Do Applicant Reactions to Gamified Cognitive Ability Tests Differ Between High- Versus Low-Stakes Settings?

Area of Science:

• Organizational Psychology
• Human Resource Management
• Assessment Psychology

Background:

• Cognitive ability tests are crucial for predicting job performance but face applicant acceptance issues.
• Increasing talent shortages necessitate improved applicant reactions to assessments.
• Gamification shows potential for enhancing reactions to cognitive tests, but its effectiveness in high-stakes settings is under-researched.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate whether gamification's positive effects on applicant reactions generalize from low-stakes to high-stakes settings.
• To compare applicant reactions to a gamified cognitive test in simulated versus real selection contexts.

Main Methods:

• A quasi-experimental study involving 210 participants.
• Comparison of reactions to the same gamified cognitive ability test between experimental participants (low-stakes) and real applicants (high-stakes).
• Measurement of applicant reactions including perceived fairness, motivation, and enjoyment.

Main Results:

• Real applicants in a high-stakes setting reported significantly more positive reactions (fairness, motivation, attractiveness, enjoyment) than participants in a low-stakes setting.
• No significant differences were found in perceived job-relatedness or opportunity to perform between the two settings.
• The testing environment critically influences applicant reactions to gamified cognitive assessments.

Conclusions:

• Gamification can improve applicant reactions, but the impact is amplified in high-stakes, real-world selection scenarios.
• Environmental factors, such as the stakes of the assessment, are crucial for understanding the effects of gamification.
• Future research should consider the context when evaluating gamified assessments in talent selection.