Should human resource managers use

social media to screen job applicants?

Managerial and legal issues in the USA
Ross Slovensky and William H. Ross

Ross Slovensky and William Abstract

H. Ross are both based in Purpose – The purpose of the present paper is to describe managerial and US legal issues associated
the Department of with using social networking web sites (SNWs) such as Facebook for personnel selection. Managers
Management, University of must consider the benefits and concerns that using such information presents.
Wisconsin at La Crosse, La Design/methodology/approach – The paper identifies issues based on the academic literature,
Crosse, Wisconsin, USA. theoretical concepts, and current managerial and legal developments as reported in the popular and
business press.
Findings – Using SNWs to screen applicants offers benefits to organizations in the form of gaining a
large amount of information about applicants, which may be used to supplement other information (e.g.
a resume). It may also help a firm address ‘‘negligent hiring’’ legal concerns. However, other legal
considerations as well as issues pertaining to information accuracy, privacy, and justice argue against
using such information.
Research limitations/implications – Throughout the paper, topics are raised which may guide future
research.
Practical implications – By recognizing both the advantages and disadvantages of using SNW
information for applicant screening, managers can make an informed decision as to whether they wish
to use this screening method; if so, managers can devise policies that provide the firm with appropriate
information while respecting applicant privacy, and complying with US legal and ethical expectations.
Originality/value – While much has been written about SNWs, little has been written from an academic
perspective on the advantages and disadvantages of accessing applicants’ SNWs. The present paper
reviews the literature from a variety of disciplines and identifies important issues for researchers and
managers.
Keywords Social networking sites, Social media, Personnel selection, Background screening,
Internet privacy, Procedural justice, Legal issues, Employees, Selection
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
As technology advances, human resource (HR) managers are increasingly inundated with
new sources of information. The internet has a major role in distributing this information.
social network web sites (SNWs) such as Facebook, MySpace, and the more
professionally-oriented LinkedIn allow individuals to post information in order to
communicate with friends and family. However, SNWs – as well as related applications
(e.g. micro-blogging web sites such as Twitter) – also allow recruiters to conduct extensive
background checks. The present paper will discuss the legal and managerial implications of
The authors wish to thank Jeff
Ross for comments on an these technological developments for organizations operating in the United States, where
earlier version of this such sites are quite popular (Burbary, 2011). When appropriate, relevant research studies
manuscript.
will be discussed and unanswered research questions raised. The purpose of the paper is
Received: 21 June 2011 twofold: First, to acquaint hiring managers with the advantages – and the disadvantages –
Revised 9 July 2011
Accepted 31 August 2011
of using SNWs for selection purposes so that they might make better informed decisions

DOI 10.1108/14636691211196941 VOL. 14 NO. 1 2012, pp. 55-69, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1463-6697 j j
info PAGE 55
 when considering this possible background investigation method. Secondly, the paper
suggests areas of possible future research.

2. Using SNWs for personnel selection

SNWs allow individual users to post personal information on the internet in order to
communicate with friends. Twitter allows short weblog (‘‘blog’’) messages of 140 characters
(called ‘‘tweets’’) and full social network web sites such as Facebook, Google Buzz, and
MySpace allow users to post multiple pages and include photos and videos; friends can also
make comments (Picard, 2011; Holt, 2011). Much of this information is unprotected and
available for anyone to view that finds it – although SNW users can usually adjust their
‘‘privacy settings’’ to allow only ‘‘friends’’ to see certain information (Boyd and Ellison, 2007).
Facts such as age, location, relationship status, as well as personal thoughts and pictures
are widely available through these media, and allow a level of immediate intimacy that has
never before existed. For example, users can access Facebook and find a person they
recently met and immediately learn personal details of the person’s life – details that may
have taken months or years to learn in previous generations. Apparently, many people who
post such details do not carefully consider their potential audience. But who is reading their
SNW profiles?
Human resource managers are actively reading SNW profiles. HR professionals in the USA
are increasingly looking to SNWs to find information about candidates so the correct hire can
be made. Careerbuilder.com survey statistics suggest that the percentage of 2,600
managers who look at SNW profiles as a way to screen candidates has risen from 22 percent
in 2008 to 45 percent in 2009 (Haefner, 2009). Approximately 11 percent more plan to use
social media to screen applicants. Approximately 29 percent report using Facebook, 26
percent use LinkedIn, 21 percent use MySpace, 11 percent search blogs, and 7 percent
utilize Twitter. As Facebook is currently the most popular social media site, it is not surprising
that American employers visit this site. Further, only 17 percent of employers consider this
type of background check to be a violation of an applicant’s privacy (Read, 2007).
Not only are employers frequently reading SNW profiles, they are using them to make hiring
decisions. Almost 35 percent of US employers in one survey report that they have found
content on social networking sites that caused them not to hire an applicant (Haefner, 2009;
also see Smith and Kidder, 2010). Rowell (2010) reports that 70 percent of HR managers say
they have rejected a job applicant for his or her internet behavior. Mangla (2009) recounts
the story of a 22-year-old master’s degree student from California. The student allegedly
posted on her Twitter feed, ‘‘Cisco just offered me a job! Now I have to weigh the utility of a
fatty paycheck against the daily commute to San Jose and hating the work.’’ A Cisco
employee saw the tweet and responded by asking who the hiring manager was. The
exchange attracted commentary from others; the student ultimately turned down the job,
perhaps because she believed that Cisco would have withdrawn the offer anyway. It is
apparent that checking social media sites is a part of the hiring process for many employers
and is becoming an increasingly used avenue to hire – or reject – applicants.
Should HR managers use SNW information when making hiring decisions? There are
numerous arguments in favor of using such information, as well as several arguments
against using such information. Each of these arguments will now be considered.

3. Why HR managers should use SNW information

3.1 SNWs provide more honest applicant information
Traditionally, HR professionals and other hiring managers relied on cover letters, resumes,
application forms and sometimes interviews to initially screen job candidates. However,
resumes and cover letters are often written to highlight only the best possible characteristics
of the applicant; application forms and interviews also suffer from impression management
attempts (Barrick et al., 2009; Huffcutt, 2011). Information found in cover letters and resumes
is often factually incorrect or exaggerated (Hall, 2004); as many as 41 percent of the 5.8

j j
PAGE 56 info VOL. 14 NO. 1 2012
million resumes reviewed by the employment firm ADP contained errors in terms of
education, employment experience, or credentials (Levashina and Campion, 2009).
Because SNWs are usually created for purposes other than securing a job, HR managers
may believe that these sources provide ‘‘honest’’ (valid) information about the applicant.
Unlike resumes, SNWs are not easily customizable; people may have different versions of
their resume for different job applications, but they do not have different versions of their
SNW (Fernando, 2008). By examining SNW profiles of applicants, HR professionals can
verify information on the resume or application form (Brandenburg, 2008). If the HR manager
discovers discrepancies, he or she may doubt the accuracy of the application documents or
may decide to question the applicant closely about discrepancies during an interview.
Some HR managers may pay particular attention to information written by ‘‘friends’’ of
applicants on their SNWs. Such information may be seen as more truthful because it was not
posted by the applicant and therefore may be seen as less subject to impression
management attempts. A survey by Microsoft reports that 43 percent of employers say they
will not hire job candidates based on ‘‘inappropriate comments’’ written by relatives and
friends (Goodman, 2010). The conditions under which such employers actually attend to this
factor and make decisions based on it remains a subject for continued discussion and
investigation (Walther et al., 2008).

3.2 SNWs may provide more complete information in a cost-effective manner

With a minimal investment of time and expense, HR managers can use SNWs to expand on
job application materials and test scores to see how potential employees live their lives. An
HR professional can use LinkedIn to see connections the applicant has made in the
professional world and other jobs they may have held that were perhaps not listed on the
application form. Facebook and MySpace show the HR professional the interests and
hobbies that each applicant has. Media within these web sites such as pictures and videos
can give an HR recruiter insight into an applicant’s behavior when not on the job and an idea
of the person’s character. While Twitter only allows short messages to be posted, this can
also be used to get an idea of an applicant’s likes, dislikes and overall character in both
non-professional and professional settings. Bohnert and Ross (2010) report that people are
less likely to recommend for hire applicants whose SNW emphasizes their enjoyment of
abusing alcohol rather than family activities.
Kristof-Brown (2000) suggests that selection decisions are a function of two types of
evaluations: the Person-Job (P-J) fit and the Person-Organization (P-O) fit. Hiring managers
primarily evaluate a candidate’s knowledge, skill, and ability (KSA) levels in determining P-J
fit, but they make judgments about people’s character and personality when determining the
candidate’s P-O fit. This suggests that to the extent that SNW may provide information about
an applicant’s personality and character, SNW evaluations may affect hiring decisions
primarily through the P-O fit determination. However, if SNW information focuses on
job-related KSAs, then it may affect hiring decisions through a P-J fit determination.
Research should investigate this possibility.
Some SNWs allow users to endorse specific companies or products on their webpages
(sometimes linking directly to those firms’ web sites). For some SNWs this is called ‘‘Liking’’ a
company. The types of companies or products that a person likes may suggest something
about the personality and character of the applicant. Such information may provide reasons
to reject applicants. Suppose a day care center uses such methods to evaluate applicants
and discovers one applicant has a propensity for web sites oriented toward pedophilia; the
firm might use this information to screen out such an applicant.
Relatedly, many firms administer tests or conduct extensive interviews in order to assess an
applicant’s personality characteristics and to determine whether they would ‘‘fit in’’ with the
company and their workgroup (Gatewood et al., 2011). Such procedures are frequently
reserved for finalists because such procedures are costly or logistically complicated (e.g.
bringing the candidate to the HR office for a proctored examination). However, SNWs allow
HR managers to assess personality characteristics when initially screening applicants.

j j
VOL. 14 NO. 1 2012 info PAGE 57
 Research by Kluemper and Rosen (2009) compared psychological test scores to
laypersons’ personality trait ratings. The findings suggest that untrained laypersons do a
reasonably accurate job of assessing applicant personality traits solely from SNWs (also see
Back et al., 2010). Thus, by screening the content of applicant SNWs, HR managers may be
able to assess applicant personality traits earlier in the process and to do so for more
applicants.

3.3 Organizations must be aware of ‘‘negligent hiring’’ legal and ethical considerations
Some American organizations, particularly those involved in public safety (for example,
trucking, child care, or public sector organizations), have found themselves under legal
scrutiny when employees engaged in illegal actions, and it was later discovered that
information about prior illegal behavior was available at the time of hire (Kuzmits et al., 1991;
Levashina and Campion, 2009). A legal doctrine of ‘‘negligent hiring’’ has emerged in the
USA that holds that organizations should conduct reasonable criminal background checks
when screening applicants. A failure to do so may make the organization partially liable for
the employee’s behavior because the employee is acting as the organization’s agent. Of
course, some attorneys might argue that illegal and immoral actions are obviously beyond
the scope of what a reasonable observer would expect an organization’s agent to perform.
Nonetheless, many organizations operating in the USA feel a legal duty to perform a criminal
background check. Other firms also use integrity tests to detect criminal tendencies (Karren
and Zacharias, 2007).
One aspect of a criminal background check is to do an internet search of the applicant’s web
sites (as well as public records of convictions, etc. posted on the internet). Some legal
experts opine that it is probably acceptable for employers to view SNW profiles that are
readily available, as when the applicant has not turned on the ‘‘privacy settings’’ available
with SNWs (for discussion, see Elzweig and Peeples, 2009). While US law in this area is still
developing (Brandenburg, 2008), some suggest that because private information is
voluntarily posted to third parties (e.g. social networking web sites), such information is
afforded little legal protection (Pike, 2011). Nevertheless, organizations may be wise to notify
prospective applicants that such internet searches may be conducted so that they realize
that there is no expectation of privacy in such situations. Firms may wish to go one step
further and obtain written informed consent before proceeding, in order to minimize the
possibility of a lawsuit (Kaslow et al., 2011); in some Canadian provinces such informed
consent is required by law (Pickell, 2011).
The discovery of illegal activities on SNWs may prevent the organization from hiring a person
who will embarrass or endanger fellow employees or customers. Even if the person is not
engaged in criminal behavior, they may be engaged in questionable practices. A good
predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Suppose an applicant is obviously being
disloyal to his or her current employer by posting what appear to be trade secrets,
unreasonably criticizing their supervisor, or engaging in practices that appear to violate a
non-compete agreement. The prospective hiring manager may be wise to reject the
applicant because of such questionable practices.
This discussion has provided an overview of reasons why HR managers should use SNWs to
screen job candidates. This overview has necessarily been at a general level, perhaps
obscuring industry variations. For example, SNW background screening may be more
widespread (and accepted by job candidates) in certain industries, such as military
suppliers, banking, child care, and private security firms, where hiring the wrong candidate
may have serious consequences. From a cost/benefit perspective, the benefits derived from
the information obtained by searching SNWs may greatly outweigh the costs of seeking such
information. Future survey research might explore this issue.
Just as there may be industry variations, there may be labor market segmentation variation.
For example, one might expect to see significant differences in the SNW presence of
different types of job candidates (e.g. low-skilled, creative talent, technical, managerial, and
senior-level executives). For example, many managers are over 35, but the majority of
Facebook users are ages 18-34 (Burbary, 2011); therefore, one might not expect to see as

j j
PAGE 58 info VOL. 14 NO. 1 2012
many SNW background searches for older managerial candidates. Even so, some HR
managers may do a cost/benefit-type analysis and conclude that it is worth checking the
SNW for senior-level managers where adverse publicity would cause public relations
problems for the firm. Similarly, the percentage of HR managers using SNWs to screen
candidates will likely differ across roles (e.g. HR clerk, interviewer, senior HR manager, the
candidate’s immediate supervisor). The authors are aware of no published research to date
that examines which roles tend to conduct SNW checks for various types of positions in
different industries – or the rigor with which various roles conduct such investigations. This
remains an area for future investigation: Will we see a ‘‘trickle-down effect’’ over time such
that this type of SNW search is eventually treated as a routine clerical task?
Firms wishing to use SNWs also must consider other issues. For example, technology is
rapidly changing. Facebook now offers facial-recognition software, raising the possibility
that a third party, such as an employer, might use an online photograph to search for
additional photographs and accompanying information about the person (Moe, 2011a). An
anonymous, provocative photograph posted, say, four years ago, may now be identifiable
using such facial-recognition software (Moe, 2011b). Location-based technology can reveal
where a candidate has been (and where photographs were taken). Managers need to
consider this rapid rate of change and periodically review which technologies they will
employ for background investigations.
Similarly, do managers only wish to consult the prospective employee’s SNW? Or do they
also wish to consult some of the applicant’s friends’ pages to see what the prospective
employee posted on those pages? How expansive do HR managers wish to be when
screening candidates? Does it even matter? No published research has explored the
numerous possible variations in search procedures to examine whether these variations
impact the number of successful hires, or other dependent variables (e.g. organizational
attractiveness, turnover rate, corporate profitability).

Managers must make decisions about storing and safeguarding the information that they
acquire. Data breaches can disrupt lives (e.g. identity theft), and can embarrass
organizations. Therefore, information security must be considered (Ross et al., 2009).
Relatedly, do companies wish to participate in data sharing pools (often operated by ‘‘data
mining’’ firms)? If so, what information are companies prepared to share? Managers need to
think carefully about these technological and privacy issues and devise policies to address
them. Researchers need to also investigate these issues to describe typical variations or
‘‘clusters’’ of policies and their antecedents, as well as the consequences of such policies.
Research is also needed regarding the role of HR manages in advising their business
colleagues about how to screen candidates prior to any interview. In the first six months of
2011, there has been an average of 83 applications for each graduate-level employment
position in the U.K.; this is up from 31 per position in 2008 (Yianni and MacLaren, 2011). With
so many applications per position, one HR manager is unlikely to screen every applicant;
others (e.g. HR clerks, prospective immediate supervisors) will probably research some
interviewees’ SNWs. This raises concerns about accuracy, consistency, and protection of
applicant privacy. To satisfy such concerns, HR managers need to train employees in these
matters. What is a good approach to training these evaluators? In addition to incorporating
content about privacy and recordkeeping, such training may focus on past behaviors that
are relevant for specific job dimensions. Research in other contexts (e.g. performance
appraisals, interviewer training) suggests that raters may be more accurate if they consider
the dimensions of the job (‘‘performance dimension training’’) and various levels of
performance that specific behaviors suggest, from a shared perspective (‘‘frame of
reference training’’). Similarly, training in an awareness of cognitive biases and rating errors
(e.g., ‘‘contrast effects’’ across persons being rated) may be useful (Bernardin et al., 2000;
Woehr and Huffcutt, 1994; Melchers et al., 2011). Training that provides opportunities for
practice and discussion is also generally helpful. We anticipate that incorporating these
features of training will be useful as HR managers train their colleagues to evaluate SNWs.

j j
VOL. 14 NO. 1 2012 info PAGE 59
 HR managers may also take a cue from the Biodata/Weighted Application Form literature
(e.g., Gunther and Furnham, 2001; Stokes and Cooper, 2004) and conduct an empirical
examination of life events and applicant interests as reported on SNWs to see which predict
job success, turnover, or other important variables. For example, is the number of ‘‘friends’’ a
person reports a surrogate measure of extraversion and therefore predictive of sales
success? Are frequent changes of address indicative of early turnover? If one is gathering
much of the same type of information from a SNW that one gathers from a Biodata/Weighted
Application Form then one might expect similar validities – which, for Biodata, are often
rather good (Dean, 2004).

4. Why HR managers should not use SNW information

In spite of the above reasons for using SNW information, there are numerous concerns that
suggest HR managers should resist the temptation to use this information for selection
purposes. These must be given serious consideration.

4.1 SNW information is not accurate

One concern about using SNW information is that it does not accurately reflect what the
applicant will be like as an employee. How people behave at work may differ from how
people behave away from the workplace; researcher suggests that situational factors (e.g.
workplace norms) as well as individual characteristics (e.g. personality factors) influence
behavior (Leary and Hoyle, 2009). Further, the SNW itself exhibits its own unique situational
influence. The social norm of many SNW sites appears to emphasize bravado,
exaggeration, and outrageous behavior (Buffardi and Campbell, 2008; Smith and Kidder,
2010). Many people post information that conforms to these norms, even if does not reflect
their actual behavior in other situations – including work. Similar observations may be made
for the comments of an applicant’s friends who may be pursuing their own impression
management goals.
To add to the complexity, some individuals hire firms with names like ‘‘Reputation’’ and
‘‘Brand-Yourself’’ to help manage their online information and insure that positive information
is discovered quickly and ranked much higher than negative information when search
engines are used to conduct background checks (Schiller, 2010).
Sometimes information that is available via SNWs is old (e.g. an account that has not been
updated) and reflects the applicant in a different phase of life. For example, a political
candidate in her twenties was embarrassed when a provocative photo of her at a party when
she was 18 appeared in the press; she had ‘‘cleaned up’’ her Facebook profile prior to the
political campaign, but had forgotten to do the same for her old, unused, MySpace profile
(Brus, 2011). In a previous generation, the things that a person thought and even wrote when
in high school and college remained private or were difficult for an employer to retrieve (e.g.
a letter to the editor of a college newspaper would only be archived in the university library).
Today, such information is widely available either on old SNWs or with a few internet
searches (e.g. back issues of many college newspapers are available online). However,
people mature, changing their opinions, and such information may not be relevant to the
candidate’s current job application. Yet decision making research suggests that hiring
managers tend to use information to ‘‘screen out’’ rather than to ‘‘screen in’’ candidates and
that they give great weight to negative factors as they evaluate candidates (Webster, 1982).
Thus, some managers may use inaccurate or outdated information to deny consideration to
otherwise acceptable job candidates. Further, research shows that people who frequently
rely on the internet for information tend to view such information as more credible than those
who rely more on other media (Sundar and Stavrositu, 2006). Thus, it appears that
researching applicants via the internet may become a self-reinforcing cycle; the more
people use this approach, the more likely they are to see this approach as credible and
appropriate – even when it is not.

j j
PAGE 60 info VOL. 14 NO. 1 2012
4.2 The SNW may be the wrong web site
Collectively, over 535 million profiles currently exist on Linkedin, Facebook and Twitter; these
represent a large and increasing segment of the workforce in the industrialized world (Black,
2010). However, many people have similar names, even within the same geographic area.
For an employer to screen an applicant whom he or she has never met through a SNW is to
invite error. Further, the applicant may never even know that he or she was rejected because
of the inappropriate web site of someone else with the same name.
Accounts on many of SNWs can be created for free, and imitation accounts are not
uncommon. Twitter attempts to solve this problem by verifying the identities of famous
celebrities who hold accounts on their web site; but they do not verify identities for other
accounts. This means that for some people, Twitter posts may not be their actual thoughts
and feelings (Picard, 2011). In one case, a young man in a bar left his cellphone with his
friends when he took a bathroom break; his friends jokingly used his phone to send silly and
obnoxious ‘‘tweets’’ in his absence (Brus, 2011). This poses a risk for employers because if
they use social media to screen candidates then they must be sure they are reading posts
actually created by the applicant. On Facebook, mistaken identity is common, as pictures
can easily be tagged with the wrong profile and posts can be made in reference to another
profile without confirmation by another user. There are pictures and posts associated with
some users that they did not have anything to do with, and if these are used in the hiring
process they can give a misleading impression of what the applicant is like. Verifying SNW
information is an important step in using social media in the hiring process but not every
employer verifies applicant information.
In a few instances, there have been reports of a prankster, stalker, or an enemy of the person
creating a malicious SNW in the person’s name (Smolowitz, 2008; Molitorisz, 2007). In the
USA, the state of California recently made false SNW accounts illegal, if the purpose is to
harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten another person (Van Fossen, 2011). In at least one
instance, false and defamatory internet content was created about several US law school
students who would be competing for prestigious jobs at leading law firms; all of it was
anonymous and some of it was made to look like the persons in question were participants in
online discussions (Nakashima, 2007). Thus, the employer must take into consideration that
the SNW may not even belong to the applicant.

4.3 SNW information may merely reinforce initial decisions

Dipboye (1982) suggests that initial information (e.g. cover letter, resume) often carry undue
weight when making a hiring decision, and can influence how subsequent interviews are
conducted. Further, he suggests that initial impressions influence how information that is
gathered by subsequent methods is processed by decision makers. This tends to occur
unless hiring managers take deliberate steps to mitigate such effects, such as seeking to
disconfirm, rather than confirm initial impressions. Research generally supports this
information-processing model (e.g. Phillips and Dipboye, 1989).
It is possible that the same type of process may happen with SNW information. If it is among
the first pieces of information about a candidate, SNW information may have inordinate
influence over the hiring decision, even if later information is the opposite. If SNW information
occurs later in the hiring process, hiring managers may simply use it to confirm the
impression they formed earlier about the candidate (Elzweig and Peeples, 2009). It may take
a significant amount of disconfirming information to change initial impressions. This may
partially explain why a Careerbuilder.com poll found that while approximately one-third of
employers had disqualified candidates based on negative SNW information, one-fourth said
they found information that supported job candidates on SNW sites (Community Banker,
2008). It may be that with applicant SNWs (particularly for business-oriented SNWs like
LinkedIn), unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, HR managers tend to see
what they expect to see.

j j
VOL. 14 NO. 1 2012 info PAGE 61
 4.4 Using SNW information raises fairness issues
Individuals posting information to SNWs do so for one purpose; employers using that
information to make hiring decisions do so for a completely different purpose. This raises a
basic issue of fairness which may make using SNW information unacceptable to society.
While an extensive treatment of this topic is beyond the scope of this paper (see Gilliland and
Hale, 2005; Conlon and Ross, 2011), it is important to note that both fair outcomes
(‘‘distributive justice’’) and fair selection procedures (‘‘procedural justice’’) are important to
job applicants (Ployhart and Ryan, 1998). One aspect of procedural justice involves
informational justice – how information is used to make decisions and what types of
explanations are offered for those decisions; informational justice is related to attitudes
toward the organization and toward a willingness to accept the firm’s job offer (Harris et al.,
2004; Bell et al., 2006).
Applicants who become aware that their SNW information has been consulted by an
employer (perhaps from co-workers after being hired) may view the firm’s selection
procedure as having low informational justice, and, more generally, as procedurally unfair.
This position is supported by one poll by Manpower that reports that 56 percent of job
applicants would view an organization as unethical for considering their personal SNW when
hiring and 43 percent said they would ‘‘feel outraged’’ if a firm used their SNW information to
learn more about them in order to make a hiring decision (Strategic Communication
Management, 2007). While distributive justice and procedural justice are conceptually
distinguishable, both are related to whether an applicant intends to accept a job offer
(Hausknecht et al., 2004). Further, Hausknecht et al. report that applicants perceive work
sample tests and interviews more favorably than personality tests and Biodata/Weighted
Application Forms. There is an apparent similarity between Biodata and SNW checks, as
both measure background, history, and outside interests that are not obviously job-related.
Also, HR managers may use SNW to make personality inferences. This suggests that even if
the person obtains fair outcomes (e.g. a job offer), the applicant may turn it down if he or she
believes that the hiring procedure violated their privacy and was unfair.
There are, of course, numerous procedural variations, and these have not yet been carefully
studied. For example, instead of using the SNW as a distinct ‘‘hurdle’’ in a multiple-hurdles
selection procedure (Gatewood et al., 2011), do applicants consider the selection process
to be fairer if they review their SNW with a recruiter during an interview (perhaps giving the
applicant an opportunity to exercise ‘‘voice’’ by explaining certain ‘‘unprofessional’’
information in their web site)? Or do applicants develop a negative impression of the
interviewer as ‘‘nosey’’ or voyeuristic (because a request to log into one’s SNW at an
interview is so unexpected as to be considered ‘‘outrageous’’ and ‘‘unprofessional’’)? One
US corrections officer who had taken family leave and was reapplying for his position was
told by an interviewer to provide his Facebook login; the applicant had to sit and watch while
the interviewer perused his profile. He was offended, in part, because he had his SNW
privacy settings at the most restrictive setting. Although the officer passed this scrutiny and
was rehired, he has nevertheless filed a lawsuit to stop this practice (Madigan, 2011).
Do applicants consider the procedure to be fairer if they are notified in advance (perhaps in
a job advertisement) that their SNW may be subject to review as part of the application
process? On the one hand, such a notification gives applicants an opportunity to ‘‘clean up’’
their SNW prior to review by the employer. On the other hand, such a notification may cause
applicants to think that the employer is generally unfair by looking at the SNW and may prefer
to work for another organization. Research has not yet addressed the impact of such
notification on application rates.

4.5 Using SNW information raises privacy issues

Violations of privacy may be related to concerns about procedural justice. For example,
procedural justice mediates the relationship between ‘‘applicants’ concern for the privacy of
their information’’ and their willingness to take an online state selection examination. It also
affects their attraction to the hiring organization (Bauer et al., 2006). Similar concerns may
exist for screening applicants using SNWs.

j j
PAGE 62 info VOL. 14 NO. 1 2012
Numerous writers observe that using SNW information for hiring may compromise an
applicant’s right to privacy – that is, the right to decide whether, and to whom, to disclose
information in an atmosphere free from coercion or interference (Smith and Kidder, 2010).
Further, modern notions of privacy include not only information about the person, but any
data that are transmitted or communicated, and perhaps even the communication event
itself, such as the name of the intended recipient and the purpose of the message (for a
discussion of definitions of privacy, see Moore, 2005; McCreary, 2008; or Chen et al., 2008).
If an employer requires access to all applicant SNWs – as the US city of Bozeman, Montana
demanded in 2009 (Brown and Vaughn, 2011) – then such a request may be seen by both
applicants and the general public as a violation of job applicants’ privacy (Bozeman
withdrew this requirement after applicants complained and it attracted negative publicity).
Some SNW hosting companies such as Facebook reportedly sell participant information to
other businesses (Lyons, 2010). Not all of the information gathered by a hosting company is
found within the individual’s SNW itself. Suppose a person is logged into Facebook, then
opens a second webpage (outside of Facebook) and visits a company’s web site that offers
a ‘‘‘Like’ us on Facebook’’ button. The fact that the person visited that company’s web site is
recorded by Facebook, even if the person did not click on the ‘‘Like’’ button (Winnipeg
[Canada] Free Press, 2011). Similarly, the Facebook Places feature allows third parties to
track users’ physical locations (Makan, 2011). Individuals may have concerns about
Facebook selling information about consumer preferences to other businesses (Lyons,
2010). However, those concerns pale next to the concerns raised about prospective
employers attempting to learn what web sites an individual applicant has visited and where
he or she has physically traveled. The applicant simply did not authorize an employer to
seek this type of information.
Even if offered a position, applicants may turn it down if they discover that the employer used
selection methods that compromised their privacy. Research using other methods, such as
biodata and weighted application forms recommends that employers avoid seeking
information that violates applicant privacy, such as information about intimacy, traumatic
events, political affiliation and religion. Instead, it is recommended that employers focus on
characteristics and behaviors that are obviously job-related (Mael et al., 1996).

4.6 Using SNW information raises legal and ethical issues

Using SNW information raises a variety of legal and ethical issues. It is beyond the scope of
this paper to attempt a legal review of all industrialized countries for these topics. These will
be considered within the context of US laws, although some principles may apply in other
countries as well. First, many social networking web sites explicitly state that their site is to be
used only for social purposes and not commercial or business purposes. The very act of
using an applicant’s SNW may violate this policy and thus a company may be liable under a
breach of contract doctrine and possibly may be in violation of the US Stored
Communications Act (for discussion see Brandenburg, 2008).
Sometimes, privacy settings prevent strangers from seeing certain SNW profiles. In such
cases, some managers ask fellow employees to log into their personal accounts, become a
‘‘friend’’ of a job applicant and then, if the request is granted, the new ‘‘friend’’ prints or
allows a hiring manager to view the prospective employee’s profile. Some write that this
practice is an invasion of not only the applicant’s privacy, but also the current employee’s
right to privacy and it forces current employees to engage in misleading and fraudulent
behaviors. Because this practice involves deception to obtain information, it may be legally
and ethically questionable (Sherry, 2011).
There are numerous equal employment opportunity (EEO) considerations as well. First, if
recruiters view a candidate’s online social media profile, US courts will assume that they are
aware of their ‘‘protected characteristics’’ (Berkowitz, 2009). Under various US laws these
characteristics include race, gender, religion, age, sex, veteran’s status, and level of
disability. Most HR professionals are aware that they should not ask about these
characteristics in an interview; nor should they require photographs with applications for this
same reason. Yet many recruiters apparently do not realize that seeing photographs or

j j
VOL. 14 NO. 1 2012 info PAGE 63
 written information about these characteristics on a SNW has similar legal consequences. By
becoming aware of these characteristics (even if they are not used in making the hiring
decision), human resource managers are opening themselves up to questions of
discrimination. It is difficult to show that some applicants were not treated differently
because of job-irrelevant characteristics (e.g. minority group status) discovered in a SNW
search. Some firms attempt to avoid this liability by hiring a third party, such as an employment
agency, to view the SNW and to only forward a written summary of job-relevant characteristics
gleaned from the webpage (Fisher, 2011; Moe, 2011b). This strategy requires carefully
identifying the job-relevant criteria to be examined in advance and detailed recordkeeping.
Even so, it may not be entirely successful, as US Equal Employment Opportunity laws apply to
both hiring firms and the employment agencies that prescreen their applicants.
Similarly, under court rulings interpreting the Labor-Management Relations Act in the USA,
as amended, union status is protected. Therefore, a company cannot refuse to hire an
applicant solely because the applicant expresses pro-union opinions (Mello, 2004). The
National Labor Relations Board has ruled that employee expression of opinions on SNWs
may constitute concerted, protected, activity (Klimczuk, 2010) so presumably labor laws
extend to cover the expression of pro- or anti-union opinions by job applicants as well.
Therefore, for an HR manager to examine an applicant’s SNW is to invite discovery of such
information; if the applicant was to learn of this, he or she might file a complaint based on US
federal labor law.
What happens to applicants who do not have SNWs? Research on the ‘‘ambiguity effect’’
suggests that people prefer options with a known probability over options with an unknown
probability (Ellsberg, 1961). Options with known characteristics (e.g. often caused by a great
deal of accompanying information) are often preferred over options with less certain
characteristics (e.g. often caused by little accompanying information). Therefore, most people
generally prefer well-understood over ambiguous options. Suppose a firm has two applicants.
One has a SNW that is family-oriented; the other has no SNW at all. The hiring manager might
conclude that he knows the probability that the first candidate is family-oriented; he is much
less certain about whether the second candidate is family-oriented. If being family-oriented is
valued by the hiring manager, he may tend to hire the first applicant over the second.
What if most of the applicants without SNWs are minorities? If applicants without SNWs are
less likely to be considered (because the firm has less information about them), then there
may be questions of adverse impact toward minority applicants. Adverse impact is the US
legal doctrine which states that seemingly neutral practices may be legally challenged if
they result in fewer minority members being hired. For example, suppose that one minority
group is significantly less likely to have social networking webpages than the majority group.
The practice of using SNWs to select finalists may show adverse impact. Such concerns are
not merely theoretical: According to Fisher (2011), the media analytics firm Quantcast
reports that while both African-American and Hispanic groups comprise approximately 15
percent of the US population, Blacks comprise only 5 percent and Hispanics comprise only
4 percent of LinkedIn users.
If the plaintiff establishes adverse impact, then the burden of proof shifts to the company to
justify the business reason for using such a selection process. Given that hiring decisions
have been made for decades without SNW information and that much of what is posted to
SNW is apparently irrelevant to work performance, an employer may be hard-pressed to
provide a convincing business justification without empirical validity data (Gatewood et al.,
2011) showing that SNWs improve hiring decisions. To date, no published research has
demonstrated such empirical validity (Brown and Vaughn, 2011).
Let us assume that SNW evaluations cause impact. If a hiring manager has decided to use
SNWs in conjunction with other selection methods that do not show adverse impact, then is it
better to use SNW information earlier or later in the hiring process? Research suggests that,
frequently, less overall adverse impact is shown and the quality of hires does not suffer
substantially if the selection device that shows adverse impact comes later in the process
(Sackett and Roth, 1996). Other writers have advocated this approach specifically with SNW

j j
PAGE 64 info VOL. 14 NO. 1 2012
data and recommend that interviews be conducted prior to SNW research to insure that the
correct SNW is accessed (e.g. Berkowitz, 2009). Undoubtedly, some firms use SNW
information only to evaluate finalists for positions. Yet, other firms probably pursue a strategy
that is the opposite of what research recommends; such firms use SNW information to screen
candidates early in the process. Whenever SNW information is used, Fisher (2011) suggests
that HR managers keep a written record of all candidates and reasons why they are not hired.
This will help protect the company in the case of a lawsuit from a disgruntled applicant. Fisher
also suggests recruiters inform applicants of intentions to view their social media profiles, and
allowing the candidate to explain any negative aspects the recruiter sees on them.

5. Conclusion
The purpose of this article has not been to persuade managers that they should use social
networking web sites when hiring; nor has it been to persuade them not to use SNWs. Rather
the purpose of this article is to make recruiters and hiring managers aware of some of the
significant organizational and US-based legal issues associated with using SNWs. There are
numerous reasons why managers should consider using SNWs when hiring. These include:
B the likelihood that SNWs offer ‘‘honest’’ (accurate and truthful) information about the
applicant;
B that SNWs offer a cost-effective way to gather personality and other data, allowing the
hiring managers to have a more comprehensive view of each applicant; and
B an obligation to consider SNW and other background information as a form of ‘‘due
diligence’’ when hiring and to prevent ‘‘negligent hiring’’ if the employee later commits a
crime.
These considerations must be balanced against the arguments suggesting that caution be
used when considering such a move. This paper considered the following arguments
against using SNWs when hiring:
B SNW data may not provide accurate portrayals of the applicant as an employee;
B the employer may be looking at the wrong SNW;
B even professional web sites may be ambiguous, merely reinforcing the hiring manager’s
initial decision based on the cover letter and resume;
B using SNW information raises fairness concerns;
B searching SNWs may violate applicants’’ privacy; and
B examining SNWs raises numerous legal and ethical issues, particularly in the area of
American Equal Employment Opportunity law.
The present paper has focused on US law. Hiring managers in other countries will be
well-advised to become apprised of their own selection, EEO, privacy, and SNW laws, as
these vary from country to country. Further, based on both legislation and court cases, rules
regarding the use of SNWs may change. For example, in 2010, German lawmakers
proposed a law prohibiting employers from using SNWs such as Facebook for screening
applicants (Jolly, 2010).
Only by becoming better informed about these issues can managers intelligently decide
whether they want to use this applicant screening method. Further, if they decide to use
SNWs, they must carefully consider how their procedure will be structured. Policies must be
written that are broad enough to adapt to changing technology, yet are specific enough to
deal with a variety of possibilities that candidates may present (e.g. different types of SNWs;
different privacy settings). Information that is acquired must be stored and made secure.
Policies must also conform to the laws of various countries and jurisdictions. Finally, the value
of the information that is obtained must be balanced with ethical standards and public
relations considerations. Managers who consider these types of factors will be better able to
devise thoughtful policies where both procedures and outcomes are beneficial to the
company, fair to the applicant, and acceptable to society.

j j
VOL. 14 NO. 1 2012 info PAGE 65
 References
Back, M.D., Stopfer, S.V., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S.C., Egloff, B. and Gosling, S.D. (2010), ‘‘Facebook
profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization’’, Psychological Science, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 372-4.

Barrick, M.R., Shaffer, J.A. and DeGrassi, S.W. (2009), ‘‘What you see may not be what you get:
relationships among self-presentation tactics and ratings of interview and job performance’’, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 6, pp. 1394-411.

Bauer, T.N., Truxillo, D.M., Tucker, J.S., Weathers, V., Bertolino, M., Erdogan, B. and Campion, M.A.
(2006), ‘‘Selection in the information age: the impact of privacy concerns and computer experience on
applicant reactions’’, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 601-21.

Bell, B.S., Weichmann, D. and Ryan, A.M. (2006), ‘‘Consequences of organizational justice expectations
in a selection system’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 455-66.

Berkowitz, M. (2009), ‘‘Recruiting and hiring advice’’, Monster.com, available at: http://hiring.monster.
com/hr/hr-best-practices/recruiting-hiring-advice/acquiring-job-candidates/social-media-recruiting-
guidelines.aspx (accessed 2 May 2011).

Bernardin, H.J., Buckley, M.R., Tyler, C.L. and Weise, D.S. (2000), ‘‘A reconsideration of strategies in
rater training’’, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 18,
JAI Press, Stamford, CT, pp. 221-74.

Black, T. (2010), ‘‘How to use social media as a recruiting tool’’, Inc. (online edition), 22 April, available
at: www.inc.com/guides/2010/04/social-media-recruiting.html (accessed 28 April 2011).

Bohnert, D. and Ross, W.H. (2010), ‘‘The influence of social networking websites on the evaluation of job
candidates’’, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 341-7.

Boyd, D.M. and Ellison, N.B. (2007), ‘‘Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship’’, Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 210-30.

Brandenburg, C. (2008), ‘‘The newest way to screen job applicants: a social networker’s nightmare’’,
Federal Communications Law Journal, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 597-627.

Brown, V.R. and Vaughn, E.D. (2011), ‘‘The writing on the (Facebook) wall: the use of social networking
sites in hiring decisions’’, Journal of Business & Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 219-25.

Brus, B. (2011), ‘‘Online oops: social media blurs line between personal, professional lives’’, Oklahoma
City [Oklahoma] Journal Record, (online edition), 17 March, available at: http://journalrecord.com/2011/
03/17/online-oops-general-news/ (accessed 25 April 2011).

Buffardi, L.E. and Campbell, W.K. (2008), ‘‘Narcissism and social networking web sites’’, Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 34 No. 10, pp. 1303-14.

Burbary, K. (2011), ‘‘Facebook demographics revisited’’, Web Business, 7 March, available at: www.
kenburbary.com/2011/03/facebook-demographics-revisited-2011-statistics-2/ (accessed 7 July 2011).

Chen, J.V., Ross, W.H. and Huang, S.F. (2008), ‘‘Privacy, trust, and justice considerations for
location-based mobile telecommunication services’’, Info, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 30-45.

Community Banker (2008), ‘‘Who’s your friend?’’, Community Banker, Vol. 18 11, November, p. 73.

Conlon, D.E. and Ross, W.H. (2011), ‘‘The effect of perceived (in)justice on cooperativeness:
implications for negotiators as ‘justice-enhancing communicators’ in an era of social networking’’, in
Shapiro, D. and Goldman, B. (Eds), Psychology of Negotiations in the 21st Century Workplace,
Psychology Press/Routledge, New York, NY, forthcoming.

Dean, M.A. (2004), ‘‘An assessment of biodata predictive ability across multiple performance criteria’’,
Applied H.R.M. Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-12.

Dipboye, R.L. (1982), ‘‘Self-fulfilling prophesies in the selection-recruitment interview’’, Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 579-86.

Ellsberg, D. (1961), ‘‘Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms’’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 75
No. 4, pp. 643-99.

Elzweig, B. and Peeples, D.K. (2009), ‘‘Using social networking web sites in hiring and retention
decisions’’, S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 27-35.

j j
PAGE 66 info VOL. 14 NO. 1 2012
Fernando, A. (2008), ‘‘Communique: the social media resume’’, Communication World, Vol. 25 4, July,
pp. 8-9.

Fisher, A. (2011), ‘‘Checking out job applicants on Facebook? Better ask a lawyer’’, Fortune, (online
edition), 2 March, available at: http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/03/02/checking-out-job-
applicants-on-facebook-better-ask-a-lawyer/ (accessed 1 May 2011).

Gatewood, R.D., Feild, H.S. and Barrick, M. (2011), Human Resource Selection, 7th ed., South-Western,
Mason, OH.

Gilliland, S.W. and Hale, J.M.S. (2005), ‘‘How can justice be used to improve employee selection
practices?’’, in Greenberg, J. and Colquitt, J.A. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Justice, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 411-38.

Goodman, T.B. (2010), ‘‘Online reputation guide for college students’’, SafetyWeb, 3 December,
available at: www.safetyweb.com/online-reputation-guide-for-college-students (accessed 4 June 2011).

Gunther, B. and Furnham, A. (2001), Assessing Business Potential: A Biodata Approach, Whurr
Publishers, London.

Haefner, R. (2009), ‘‘More employers screening candidates via social networking sites’’,
CareerBuilder.com 10 June, available at: www.careerbuilder.com/Article/CB-1337-Interview-Tips-
More-Employers-Screening-Candidates-via-Social-Networking-Sites/ (accessed 23 April 2011).

Hall, L. (2004), ‘‘Looks good on paper?’’, Personnel Today, 30 March, p. 17.

Harris, M.M., Lievens, F. and Van Hoye, G. (2004), ‘‘‘I think they discriminated against me’: using
prototype theory and organizational justice theory for understanding perceived discrimination in
selection and promotion decisions’’, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 54-65.

Hausknecht, J.P., Day, D.V. and Thomas, S.C. (2004), ‘‘Applicant reactions to selection procedures’’,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 639-83.

Holt, C. (2011), ‘‘Emerging technologies: Web 2.0’’, Health Information Management Journal, Vol. 40
No. 1, pp. 33-5.

Huffcutt, A.I. (2011), ‘‘An empirical review of the employment interview construct literature’’, International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 62-81.

Jolly, D. (2010), ‘‘German law would limit the use of Facebook in hiring’’, New York Times, 26 August, p. 8.

Karren, R.J. and Zacharias, L. (2007), ‘‘Integrity tests: critical issues’’, Human Resource Management
Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 221-34.

Kaslow, F.W., Patterson, T. and Gottlieb, M. (2011), ‘‘Ethical dilemmas in psychologists accessing
internet data: is it justified?’’, Professional Psychology, Research & Practice, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 105-12.

Klimczuk, K.A. (2010), ‘‘Status update’’, Business West, Vol. 27 15, 6 Decembe, p. 23 & 65.

Kluemper, D.H. and Rosen, P.A. (2009), ‘‘Future employment selections methods: evaluating social
networking web sites’’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 567-80.

Kristof-Brown, A.L. (2000), ‘‘Perceived applicant fit: distinguishing between recruiters’ perceptions of
person-job and person-organization fit’’, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 643-71.

Kuzmits, F.E., Thacker, R.A. and Osbourn, M.A. (1991), ‘‘Negligent hiring: reducing the risk’’, Employee
Responsibilities & Rights Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 203-14.

Leary, M.R. and Hoyle, R.H. (Eds) (2009), ‘‘Situations, dispositions, and the study of social behavior’’,
Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior, Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 3-11.

Levashina, J. and Campion, M. (2009), ‘‘Expected practices in background checking: review of the
human resource management literature’’, Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 231-49.

Lyons, D. (2010), ‘‘Facebook’s false contrition: a business built on your data’’, Newsweek, Vol. 7, p. 20.

McCreary, L. (2008), ‘‘What was privacy?’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 10, October, pp. 123-31.

Madigan, N. (2011), ‘‘Officer forced to reveal Facebook page; ACLU claims privacy invaded’’,
McClatchy-Tribune Business News/Baltimore [Maryland] Sun, (online edition), 24 February, available at:

j j
VOL. 14 NO. 1 2012 info PAGE 67
 http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-02-23/news/bs-md-ci-officer-facebook-password-20110223_1_
facebook-page-facebook-password-privacy-protections (accessed 23 April 2011).

Mael, F.A., Connerley, M. and Morath, R.A. (1996), ‘‘None of your business: parameters of biodata
invasiveness’’, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 613-50.

Makan, J. (2011), ‘‘10 things Facebook won’t tell you’’, Smart Money, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 82-4.

Mangla, I.S. (2009), ‘‘Fired for Facebook: don’t let it happen to you’’, CNN Money, 21 April, available at:
http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/04/21/fired-for-facebook-dont-let-it-happen-to-you/
(accessed 17 April 2011).

Melchers, K.G., Lienhardt, N., Von Aarburg, M. and Kleinmann, M. (2011), ‘‘Is more structure really
better? A comparison of frame-of-reference training and descriptively anchored rating scales to improve
interviewers’ rating quality’’, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 53-87.

Mello, J.A. (2004), ‘‘Salts, lies, and videotape: union organizing efforts and management’s response’’,
Labor Law Journal, Spring, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 42-52.

Moe, J. (2011a), ‘‘Facebook will learn your face unless you tell it to stop’’, Marketplace Tech Report,
9 June, available at: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/06/09/tech-report-facebook-
is-using-facial-recognition/ (accessed 7 July 2011).

Moe, J. (2011b), ‘‘What employers look for when they research you online’’, Marketplace Tech Report,
22 June, available at: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/06/22/tech-report-what-
employers-look-for-when-they-research-you-online/ (accessed 7 July 2011).

Molitorisz, S. (2007), ‘‘Stolen: how cyberspace chewed up Cathy’s identity’’, Sydney [Australia] Morning
Herald, 4 August, p. 1.

Moore, A.D. (2005), Information Ethics: Privacy, Property, and Power, University of Washington Press,
Seattle, WA.

Nakashima, E. (2007), ‘‘Harsh words die hard on the web: law students feel lasting effects of anonymous
attacks’’, Washington Post (online edition), 7 March, available at: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602705.html (accessed 4 June 2011).

Phillips, A.P. and Dipboye, R.L. (1989), ‘‘Correlational tests of predictions from a process model of the
interview’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 41-52.

Picard, A. (2011), ‘‘The history of Twitter, 140 characters at a time’’, The Globe and Mail, 20 March,
available at: www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/the-history-of-twitter-140-
characters-at-a-time/article1949299/ (accessed 20 April 2011).

Pickell, R. (2011), ‘‘Checking social media sites when hiring? Proceed with caution’’, Canadian HR
Reporter, March, Vol. 24 6, 28 March, p. 17.

Pike, G.H. (2011), ‘‘Legal issues: online privacy protection gaining momentum’’, Information Today,
Vol. 28 5, May, p. 28.

Ployhart, R.E. and Ryan, A.M. (1998), ‘‘Applicants’ reactions to the fairness of selection procedures: the
effects of positive rule violations and time of measurement’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 1,
pp. 3-16.

Read, B. (2007), ‘‘Online’’, Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 53 19, 12 January, p. A31.

Ross, W.H., Meyer, C.J., Chen, J.V. and Keaton, P. (2009), ‘‘The role of human resource management in
protecting information at telecommunications firms’’, The Journal of Information Privacy and Security,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 49-77.

Rowell, E.D. (2010), ‘‘Didn’t get hired because of Facebook? You’re not alone’’, Ezine Articles, 10 January,
available at: http://ezinearticles.com/?Didnt-Get-Hired-Because-of-Facebook?-Youre-Not-Alone&
id ¼ 3669704 (accessed 24 April, 2011).

Sackett, P.R. and Roth, L. (1996), ‘‘Multi-stage selection strategies: a Monte Carlo investigation of effects
on performance and minority hiring’’, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 549-72.

Schiller, K. (2010), ‘‘Getting a grip on reputation’’, Information Today, Vol. 27 No. 10, p. 1&44.

j j
PAGE 68 info VOL. 14 NO. 1 2012
Sherry, V. (2011), ‘‘Online personas under scrutiny’’, Buffalo [New York] News, 2, 3 April, from EBSCOhost
Newspaper Source Plus database, available at: www.ebscohost.com/public/newspaper-source-plus
(accessed 28 May 2011).

Smith, W.P. and Kidder, D.L. (2010), ‘‘You’ve been tagged! (then again, maybe not): employers and
Facebook’’, Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 491-9.

Smolowitz, P. (2008), ‘‘CMS: 5 caught in web prank: on online message board, teacher was falsely
accused of pedophilia, schools say’’, McClatchy – Tribune Business News (online edition), 1 February,
from ABI/INFORM (Document ID: 1422034021) (accessed 2 June 2011).

Stokes, G.S. and Cooper, L.A. (2004), ‘‘Biodata’’, in Thomas, J.C. (Ed.), Comprehensive Handbook of
Psychological Assessment, Vol. 4: Industrial and Organizational Assessment, John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, NJ, pp. 243-68.

Strategic Communication Management (2007), ‘‘Workers naı̈ve over online presence’’, Strategic
Communication Management, Vol. 12 1, December, p. 9.

Sundar, S. and Stavrositu, C. (2006), ‘‘If internet credibility is so iffy, then why the heavy use? The
relationship between medium use and credibility’’, Proceedings of the 56th Annual Conference of the
International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany, pp. 1-28.

Van Fossen, L. (2011), ‘‘California bans online impersonations’’, Wordcast, 4 January, available at: http://
wordcastnet.com/2011/california-bans-online-impersonations/ (accessed 4 June 2011).

Walther, J.B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S.Y., Westerman, D. and Tong, S.T. (2008), ‘‘The role of friends’
appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: are we known by the company we
keep?’’, Human Communication Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 28-49.

Webster, E.C. (1982), The Employment Interview: A Social Judgment Process, SIP Publications,
Schomberg.

Winnipeg [Canada] Free Press (2011), ‘‘The Economist: internet eroding anonymity, but who pays the
price?’’, Winnipeg [Canada] Free Press, 12 March, p, p. B-19, from Ebscohost Newspaper Plus
database, available at: www.ebscohost.com/public/newspaper-source-plus (accessed 28 May 2011).

Woehr, D.J. and Huffcutt, A.I. (1994), ‘‘Rater training for performance appraisal: a quantitative review’’,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 189-205.

Yianni, S. and MacLaren, A. (2011), Figures show increase in graduate vacancies and boost in starting
salaries for first time in 2 years, press release, Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR), 27 June,
available at: www.agr.org.uk/content/Figures-show-increase-in-graduate-vacancies-and-boost-in-
starting-salaries-for-first-time-in-2-years (accessed 8 July 2011).

About the authors

Ross Slovensky is a graduating senior, majoring in Management from the University of
Wisconsin – La Crosse. He works for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation in the
Labor Compliance bureau. Mr Slovensky has co-authored an entry (in press) for the
Encyclopedia of Cyber Behavior (IGI Global). He is applying to law school.
William H. Ross (PhD, Industrial/Organizational Psychology, University of Illinois) is Professor
of Management at the University of Wisconsin – La Crosse. He has published articles on
internet use and abuse in the workplace, electronic monitoring, and procedural design in
numerous journals including Academy of Management Review, S.A.M. Advanced
Management Journal, Info, CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, Journal of
Applied Psychology, and Personnel Psychology. William H. Ross is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
VOL. 14 NO. 1 2012 info PAGE 69