This article provides an in-depth analysis of the role of non-verbal cues in interviewing. Through a comprehensive analysis of 63 studies conducted over the past 70 years, it examines how non-verbal cues affect interview assessment. The study involved 4,868 participants and covered a wide range of nonverbal cues, including professional appearance, eye contact, and head movements.
The results of the study showed that nonverbal cues had a significant positive effect on interview performance, with professional appearance (ρ = .62), eye contact (ρ = .45), and head movements (ρ = .43) having the highest correlations with interview performance. These results emphasize the importance of nonverbal cues that quickly and directly convey a candidate’s professionalism and self-confidence when interviewers are evaluating candidates. The appearance, movement and voice of job seekers have a significant impact on the evaluation of interview performance, which in turn affects their likelihood of being hired. The static cues of professional appearance were the strongest predictors of interview performance, accounting for about 38% of the variance, as these factors are mostly under the control of the interviewer.
Dynamic nonverbal cues accounted for approximately 13% of the variance in interview performance. Eye contact (R2 = 20.25%) and head movement (R2 = 18.49%) had the strongest positive effects on interview scores. This suggests that maintaining good eye contact and positive head movements can increase the interviewer’s trust and recognition of the applicant. Voice characteristics were also associated with interview performance (R2 = 12.96%). Attractive voices exhibit pleasant and varied volume, speech rate, and intonation. However, voice quality is more difficult to adjust and may limit the scope for improving interview performance. Additionally, stigmatized appearance was the only nonverbal cue negatively associated with interview performance (R2 = 7.29%), suggesting that bias toward such appearance may influence interview results. Most surprisingly, the positive association between smiling and interview performance was not supported (R2 = 1.96%), suggesting that different types of smiles (genuine and inauthentic) have different effects on interviews, which may be related to interviewers’ perceptions of the genuineness of smiles.
In addition, the study considered a number of moderating variables, such as the structure of the interview, the mode (face-to-face or video), the duration, and the gender of the candidate, and found that these factors all affected the effect of nonverbal cues on interview performance to some extent. For example, non-verbal cues were less influential in the structured interview process, which could be attributed to the fact that structured interviews are less subjective through standardized questions and scoring systems, allowing interviewers to focus more on the linguistic content of the candidates rather than on non-verbal cues.
The integrative approach allowed the researchers to consolidate inconsistent findings, providing a more stable and reliable estimate of effect sizes and thus a more accurate understanding of the role of nonverbal cues in interviews. This study not only reinforces the importance of nonverbal cues in interviewing, but also provides practical guidance to help interviewers and HR professionals better design and conduct interviews to improve the efficiency and fairness of the selection process.
Overall, this study provides strong evidence of the critical role of nonverbal cues in job interviews and reveals the multiple factors that influence the effectiveness of these cues. These findings are not only valuable for academic research, but also provide important practical guidelines for actual human resource management and interviewing practices, especially in terms of how to utilize nonverbal cues to enhance the effectiveness of the interviewing process. By gaining a deeper understanding of how these cues affect interview results, HR professionals can more accurately identify and develop potential talent, which in turn improves the overall performance of the organization.
Ref: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2670
Photo by Kaleidico on Unsplash