"The interviewer is a machine!" Investigating the effects of conventional and technology‐mediated interview methods on interviewee reactions and behavior.

Despite the growing number of organizations interested in the use of asynchronous video interviews (AVIs), little is known about its impact on interviewee reactions and behavior. We randomly assigned participants (N = 299) from two different countries (Switzerland and India) to a face‐to‐face interview, an avatar‐based video interview (with an avatar as a virtual recruiter), or a text‐based video interview (with written questions) and collected data on a set of self‐rated and observer‐rated criteria. Overall, we found that whereas participants reported more negative reactions towards the two asynchronous interviews, observer ratings revealed similar performance across the three interviews and lower stress levels in the two AVIs. These findings suggest that despite technology‐mediated interview methods still not being well‐accepted, interviewees are not at a disadvantage when these methods are used in terms of how well interviewees perform and how stressed they appear to external observers. Implications are discussed. Practitioner points: What is currently known about the topic of our study: Face‐to‐face (FTF) interviews are preferred over technology‐mediated interview methods (e.g., videoconference interviews).The rating procedure (live vs. recorded ratings) influences interviewee performance ratings.Preparation time offered in asynchronous interviews influences interviewee performance ratings. What our paper adds to this: Our study compares a FTF interview to two emerging asynchronous video interview (AVI) methods.We compared interviewee reactions (e.g., perceived fairness) across the three interview methods.We compared interviewee self‐rated levels of stress and performance to how observers rate the level of expressed stress and interviewee performance.We collected data in two different countries to assess whether the cultural context influences interviewee reactions and behavior depending on the interview method. The implications of our study findings for practitioners: Interviewee performance as assessed by observers did not differ across the three interviews, suggesting that interviewees are not disadvantaged by the AVI methods.AVIs should be used with caution given that this method is less accepted than the conventional FTF method.Overall, the cultural context mostly did not influence the findings, hence increasing the generalizability of the practical implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]