Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35130314›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Face-to-face vs. remote digital settings in job assessment interviews: A multilevel hyperscanning protocol for the investigation of interpersonal attunement.

Michela Balconi, Giulia Fronda, Federico Cassioli, Davide Crivelli

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michela BalconiInternational Research Center for Cognitive Applied Neuroscience (IrcCAN), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano, Italy.
Giulia FrondaInternational Research Center for Cognitive Applied Neuroscience (IrcCAN), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano, Italy.
Federico CassioliInternational Research Center for Cognitive Applied Neuroscience (IrcCAN), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano, Italy.
Davide CrivelliInternational Research Center for Cognitive Applied Neuroscience (IrcCAN), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2221-2349

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The digitalization process for organizations, which was inevitably accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, raises relevant challenges for Human Resource Management (HRM) because every technological implementation has a certain impact on human beings. Between many organizational HRM practices, recruitment and assessment interviews represent a significant moment where a social interaction provides the context for evaluating candidates' skills. It is therefore relevant to investigate how different interaction frames and relational conditions affect such task, with a specific focus on the differences between face-to-face (FTF) and remote computer-mediated (RCM) interaction settings. In particular, the possibility of qualifying and quantifying the mechanisms shaping the efficiency of interaction in the recruiter-candidate dyad-i.e. interpersonal attunement-is potentially insightful. We here present a neuroscientific protocol aimed at elucidating the impact of FTF vs. RCM modalities on social dynamics within assessment interviews. Specifically, the hyperscanning approach, understood as the concurrent recording and integrated analysis of behavioural-physiological responses of interacting agents, will be used to evaluate recruiter-candidate dyads while they are involved in either FTF or RCM conditions. Specifically, the protocol has been designed to collect self-report, oculometric, autonomic (electrodermal activity, heart rate, heart rate variability), and neurophysiological (electroencephalography) metrics from both inter-agents to explore the perceived quality of the interaction, automatic visual-attentional patterns of inter-agents, as well as their cognitive workload and emotional engagement. The proposed protocol will provide a theoretical evidence-based framework to assess possible differences between FTF vs. RMC settings in complex social interactions, with a specific focus on job interviews.

Indexed as

PsychometricsEmploymentEye MovementsHumansInterviews as TopicPersonnel SelectionSurveys and QuestionnairesTelecommunicationsVideo Recording

Identifiers

PMID35130314
PMCPMC8820616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.