Improving the Accuracy of References: The Effects of Felt Accountability on Personality Ratings
Abstract
References are a useful preemployment assessment for gathering unique personality information about job applicants. However, despite the capacity for external observers to provide valid personality ratings, references tend to be less accurate than similar preemployment assessments. This problem is important to address, since almost all organizations use references of some kind when hiring. This study attempted to improve the accuracy of the personality ratings provided in references by using two novel interventions believed to improve referees’ felt accountability to the hiring organization. These interventions included (a) a more elaborative rating format that asked participants to provide the reasons underlying each of their quantitative personality ratings, and (b) a monetary incentive that was issued at the start of the rating task. Two-hundred and eleven (N = 211) supervisors and managers completed a personality rating form while playing the role of a referee for four prototypical call center employees shown in a series of work-sample videos. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 X 2 factorial design with Cronbach’s (1955) four accuracy components as dependent variables. The results suggest that the monetary incentive did not appear to meaningfully impact participants’ felt accountability or their personality rating accuracy. The reason giving requirements also had no effects on felt accountability, but interestingly had unintended negative consequences on participants’ personality rating accuracy. Possible explanations for these findings are discussed, along with study limitations and potential avenues for future research on references.