Implications for theory, research, and practice
SAID
Our study offers implications for the literature on reference checks. First, it is important to note that the signals and their interactions explained only a small amount of variability in reference provider’s fear of adverse consequences and reports of applicant workplace incivility. We found no evidence for direct effects of the signals we studied. Thus, although researchers and practitioners encourage hiring organizations to employ the practices we studied and remind reference providers if the practices are in effect, findings from our study suggests that they have a limited impact on fear of adverse consequences and reports of applicant workplace incivility when used in isolation. This observation is pertinent as we seek to move toward evidence-based practice [With that said, we did observe some evidence for interactions among the signals that were sent to reference providers, each of which explained a small proportion of the variability in the outcomes that we studied. In both of the observed interactions, the reminder of qualified privilege appeared to slightly modify the impact of another reminder: the effect of confidentiality for reports of applicant incivility, and the effect of applicant consent for fear of adverse legal consequences. For reports of applicant workplace incivility, it is intriguing to note that a reminder of confidentiality alone, without qualified privilege, led to the lowest reports of incivility. This suggests that confidentiality alone is not entirely reassuring for reference providers, a finding which stands in contrast with prior research [Our research also offers implications for signaling theory. Specifically, our research provides additional evidence that signals can interact to influence receiver (e.g., reference provider) behavior [We also contribute to research on potential ways to improve the effectiveness of reference checks. With the exception of confidentiality [We encourage additional research into ways to improve the utility of reference checks, and we envision several possibilities to that end. For instance, in our control conditions, no reminders of applicant consent, confidentiality, or qualified privilege were sent. In future studies, researchers may find value in studying the implications for fear and reports of incivility of signaling to reference providers that they do We believe that several practical implications extend from our study. Reference checks are among the most widely used selection methods [Second, fear of adverse legal consequences was lowest and reports of applicant incivility were highest when providers were reminded of qualified privilege and confidentiality (for incivility) or applicant consent (for fear). Thus, we encourage hiring organizations and reference checking vendors to include all three reminders in instructions prior to gathering data from reference checks, assuming qualified privilege applies in their locale [Finally, given the small effects that we observed, and our limited ability to influence reference provider fear and reports of incivility via the manipulations we studied, we ultimately encourage hiring organizations to use 