extroverts. This lens

acknowledges that the classifications are not mutually exclusive, but rather a person leans in one

direction or the other depending on the situation. This flexible lens supports my decision to use

follow-up interviews with participants to explore the complexities of the interview interactions.

The historic significance of this lens also lends credence to my study and encourages modern

application of a highly regarded concept.

Methods

To test my hypothesis that introverts perform differently than extroverts in structured

interview settings, I plan to take an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach. An

experiment will first be conducted to test the scenario. From the experiment, quantitative data

will be collected to then be elaborated upon during focus groups with participants to gain further

insight into perceptions of the process.

Experiment. The first method will be an experiment. I will sample traditional

undergraduate students at Queens University of Charlotte to result in a sample size of

approximately 100-150 female students. I will then electronically administer to these students a

personality assessment to determine their level of introversion and extroversion (Appendix A).

The instrument for this first piece of data will be the Myers Briggs Type Indicator due to its

common use in human resources hiring practices. For each numbered set, participants will

choose between two given statements about their preferences. Each statement are designed to

align with the personality preferences of either an introvert or an extrovert. Statements in

Column A indicate extroversion while statements in Column B indicate introversion. The

pairings of these statements will be randomized as will the order of the numbered sets. Based on

these assessments, I will separate students into categories of introverts or extroverts if they score


a five or higher on the preference clarity index (PCI) which should roughly equate to at least 20

percent on either side of the Ambivert Personality Continuum Scale (CPP, 2015 & Sol, 2012).

There is a strong chance I will have a nearly equal number of participants in each personality

category as approximately 49.3 percent of the United States population are considered extroverts

and 50.7 percent are considered introverts (Myers Briggs Foundation, 2016). I will then use

stratified sampling to ask an equal number of introverts and extroverts to then participate in the

full experiment. In addition to these categories, I will stratify the sample by year in college and

major to minimize a biased sample. This stratified sample should result in 16 to 20 students total

with 8 to 10 in each personality category.

The students will then be asked to participate in a structured panel interview simulation

with questions often used in behavioral interviews (Appendix B). The order of the interview

questions will be randomized for each interviewee (Appendix C). In the interview, interviewees

will be asked to describe past situations where they exhibited different characteristics

(Armstrong, 2008). These types of questions are designed to assess applicant abilities by “(1)

determining how well you work under pressure, (2) finding out how well you work with others;

and (3) establishing whether you can resolve conflicts” (Marshall & Heffes, 2007, p. 11). In

other words, behavioral interviews should provide “insight on how a candidate’s mind operates”

(Eng, 1997). This makes a behavioral interview an appropriate scenario to use for this study. The

questions are designed to avoid skill-specific assessments that could interfere with the reliability

of responses.

As there will be several interview situations, I will limit the number of experiments to

four 20-minute interviews per day with 10 minute breaks in between each to encourage the

interviewer participants to focus closely on each interview and to not exhaust the interviewers.

The interview will ideally be conducted by a panel of either three randomly selected Queens

faculty or three members of the Queens internship staff. However, if this is not feasible, each day

of interviews will be conducted by a unique set of two interviewers. All interviewer participants

will be asked to take the same MBTI assessment to ensure the interviewers are not

disproportionately one type or another. These results will not be directly included in the data

analysis process but may serve useful in identifying potential trends or biases in rubric scores.

Before interviews begin, all interviewer participants will participate in a training or

briefing session regarding how to properly conduct the interviews to ensure consistency and

clarity (Appendix D). Interviewers will be asked to assess only the behavior of the candidate and

not the content of the responses. Interviewers will not know which interviewee participants are

introverts or extroverts to minimize bias. They will record their impressions of the interviewee

on a rubric with criteria culminated from other behavior-based rubrics. I will also be present in

the room making notes and the interview will be recorded on video for future reference and

analysis. All participants will sign a release form before the experiment begins allowing me to

record their interactions.

The rubrics will contain criteria based on research concerning typical measures of

behavior in structured interview settings. Research results included findings from the United

States Office of Personnel Management (2008) and common human resources blogs (Sandberg,


2012). I drafted a basic rubric that is subject to changes (Appendix E). Sandberg’s (2012) article

suggested having interviewers weight the importance of each criterion so that some behaviors

will be given more of an influence in the total scores. While the inclusion of the weighting may

be helpful in practical interview scenarios, it will only add unnecessary complexity to my data.

However, I have chosen to include the weighting category in my sample rubric. This weighting

will not affect interviewee scores, but will be used in analyzing any differences in interviewer

perceptions of interviewees. Given the complexity, this aspect may be later removed from the

study but will be included for now.

Given that the rubric is not a standard instrument but rather a culmination of other

instruments, I may experience difficulties with validity and reliability. Ideally, I would have the

time and resources to first test and strengthen my instrument before beginning my experiment,

but this may not be possible given the time and resource constraints.

Other challenges may involve approval of my experiment by the Queens University of

Charlotte Internal Review Board. It is less common for students to conduct experiments rather

than simple surveys, interviews, or focus groups, so I may face some extra criticism for my

decision. However, I plan to address this issue by ensuring that my interview questions do not

contain personal questions that may make participants uncomfortable. I will also need to ensure

that interviewer participants sign confidentiality agreements prohibiting them from discussion

student behavior outside the structured experiment feedback process. With these precaution, I

will hopefully face minimal scrutiny from the review board.

Data from the rubrics will then be statistically analyzed. Overall scores will be calculated

as well as sectioned scores for sets of criteria such as body language, speech patterns, and overall

impression. These sections have not yet been added to the provided sample rubric (Appendix E).

Once scores have been calculated for each interviewee participant, they will be statistically

analyzed to provide a mean, standard deviation, and outliers for both the sample as a whole and

for the individual personality categories of introverts and extroverts. These two sets of

comparative statistics will show whether introverts as a whole score differently than extroverts as

a whole. If the means for these two groups do not show a statistically significant difference, then

the influence of personality type be shown to be negligible in structured interview settings and

my hypothesis will not be supported.

Focus Groups. Personality types and behavior in general are highly subjective and

quantitative data may not provide a full picture of what interactions and meanings are being

made in the situation. That said, I will be conducting focus groups with the interviewee

participants as well as an interviewer participant debrief session. The debrief session will be

made up of the three interviewer participants and will allow them to discuss with me and each

other their impressions of the interviewee participants and why they chose the scores they did.

This will provide insight into the meaning-making process from the interviewers’ perspective.

This debrief focus group will be structured and facilitated by me and will be video recorded for

future reference and objective analysis. Transcripts of this focus group will be written. The focus

group will take place a few days after each set of initial experiments to give participants a break

from the process and allow them to consider thoughtful responses before participating in the


discussion. Focus group questions will be provided in advance to encourage participants to

consider their responses (Appendix F).

The interviewee participant focus groups will be conducted after all interviews have been

completed. At least two focus groups will be conducted, one for introverted interviewees and one

for extroverted interviewees. If the sample of participants is large enough, I may conduct two

focus groups for each personality type to ensure smaller discussion groups. Participants will

receive the questions and discussion topics in advance so they have the opportunity to reflect and

consider their responses (Appendix G). The focus groups will be facilitated by me and will be

video recorded. Transcripts of the focus groups will be generated. Questions will explore the

interviewees’ impressions of the experience. Focus group questions will be provided in advance

to encourage participants to consider their responses. They will not be informed of their

individual scores, but I will tell participants if there was a statistically significant difference

between the scores of the personality categories. I will then encourage them to discuss why the

results may have been this way. Such personal insights and explanations may provide

information I had not considered and will contribute to the depth of analysis.


References

Akhuly, A. & Gupta, M. (2014). Competency based recruitment decisions: A lens model

approach. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(4), 279-306.

Armstrong, S. (2008). How to master behavioral interviews. The Essential HR Handbook. Career

Press, Incorporated. ISBN: 1564149900.

CPP, Incorporated. (2015, Sept. 25). MBTI profile: College edition.

Development Edge Consulting Limited. (2000). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Retrieved

from http://www.dec.co.th/mbti_explanation.htm.

Eng, S. (1997, May 26). For example: Stories, specifics help in behavioral job interview. St.

Louis Post – Dispatch. St. Louis, MO: Knight-Ridder Newspapers. Retrieved from

https://ezproxy.queens.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/4036539

80?accountid=38688.

Marshall, J. & Heffes, E. (2007, Nov.). Advice on mastering the behavioral interview. Financial

Executive (23)9. p. 11.

Myers Briggs Foundation. (2016). How frequent is my type. The Myers & Briggs Foundation.

Retrieved from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-

results/how-frequent-is-my-type.htm.

Phillips, S. D. & Bruch, M. A. (1988). Shyness and dysfunction in career development. Journal

of Counseling Psychology, 35(2), 159-165.

Sandberg, A. (2012, Nov. 11). Rating scales commonly used in interviewing. Ready to Manage.

Retrieved from http://blog.readytomanage.com/rating-scales-commonly-used-in-

interviewing/.

Sol, M. (2012). Ambiversion: The lost personality type. Lonerwolf. Retrieved from

http://lonerwolf.com/ambivert/.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2008, Sept.). Structured Interviews: A Practical Guide.

Van Iddekinge, Raymark, P, Roth P. L. (2001). Assessing personality with a structured

interview: The effect of faking and question type on interviewer ratings. ProQuest

Dissertation Publishing.


Appendix A

Myers Briggs Type Indicator Introversion-Extroversion Cover Letter & Assessment

I am an undergraduate communication student at Queens University of Charlotte. With

the support of the James L. Knight School of Communication at Queens University of Charlotte,

I am conducting research concerning the influence of selected personality traits on the interview

performance of college females. The results of this research will be presented as part of my

Capstone and could have practical applications for human resources hiring and candidate

evaluation processes.

For the first stage of my research, I am asking full-time traditional undergraduate Queens

students to answer the following questions about their personality preferences. All results are

confidential and will only be reported as a mix of all responses. Your individual responses will

never be shared. As personality is a key element to this study, some questions may make you

uncomfortable. It is okay to skip questions you do not wish to answer.

Thank you in advance for your participation in this research. If you have any questions

about the study or the use of your responses, please contact me.

Jayme Keefer

Communication Major & Knight Scholar

Queens University of Charlotte ‘17

[email protected]


DIRECTIONS: Read over the following statements for each number and click on the statement

that is more like you.

Column A Column B

1. Project my energy outward, making my

actions easy for all to see.

Keep my energy inside, making it difficult

for others to know me.

2. Absorb myself in activities. Absorb myself in thought.

3. Focus outwardly toward activities and

action.

Focus inwardly toward thoughts and ideas.

4. Tolerate crowds and noise. Avoid crowds and seek quiet.

5. Be distracted easily. Concentrate well.

6. Meet new people easily. Proceed cautiously when meeting new

people and participate in selected activities.

7. Enjoy public places with lots going on. Enjoy private areas where I can be alone.

8. Get restless without involvement with

people.

Get agitated without enough time alone or

undisturbed.

9. Communicate outwardly with energy,

excitement, and enthusiasm with almost

anyone in the vicinity.

Keep my energy, enthusiasm, and

excitement to myself, unless I am sharing it

with someone I know well.

10. Respond quickly to questions. Take time to think before responding to

questions and outward events.

11. Communicate one-on-one and in groups

with equal ease and enjoyment.

Prefer communicating one-on-one.

12. Need to moderate myself in order to allow

others a chance to speak.

Need to be drawn out and invited by others

to speak.

13. Think out loud, interact with others, and in

the process reach my conclusions.

Reflect for a time before presenting my

conclusions to others.

14. Need to share my experiences with others

almost as soon as they happen.

Need to internally review my experiences

before sharing them with others.

15. Share personal information easily. Hesitate about sharing personal information.

16. Like having many acquaintances and

friendships in addition to my primary one.

Like knowing a few select people and favor

relating to only one individual deeply.


17. Enter new friendships and relationships

easily.

Show caution in beginning new

relationships.

18. Talk about my relationships to others. Keep thoughts about my relationships to

myself.

19. Make contact with almost everyone at social

events.

Stick with a few people at social events.

20. Discuss any and all of my thoughts readily

with my partner.

Sort through my thoughts first before

sharing them—or keeping them to myself.

21. Become lonely quickly when I do not have

contact with others.

Tolerate loneliness well.

22. Share my personal space and time easily

with others.

Require my own personal space with plenty

of private time.

23. At parties, I usually stay late with increasing

energy.

At parties, I usually leave early with

decreased energy.

24. At work, I tend to become impatient and

bored when my work is slow and

unchanging.

At work, I tend to become impatient and

annoyed when my work is interrupted and

rushed.

25. Be focused equally on what is going on in

the office as well as with my work.

Be focused more on the work only and not

on what is going on in the office.

26. Enjoy phone calls as a welcome diversion. Find phone calls intrusive, especially when

trying to concentrate.

27. Develop my ideas through discussion. Develop my ideas through reflection.

28. Interaction with new people stimulates and

energizes me.

Interaction with new people taxes my

reserves.

29. I speak easily and at length with strangers. I find little to say to strangers.

30. I prefer to have many friends even though

our contact may be brief.

I prefer to have a few close friends with

long contact.

Controls

DIRECTIONS: Choose the response that most accurately describes you.

What is your gender? Male or Female

In what year were you born?


What is your current year?

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

Approximately how many times have you been interviewed?

0-5 times

6-10 times

11-15 times

Over 15 times

What is your race?

Caucasian

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Black/African American

Asian Indian

Other East Asian ______________

Japanese

Chinese

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ____________________

This personality assessment is the first stage of my study. The second stage is a short interview

simulation. Would you be interested in being contacted to participate in the interview

simulation? Yes or No

If yes, what is your name?

If yes, what is your email?


Appendix B

Recruitment Letter to Interviewee Participants

First of all, thank you for participating in the personality assessment portion of my study.

Your responses have been incredibly helpful and have allowed me to continue my research. You

have been selected to receive this email because you indicated on the survey sent in [month of

survey launch] that you would like to be contacted about participating in the short interview

simulation of the study.

For the simulation, you will be asked to participate in an interview as you normally

would. The interview will be conducted by two to three Queens faculty and will last only 20

minutes. The questions asked will not be specific to your personal skills or work experience but

rather encourage you to reflect on your past experiences concerning working with others,

leadership qualities, and other general topics. You do not need to prepare responses to these

questions in advance. There are no right or wrong answers.

As with the survey and personality assessment, your identity will be protected and your

results will be presented as a mix of results. I do not anticipate the questions being offensive or

uncomfortable to answer, but you may choose to not answer any question or leave the simulation

at any time.

Please email me by [date of response deadline] to let me know if you would like to

participate. If you would not like to participate, that is okay, but please still send me an email to

let me know. Should you choose to participate in the simulation, please indicate in your response

email which days of the week and times you would be available to participate in the 20 minute

interview. Once I receive an adequate number of responses, I will send all participants a date and

time to appear for the simulation.

For the simulation, please dress professionally and act as if you were on an interview for

a job or scholarship. Suits are not required, but please do not wear flip flops, sneakers, athletic

clothing, or other clothing that would not be appropriate in the workplace. If you have any

questions, please contact me.

Thank you for your time.

Jayme Keefer

Communication Major & Knight Scholar

Queens University of Charlotte ‘17

[email protected]


Appendix C

Sample Interview Questions

Neutral Questions

Give an example of a time when you were able to communicate successfully with another person

— even if that individual may not have personally liked you.

(measures communication skills p. 2*)

Describe a decision that you made within the last year that you’re very proud of.

(measures decision-making p. 3)

What personal qualities do you believe define you as a leader? Describe a situation when those

qualities helped you lead others.

(measures leadership p. 3)

What is most important to you in a job? What is least important to you?

(measures motivation p. 3)

Extrovert-Oriented Question

Describe a situation that required you to work under pressure and tell us how you reacted.

(measures ability to work under pressure p. 2)

Introvert-Oriented Question

Tell us about a time you planned and pulled off a complex assignment. (measures planning p. 4)

*(Questions selected from Armstrong, 2008)


Appendix D

Training Script for Interviewer Participants

First of all, thank you for taking time out of your day and agreeing to participate in this

study. It means a lot to have the support of faculty and staff from so many areas of the university.

Today, you will be participating in a panel interview simulation. You will act as the

interviewer posing questions to four participants. Each interview will take 20 minutes with 10

minutes between candidates for you to write down your scores and comments. The participants

are full-time traditional undergraduate students at Queens and all are female. They have been

asked to treat this simulation as a professional interview for a job or scholarship.

The goal of this research is to examine the behavior of different types of students in

structured interview situations. For the sake of reducing bias, you will not know what personality

characteristics I am targeting in my research nor which students fall into which categories. You

are to treat every interviewee the same way. For each interviewee, you will receive a packet

containing a list of questions and an interview performance rubric.

Let’s first look at the questions. The questions are the same for each interviewee, but the

order has been randomized. These questions do not ask about specific skills or job experience

that could vary between interviewees. Instead, they are more generic questions that ask the

interviewee to recall, discuss, and reflect on experiences where they demonstrate characteristics

that may be beneficial in the workplace. For the sake of consistency, I ask that you stick to the

questions provided and do not ask your own questions, but you may ask basic questions to propel

the conversation such as “Can you tell me more about this?” or “Can you elaborate?” Are there

any questions at this point?

While the questions are designed to focus on personality, you are asked to evaluate

participants based less on the content of their answers and more on their physical and verbal

behavior. This brings us to the rubric. As you can see, the rubric is broken into four sections:

body language, verbal responses, personability, and overall evaluation. Body language refers to

the physical actions of the interviewee, verbal responses refer to the content and verbal delivery

of responses, personability refers to more nuanced elements of the interviewee’s presentation of

themselves, and overall evaluation is a more subjective and comprehensive impression you get

from the interviewee.

Each individual criteria also has its own expectation of good performance. [Read criteria

expectations definitions.] On the rubric, there are three types of responses you can give. First is

the criteria weighting. Here, please use the criteria weighting scale to rate how important you

think a particular criterion is for evaluating job applicants. These numbers are your own personal

opinion. A five means the criterion is vital for a candidate to have, four is very important, three is

important, two means it is an asset for candidates to have but it is not essential, and one means it

is only somewhat beneficial for a candidate to have. These scores are requested on all rubric

sheets, but you only need to record them on the rubric you complete for the first interviewee. The


scores will have no weight on the interviewees’ scores but they may be used in later analysis.

Are there any questions at this point?

Some additional notes: While it is common in actual panel interviews to discuss your

impressions of candidates, I ask that you refrain from sharing answers for this simulation. I will

conduct a follow-up focus group for all interviewers to come together to share their experiences,

reflect on the results, and provide additional feedback. These focus group questions will be

provided to you at the end of today’s session so you can prepare to talk about your experiences.

Additionally, I will be in the room during today’s simulations taking my own observational

notes, but I will not actively participate in the interview process. My only interaction with you

and the interviewees will be to escort the interviewees in and out of the interview room.

Are there any final questions before we begin?

Thank you again for participating and let’s get started.


Appendix E

Sample Interview Rubric

Criteria Weighting Candidate Assessment

5 – Vital 5 – Exceeds expectations

4 – Very important 4 – Meets expectations

3 – Important 3 – Meets expectations with exception

2 – An asset 2 – Potential to meet expectations

1 – Somewhat beneficial 1 – Does not meet expectations

Criteria Criteria

Weighting

Candidate

Assessment

Comments

Body Language Eye contact

Professional appearance

Handshake

Hand motions

Verbal Responses Ability to address question

Confidence in responses

Depth of response (I)

Length of response (E)

Speaking volume

Personability Ability to carry on conversation

Ability to think on his/her feet

(E)

Genuineness of response (I)

Overall Evaluation Overall professionalism

Overall impression

Other:

Final Score


Criteria Expectations Definitions

Criteria Expectation - “The interviewee…”

Body Language

Eye contact Uses eyes to show interest in the conversation and communicate

with the interviewers. Does not stare at the table or somewhere else

in the room but also does not stare at interviewers to the point of

discomfort.

Professional

appearance

Is dressed appropriately for a formal interview. No sneakers or

athletic wear. Full suits are not necessary, but attire appropriate for

a job interview or presentation is expected.

Handshake Gives a warm, friendly handshake. Handshake is not weak or

awkward not is it too uncomfortably firm.

Hand motions Uses hand motions that emphasize or help articulate the point of the

response. Motions are present but not distracting or overwhelming.

Verbal Responses

Ability to address

question

Responds by addressing all parts of the question. Answers do not

beat around the bush or stray off topic.

Confidence in

responses

Responds with conviction in answer. Minimal conversational fillers

or qualifying phrases such as “umm,” “I think,” or “I don’t know.”

Depth of response (I) Demonstrates critical and reflective thinking in responses. Answers

are not vague nor are they too intensely personal for the setting.

Length of response (E) Gives responses of a length that appropriately answers the question.

Responses are not so short as to be incomplete, nor are they so

overdrawn so as to be off topic or excessive.

Speaking volume Speaks with a volume at which they can be clearly heard. Volume

is not so soft that it is hard to hear nor is it too loud for a casual

conversation.

Personability

Ability to carry on

conversation

Speaks as if questions are a conversation rather than interrogation.

Can respond naturally to follow-up questions without taking over

the conversation or interrupting, nor giving too short of an answer.


Ability to think on

his/her feet (E)

Is able to give meaningful, thoughtful responses to questions.

Responses are given relatively quickly after each question has been

asked and follow-up questions are adequately addressed.

Genuineness of

response (I)

Answers appear to have real meaning to the interviewee. Answers

are not overly flowery nor generic. Responses are unique to

interviewee and say something about his/her character.

Overall Evaluation

Overall professionalism Presents himself/herself as prepared to accept a job or scholarship

offer. Dress and behavior are poised and acceptable for professional

work.

Overall impression Presents himself/herself in a way that exceeds the interviewer’s

expectations for a prepared, responsible college student.


Appendix D

Sample Interviewer Debrief Focus Group Questions

Thank you for participating in the simulation a few weeks ago and for further supporting my

research by coming out today. For this focus group, we are going to informally talk about your

experiences in the simulation, trends you notice, and some implications of the results I found.

To start off, what was your impression of the interview process?

What criteria were most important for you to use in evaluating interviewees? Why?

What stood out about some of the interviewees? What were your initial impressions of the

participants?

Did you notice a difference between the interviewees?

This study intended to assess the difference in interview performance between introverts and

extroverts. Could you tell which interviewees were introverts and which were extroverts? How?

Do you think you scored introverts differently than extroverts in their ability to meet

expectations? Why? What were the differences?

[show average score for introverts vs. extroverts] Why do you think there are (or are not)

differences between how you evaluated their ability to meet expectations?

Do you think these differences put either extroverts or introverts at a disadvantage in getting a

job or scholarship? Why or why not?

What implications could these evaluation differences have in the workforce?

What rubric criteria would have been more helpful?


Appendix E

Sample Interviewee Focus Group Questions

Thank you for participating in the simulation a few weeks ago and for further supporting my

research by coming out today. For this focus group, we are going to informally talk about your

experiences in the simulation, trends you notice, and some implications of the results I found.

To start off, what was your general impression of the interview process?

What do you think the interviewers were looking for?

What did you think of the situation-based interview questions? Were they helpful for you to

discuss your experiences and skills?

Did any question(s) make you uncomfortable or seem difficult to answer?

Do you think there are some types of body language that are more helpful than others in

interviews?

Do you think you did this well?

How well do you think you did on the interview? What do you think your score was?

This study intended to assess the difference in interview performance between introverts and

extroverts. [show average score for introverts vs. extroverts] Why do you think there was (or was

not) a difference between the scores?

Did you ever think there would be a difference? Why or why not?

Do you think these differences put either extroverts or introverts at a disadvantage in getting a

job or scholarship? Why or why not?

[Show blank evaluation rubric] What criteria do you wish you had been evaluated on?

major assignment 2 the differing interview performance of ...€¦ · interview perfomance of...

Documents