ArticlePloS one2022
Face-to-face vs. remote digital settings in job assessment interviews: A multilevel hyperscanning protocol for the investigation of interpersonal attunement.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring interpersonal neural synchrony in coach-athlete interactions: insights from naturalistic EEG hyperscanning in competitive tennis.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Dyadic Neural Synchronization: Differences between Offline and Computer-assisted Online Verbal Interaction.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Brain Oscillations and Autonomic Synthonization via Comodulation in Collaborative Negotiation.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Sensorimotor Simulation's Influence on Stress: EEG and Autonomic Responses in Digital Interviews.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Dyadic inter-brain EEG coherence induced by interoceptive hyperscanning.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Hyperscanning EEG Paradigm Applied to Remote vs. Face-To-Face Learning in Managerial Contexts: Which Is Better?Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Autonomic synchrony induced by hyperscanning interoception during interpersonal synchronization tasks.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Shared emotions, interpersonal syntonization, and group decision-making: a multi-agent perspective.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.