DescriptionDecision-makers often combine information such as test scores and personal statements holistically, even though a decision-rule often yields more valid decisions (Kuncel et al., 2013). While decision-makers report higher intentions to use decision-rules when they have autonomy over them (Nolan & Highhouse, 2014), increased autonomy should not result in substantial validity loss. We investigated the effect of varying degrees of autonomy on use intentions and predictive validity. In a within-subjects design, participants (N = 150) predicted students’ academic performance based on their high school grade, an admission test score, and a personal statement. Participants judged five cases in each of four conditions: (1) holistic judgment, (2) determining predictor weights for each case individually, (3) determining general predictor weights across cases, and (4) unrestrictedly adjusting optimal decision-rule predictions. Additionally, in a fifth condition, (5) participants imagined that they had to rely solely on the optimal decision-rule predictions. Participants’ perceived autonomy, use intentions, satisfaction with, and confidence in these judgment procedures were measured after each condition. Use intentions were high when participants could determine general predictor weights and adjust decision-rule predictions. However, predictions made in these conditions did not show higher predictive validity than the holistic judgments.
|Evenementstitel||14th Dutch-Flemish Research Meeting on Personnel Selection and Recruitment|
|Mate van erkenning||International|