Rejection letters 2022

Dataset and documentation relating to research on rejection letters in selection. There are two datasets, one with an experimental design (study 1) and one correlational (study 2). The data collection was carried out in real selection contexts in 2022.
Research was designed to explore the fundamental aspects influencing applicant reactions and outcomes, involving a thorough examination of organizations’ communication characteristics and procedures, including factors like communication delay and selection steps, as well as individual characteristics, that can shape how applicants perceive and react to the selection process.
Hypothesis 1 (Hp1). Response latency in rejection communication (brief vs. normal) affects the applicant’s perceptions of (H1a) fairness, (H1b) satisfaction with the process, (H1c) intention to recommend and to (H1d) re-apply.
Hypothesis 2 (Hp2): Applicant’s perceptions of (H2a) fairness, (H2b) satisfaction with the process, (H2c) intention to recommend and to (H2d) re-apply., worsen with the progressive selection steps.
Hypothesis 3 (Hp3): employability moderates the relationship between perceived fairness and outcomes, such that higher employability weakens the association between fairness perceptions and outcomes.
Measures
Procedural Fairness was evaluated with five items derived from the international literature (Bauer et al., 2001), ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); examples of items are “I believe that the evaluation was objective and impartial”. Cronbach’s Alpha = .942; McDonald’s ω = .945.
Employability was measured with the Italian version (Lodi et al., 2020) of the Self-Perceived Employability Scale (Rothwell & Arnold, 2007), consisting of eleven items to 5-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = no probability of getting a job; to 5 = 100% probability/certain of getting a job); examples of items “I could easily get a similar job to mine in almost any organization”. Cronbach’s Alpha = .90; McDonald’s ω = .91.
Satisfaction with the selection process was evaluated with three items derived from the literature (Gilliland et al., 2001), ranging from 1 (totally dissatisfied) to 4 (totally satisfied). Examples of items (“How satisfied are you with the selection process?”). Cronbach’s Alpha = .94; McDonald’s ω = .95.
Organizational Recommendation was assessed with three items derived from the literature (Waung & Brice, 2000), ranging from 0 (“I would certainly not recommend this company”) to 3 (“I would certainly recommend this company”); examples of items are “Would you recommend an application for this company to a friend?”. Cronbach’s Alpha = .94; McDonald’s ω = .94.
Intention to re-apply was measured with three items derived from the literature (Waung & Brice, 2000) ranging from 0 (“I will certainly not re-apply) to 4 (I will certainly re-apply); examples of items are “Would you apply again to this company?”. Cronbach’s Alpha = .95; McDonald’s ω = .95.