外国经济与管理  2017, Vol. 39 Issue (12): 100-111

0

#### 文章信息

 外国经济与管理2017年39卷第12期

Li Zhi, Li Hong

The application of social media evaluation in the personnel selection

Foreign Economics & Management, 2017, 39(12): 100-111.

### 文章历史

《外国经济与管理》
2017第39卷第12期

1.重庆大学 公共管理学院，重庆 400044;
2.重庆大学 公共经济与公共政策研究中心，重庆 400044

The Application of Social Media Evaluation in the Personnel Selection
Li Zhi1,2, Li Hong1,2
1.School of Public Affairs, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China;
2.Center of Public Economics and Policy, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China
Summary: Social media evaluation on which foreign human resources experts have done a lot of research is a new way of personnel selection in the " Internet Plus” age and its application in personnel selection is increasing. More and more organizations, in foreign countries, begin to assess the content of candidates’ social media like Facebook to collect relevant information of potential employees and take that information as a basis for judgment of making personnel decisions. Based on a review of personnel assessment technology in our country, problems of personnel assessment which the process is complicated and the content lacks accuracy are outstanding increasingly along with the rapid development of computer and internet technologies, so it is necessary to learn about personnel assessment technology which is the latest, in order to promote further innovation and development of China’s personnel assessment. This paper analyzes the newest personnel assessment technique, namely social media evaluation technique. Firstly, it discusses two theoretical models that social media evaluation technique uses, namely lens model and realistic accuracy model. In the lens model, social media information of the candidates is regarded as visible behavior, the candidates’ personalities, intelligence, emotional intelligence and work motivations are taken as potential characteristics and the candidates’ future work performance is seen as distal variable; in the realistic accuracy model, the target object can be obtained from social media information which is described as behavior information. This behavior information is self-expression that is associated with certain personality traits, and the assessor can use this information to obtain the characteristics that may be related to job performance. Secondly, it presents the specific application mode of this technique; researchers often use structural classification to divide the content collected from the social media of candidates into structures including cognitive ability, knowledge and skills related to work, personalities, social application skills and interest, organizational adaptability and physical quality, and so on, and then find out the correlation between position and these structures. And then it summarizes the advantages and disadvantages. Its advantages mainly include that savings on economic and time costs of personnel selection, and the provision of more real information about personnel selection; its disadvantages mainly include three aspects: firstly, the non-standardized characteristic of social media evaluation determines that the reliability of this technique is affected by the subjective impact of the assessors; secondly, the mismatch of the social media evaluation determines that its validity is affected by the candidates’ disguise; thirdly, the reliability and validity of this evaluation technique is affected by the number and type of information. Finally, this paper puts forward relevant enlightenment and thinking according to the analysis, that is to say, the application of social media evaluation technique in China must protect the privacy of those who will be evaluated, and the objection of this evaluation technique should be the youth because they have higher usage frequency of social media, the use of social media evaluation technique is more suitable to evaluate the candidates’ personalities and values, the development of this evaluation technique in the future can be inclined to the workplace social platform assessment, such as LinkedIn, tenderness, and street network in our country; furthermore, organizations and researchers can also further explore the development of an objective social media tool, and at the same time, cannot regard social media evaluation technique as the only means of evaluation in personnel selection. Those enlightenment and thinking would help people, organizations or the society to have a better understanding of this new way of personnel selection, namely social media evaluation technique, and its application and development in the internet and information age. Overall, in the internet era, there is still great potential value of social media evaluation, and the organizations and researchers in China have further exploration and application space.
Key words: social media evaluation; personnel selection; talent assessment; new personnel assessment technology

 信息分类 具体内容 测评要素及社交媒体使用表现 定量 信息发布 频率 外向性——使用频率高（Correa等，2010） 自恋——使用频率高，发布更多的信息（Marshall等，2015） 浏览其他 用户次数 开放性——访问更多的网络主页（Muckel，2017） 点赞他人 次数 开放性——更频繁地对公共页面的内容（如餐馆、机构、公众人物等）点赞（Muckel，2017） 宜人性——更频繁地在朋友发布的内容中点赞（Muckel，2017） 被点赞 次数 人际社交能力、宜人性、外向性——获得的点赞次数更多（Fox和Rooney，2015） 拥有好友 人数 外向性、宜人性——拥有更多的好友数量（Moore和McElroy，2012） 定性 图片信息 尽责性——较少使用图片上传功能（Amichai-Hamburger和Vinitzky，2010） 神经质——发更多自拍照（Amichai-Hamburger和Vinitzky，2010） 外向性——发布更多原创或艺术风格的照片（Mehdizadeh，2010；Seidman，2013）；分享照片数量多（Shen等，2015） 文字信息 写作能力——文笔反映非正式的社交场合写作风格（Davison等，2012） 写作能力、认知能力、开放性——更多地发布和知识相关的内容，如对当前局势的看法，转发科普类文章和自己在写作、研究等方面的思考等（Marshall等，2015） 信息情绪 效价 神经质——使用更多的负面情绪词（Shen，2015） 低自尊——发布的信息不会有效传达积极情绪（Marshall等，2015） 自我关联 信息 神经质——更多地使用主观词表达（例如我、我的、我是）（Muckel，2017），更多地展示自己的成就、技能等有关内容（Marshall等，2015） 自恋——更多地展示自己的成就（Marshall等，2015） 工作相关 信息 工作相关的知识和技能、组织适应性、对工作的态度——专业社交媒体平台（如LinkedIn）允许用户自行列出技能或专业领域，而他们的网络成员（例如同事、上级或同学）可以查阅并认可该用户的这些技能（Roth，2016）

（一）社交媒体评估的优势

（二）社交媒体评估的不足

 [1] 陈少华, 曾毅. 人格判断的准确性: 信息数量和质量的作用[J]. 华东师范大学学报（教育科学版）, 2013(4): 69–74, 81. [2] 李业旗, 王秀颖. 公务员考试中人才测评技术问题的应对[J]. 人民论坛, 2012(36): 42–43. [3] 梁建春, 李志, 吴绍琪, 等. 人才测评的内容、方法及存在的问题[J]. 重庆大学学报（社会科学版）, 2002(4): 73–75. [4] 王乃弋, 李红. 音乐情感交流研究中的透镜模型[J]. 心理科学进展, 2003(5): 505–510. [5] 王昭娜. 我国人才测评现存的问题与对策[J]. 天津市财贸管理干部学院学报, 2012(4): 59–61. [6] 务凯. 高校自主招生中人才测评技术的应用与完善[J]. 中国考试, 2016(1): 47–51. [7] 余以胜, 徐剑彬, 陈坤贤, 等. 人才的网络测评与实证系统研究[J]. 重庆大学学报(社会科学版), 2015(4): 123–128. [8] 张雪. 基于复杂科学的人才测评问题研究[J]. 经济视角, 2012(14): 22–23. [9] 中国互联网络信息中心. 2014年中国社交类应用用户行为研究报告[EB/OL]. http://www.cnnic.net.cn/hlwfzyj/hlwxzbg/sqbg/201408/t20140822_47860.htm, 2014-08-22. [10] （美）Aronson E, Wilson T D, Akert R M. (侯玉波, 朱颖译). 社会心理学[M]. 北京: 机械工业出版社, 2014: 100–145. [11] Al-Suqri M N, Al-Aufi A S. Information seeking behavior and technology adoption: Theories and trends[M]. Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing, 2015: 123–146. [12] Amichai-Hamburger Y, Vinitzky G. Social network use and personality[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010, 26(6): 1289–1295. [13] Baumeister R F, Bratslavsky E, Finkenauer C, et al. Bad is stronger than good[J]. Review of General Psychology, 2001, 5(4): 323–370. [14] Black S, Johnson A, Takatch S. Factors affecting applicants’ reactions to the collection of data in social networks[R]. Boston: Academy of Management, 2012. [15] Brown V R, Vaughn E D. The writing on the（Facebook）wall: The use of social networking sites in hiring decisions[J]. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2011, 26(2): 219–225. [16] Byrne D E. The attraction paradigm[M]. New York: Academic Press, 1971: 880–900. [17] Campion M A, Palmer D K, Campion J E. A review of structure in the selection interview[J]. Personnel Psychology, 1997, 50(3): 655–702. [18] Caspi A, Gorsky P. Online deception: Prevalence, motivation, and emotion[J]. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2006, 9(1): 54–59. [19] Correa T, Hinsley A W, de Zúñiga H G. Who interacts on the Web?: The intersection of users’ personality and social media use[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010, 26(2): 247–253. [20] David J P, Green P J, Martin R, et al. Differential roles of neuroticism, extraversion, and event desirability for mood in daily life: An integrative model of top-down and bottom-up influences[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1997, 73(1): 149–159. [21] Davison H K, Maraist C C, Hamilton R H, et al. To screen or not to screen? Using the internet for selection decisions[J]. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2012, 24(1): 1–21. [22] Dorethy M D, Fiebert M S, Warren C R. Examining social networking site behaviors: Photo sharing and impression management on Facebook[J]. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2014, 6(2): 111–116. [23] Ellis A P, West B J, Ryan A M, et al. The use of impression management tactics in structured interviews: A function of question type?[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002, 87(6): 1200–1208. [24] Ellison N B, Steinfield C, Lampe C. The benefits of Facebook " friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites[J]. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007, 12(4): 1143–1168. [25] Feingold ${referAuthorVo.mingEn}. Good-looking people are not what we think[J]. Psychological Bulletin, 1992, 111(2): 304–341. [26] Fox J, Rooney M C. The Dark Triad and trait self-objectification as predictors of men’s use and self-presentation behaviors on social networking sites[J]. Personality and Individual Differences, 2015, 76: 161–165. [27] Funder D C. On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach[J]. Psychological Review, 1995, 102(4): 652–670. [28] Funder D C. Accurate personality judgment[J]. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2012, 21(3): 177–182. [29] Gifford R. Personality and nonverbal behavior: A complex conundrum[A]. Manusov V, Patterson M L. Handbook of nonverbal communication[C]. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2006: 151–179. [30] Goldberg C B. Relational demography and similarity-attraction in interview assessments and subsequent offer decisions: Are we missing something?[J]. Human Resource Management, 2005, 30(3): 597–624. [31] Gosling S D, Ko S J, Mannarelli T, et al. A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002, 82(3): 379–398. [32] Hausknecht J P, Day D V, Thomas S C. Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis[J]. Personnel Psychology, 2004, 57(3): 639–683. [33] Heilman M E, Okimoto T G. Motherhood: A potential source of bias in employment decisions[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2008, 93(1): 189–198. [34] Hong S, Tandoc Jr E, Kim E A, et al. The real you? The role of visual cues and comment congruence in perceptions of social attractiveness from Facebook profiles[J]. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2012, 15(7): 339–344. [35] Huffcutt A I, Conway J M, Roth P L, et al. Identification and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001, 86(5): 897–913. [36] Hunt K G. Finders keepers: Social media strategies help find top talent[J]. Journal of Property Management, 2010, 75(6): 36–40. [37] Johnson R D. Making judgements when information is missing: Inferences, biases, and framing effects[J]. Acta Psychologica, 1987, 66(1): 69–82. [38] Juslin P N. Emotional communication in music performance: A functionalist perspective and some data[J]. Music Perception, 1997, 14(4): 383–418. [39] Kanar A M, Collins C J, Bell B S. A comparison of the effects of positive and negative information on job seekers’ organizational attraction and attribute recall[J]. Human Performance, 2010, 23(3): 193–212. [40] Kanning U P. Standards der personaldiagnostik[M]. Göttingen: Hogrefe, 2004: 240–280. [41] Kluemper D H, Rosen P A. Future employment selection methods: Evaluating social networking web sites[J]. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2009, 24(6): 567–580. [42] Kluemper D H, Rosen P A, Mossholder K W. Social networking websites, personality ratings, and the organizational context: More than meets the eye?[J]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2012, 42(5): 1143–1172. [43] Kontos E Z, Emmons K M, Puleo E, et al. Communication inequalities and public health implications of adult social networking site use in the United States[J]. Journal of Health Communication, 2010, 15(S3): 216–235. [44] Krämer N C, Winter S. Impression management 2.0: The relationship of self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social networking sites[J]. Journal of Media Psychology, 2008, 20(3): 106–116. [45] Levashina J, Campion M A. Expected practices in background checking: Review of the human resource management literature[J]. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2009, 21(3): 231–249. [46] Marshall T C, Lefringhausen K, Ferenczi N. The Big Five, self-esteem, and narcissism as predictors of the topics people write about in Facebook status updates[J]. Personality and Individual Differences, 2015, 85(4): 35–40. [47] Mehdizadeh S. Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook[J]. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2010, 13(4): 357–364. [48] Miguel R F. LinkedIn for hiring decisions: A content validity framework[A]. Miguel R F. The promise and perils of social media data for selection[C]. Houston: Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2013: 43–63. [49] Moore K, Mcelroy J C. The influence of personality on Facebook usage, wall postings, and regret[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2012, 28(1): 267–274. [50] Muckel C. Social recruiting through the lens: Facebook profiles as a reflection of recruiting-relevant characteristics[D]. Berlin: University of Twente, 2017: 2–16. [51] Orehek E, Human L J. Self-expression on social media: Do tweets present accurate and positive portraits of impulsivity, self-esteem, and attachment style?[J]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2017, 43(1): 60–70. [52] Riordan C M, Schaffer B S, Stewart M M. Relational demography within groups: Through the lens of discrimination[A]. Dipboye R L, Colella A. Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases[C]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005: 37–62. [53] Roth P L, Bobko P, Van Iddekinge C H, et al. Social media in employee-selection-related decisions: A research agenda for uncharted territory[J]. Journal of Management, 2016, 42(1): 269–298. [54] Roulin N, Bangerter A. Social networking websites in personnel selection: A signaling perspective on recruiters’ and applicants’ perceptions[J]. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 2013, 12(3): 143–151. [55] Seidman G. Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations[J]. Personality and Individual Differences, 2013, 54(3): 402–407. [56] Shen J Q, Brdiczka O, Liu J. A study of Facebook behavior: What does it tell about your Neuroticism and Extraversion?[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015, 45: 32–38. [57] Sievers K, Wodzicki K, Aberle I, et al. Self-presentation in professional networks: More than just window dressing[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015, 50: 25–30. [58] Slovensky R, Ross W H. Should human resource managers use social media to screen job applicants? Managerial and legal issues in the USA[J]. Info, 2012, 14(1): 55–69. [59] Stamper C. Common mistakes companies make using social media tools in recruiting efforts[J]. CMA Management, 2010, 84(2): 12–14. [60] Toma C L, Carlson C L. How do Facebook users believe they come across in their profiles?: A meta-perception approach to investigating Facebook self-presentation[J]. Communication Research Reports, 2015, 32(1): 93–101. [61] Tsui A S, Egan T D, O’Reilly Ⅲ C A. Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1992, 37(4): 549–579. [62] U${referAuthorVo.mingEn}. Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures[J]. Federal Register, 1978, 43(1): 38295–38309. [63] Van Der Heide B, D’Angelo J D, Schumaker E M. The effects of verbal versus photographic self-presentation on impression formation in Facebook[J]. Journal of Communication, 2012, 62(1): 98–116. [64] Van Iddekinge C H, Lanivich S E, Roth P L, et al. Social media for selection? Validity and adverse impact potential of a Facebook-based assessment[J]. Journal of Management, 2016, 42(7): 1811–1835. [65] Watson A J, Brunswik E. Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments[J]. Philosophical Quarterly, 1958, 8(33): 222–224.