Why do organizational decision-makers use social media information to assess hireability?: An empirical study of stated reasons

Social media (SM) assessments are a new type of selection procedure. Their frequency of use in hireability decision-making is substantial, encompassing both utilitarian (e.g., LinkedIn) and hedonic (e.g., Facebook) platforms. Yet, there is limited evidence of SM assessment validity (prediction of job performance). This mismatch (use vs. lack of validity evidence) motivated our study of why decision-makers embrace such information. We used (i) the unified technology acceptance model and (ii) organizational justice theory to list positively framed facets of SM assessments (e.g., provide information about applicant skills, used consistently, fun to use). Decision-makers were assigned to one of three conditions—information retrieved from Facebook, LinkedIn, or structured interviews (as a baseline)—and were asked to rate how well these explanatory facets characterized information from those SM (and comparison) sources. Empirical composites (principal components) of these facets were developed. We found that all composites were positively related to use of SM across all conditions. These findings are disconcerting given the equivocal validity of SM assessments (and potential for much extraneous, non-job-related information). We urge continued research on reasons for frequent use of SM assessments, as well as implications of that use. Such research for other predictors is also encouraged.