Life insurance agency managers (n = 168) evaluated a hypothetical applicant under the experimentally varying conditions of hiring pressure, cost of false positive selection error, valid test-score level, and applicant sex. The last two treatments, alone and in interaction, were primarily responsible for explaining up to 37% of the variance in the applicant evaluations. Explanations for the results and implications for research on selection decision-making were indicated.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.