SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Psikoloji Çalışmaları / 2025 / Cilt: 45 Sayı: 3

Exploring the Effects of Technology-Mediated Job Interviews on Anxiety and Performance: A Mixed Methods Study in the Turkish Context

Teknoloji Aracılı İş Mülakatlarının Anksiyete ve Performans Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Bağlamında Bir Karma Yöntem Araştırması

Dilara Turgut(IZMIR KATIP CELEBI UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-7945-7585
Burcu Kümbül Güler(IZMIR KATIP CELEBI UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-6179-7557
Pages
302–331
Publication Date
2025-12-22
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Quantitative results showed that higher interview anxiety predicted lower selfrated performance, whereas observer-rated performance was unaffected.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Technology-mediated interviews have become increasingly common, yet little is known about how different formats shape candidates’ anxiety and performance.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Quantitative results showed that higher interview anxiety predicted lower selfrated performance, whereas observer-rated performance was unaffected.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study highlights how different interview modalities influence candidates’ reactions and offers implications for designing technologically mediated recruitment practices.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yüz yüze mülakat · eşzamanlı video mülakatı · eşzamansız video mülakatı

Abstract

Technology-mediated interviews have become increasingly common, yet little is known about how different formats shape candidates’ anxiety and performance. Using a convergent mixed-method design, this study compared faceto-face (FTF), synchronous video interviews (SVI), and AI-led asynchronous video interviews (AVI) among emerging adults in a simulated hiring context. Quantitative results showed that higher interview anxiety predicted lower selfrated performance, whereas observer-rated performance was unaffected. Self-expression satisfaction was lower in AI-led AVIs than in SVIs. Interview format moderated the link between behavioral anxiety and observer-rated performance: higher behavioral anxiety impaired performance in FTF interviews but was associated with better performance in AI-led AVIs. Qualitative findings indicated that candidates appreciated interpersonal warmth in FTF interviews, the convenience of SVIs, and the preparation time provided in AI-led AVIs. Overall, participants reported predominantly positive emotional experiences across formats. The study highlights how different interview modalities influence candidates’ reactions and offers implications for designing technologically mediated recruitment practices.

Özet

Teknoloji aracılığıyla gerçekleştirilen iş mülakatları giderek yaygınlaşmasına rağmen, farklı mülakat biçimlerinin adayların kaygı ve performansını nasıl etkilediğine dair bilgiler sınırlıdır. Bu çalışma, birleşik karma yöntem kullanarak genç yetişkinlerin katıldığı bir işe alım simülasyonunda üç mülakat formatını karşılaştırmıştır: Yüz yüze mülakat (FTF), eşzamanlı video mülakatı (SVI) ve yapay zekâ tarafından yürütülen eşzamansız video mülakatı (AVI). Nicel bulgular, mülakat kaygısı arttıkça adayların kendi performanslarını daha düşük değerlendirdiklerini, ancak gözlemcilerin verdiği performans puanlarının bu kaygıdan etkilenmediğini göstermiştir. Ayrıca adaylar, öz ifade açısından yapay zekâ destekli AVI formatını SVI’a kıyasla daha az tatmin edici bulmuştur. Mülakat formatı, davranışsal kaygı ile gözlemci değerlendirmeli performans arasındaki ilişkiyi etkilemiştir: Yüz yüze mülakatlarda yüksek davranışsal kaygı performansı düşürürken, yapay zekâ destekli AVI’larda daha iyi performansla ilişkilendirilmiştir. Nitel bulgular, adayların yüz yüze mülakatlardaki kişilerarası sıcaklığı, eşzamanlı video mülakatlarının sağladığı pratikliği ve yapay zekâ destekli AVI’ların sunduğu ek hazırlık süresini olumlu değerlendirdiklerini ortaya koymuştur. Katılımcılar genel olarak tüm formatlarda ağırlıklı olarak olumlu duygusal deneyimler bildirmiştir. Bu çalışma, mülakat yöntemlerinin aday tepkilerini nasıl şekillendirdiğini göstererek teknoloji aracılı işe alım süreçlerinin tasarımına ilişkin önemli çıkarımlar sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Turgut, D., Güler, B. K. (2025). Exploring the Effects of Technology-Mediated Job Interviews on Anxiety and Performance: A Mixed Methods Study in the Turkish Context. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, Cilt: 45 Sayı: 3, 302–331. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2023-1750843

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (64)

  1. Acikgoz, Y., Davidson, K. H., Compagnone, M., & Laske, M. (2020). justice perceptions of artificial intelligence in selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28(4), 399-416. https://psYcnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/iisa.12306 google scholar
  2. Ayres, j., Keereetaweep, T., Chen, P. E., & Edwards, P. A. (1998). Communication apprehension and employment interviews. Communication Education, 47, 1-17. http://doi.org/l0.1080/03634529809379106 google scholar
  3. Balcerak, A., & Wozniak, j. (2021). The synchronous video interviews in personnel selection processes. European Research Studies Journal, 24(2), 3-13. 10.35808/ersi/2108. google scholar
  4. Basch, j. M., Melchers, K. G., Kegelmann, j., & Lieb, L. (2020). Smile for the camera! The role of social presence and impression management in perceptions of technologY-mediated interviews. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(4), 285-299. 10.1108/ jMP-09-2018-0398 google scholar
  5. Basch, j. M., Melchers, K. G., Kurz, A., Krieger, M., & Miller, L. (2021). lt takes more than a good camera: Which factors contribute to differences between face-to-face interviews and videoconference interviews regarding performance ratings and interviewee perceptions?. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36, 921-940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09714-3 google scholar
  6. Blacksmith, N., Willford, j. C., & Behrend, T. S. (2016). Technology in the employment interview: A meta-analYsis and future research agenda. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 2(i), 12-20. https://doi.org/10.25035/pad.2016.002 google scholar
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology Qualitative research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://psYcnet. apa.org/doi/l0.119l/l478088706qp063oa google scholar
  8. Brenner, F. S., Ortner, T. M., & FaY, D. (2016). AsYnchronous video interviewing as a new technologY in personnel selection: The applicant’s point of view. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsYg.2016.00863 google scholar
  9. CaLefato, F., & LanubiLe, f. (2010). Communication media selection for remote interaction of ad hoc groups. ln Advances in computers (VoL. 78, pp. 271-313). ELsevier. google scholar
  10. Campion, M. A., PaLmer, D. K., & Campion, j. E. (1997). A review of structure in the seLection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 655-702. https://psYcnet.apa.Org/doi/l0.111l/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00709.x google scholar
  11. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Winsborough, D., Sherman, R. A., & Hogan, R. (2016). New talent signals: Shiny new objects or a brave new world? Industrlal and Organlzatlonal Psychology, 9(3), 621-640. doi:10.1017/iop.2016.6 google scholar
  12. Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., & Webster, j. (2003). Applicant reactions to face-to-face and technologY-mediated interviews: A field investigation. Journal of Applled Psychology, 88(5), 944-953. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.944 google scholar
  13. Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analYsis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologlst, 26(2), 120-123. google scholar
  14. Constantin, K. L., Powell, D. M., & McCarthY, j. M. (2021). Expanding conceptual understanding of interview anxietY and performance: lntegrating cognitive, behavioral and phYsiological features. Internatlonal Journal of Selectlon and Assessment, 29(2), 234-252. https://psYcnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/ijsa.12326 google scholar
  15. Cook, K. W., Vance, C. A., & Spector, P. E. (2000). The relation of candidate personalitY with selection-interview outcomes. Journal of Applled Soclal Psychology, 30(4), 867-885. google scholar
  16. Creswell, j. W. (2005), Educatlonal research plannlng, conductlng, and evaluatlng quantltatlve and qualltatlve research, (3rd Ed.). Pearson Merril Prentice Hall. google scholar
  17. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Sclence, 32(5), 554-571. http://dx.doi.Org/l0.1287/mnsc.32.5.554 google scholar
  18. Dai, Y., Li, H., Xie, W., & Deng, T. (2022). Power distance belief and workplace communication: The mediating role of fear of authoritY. Internatlonal Journal of Envlronmental Research and Publlc Health, 19(5), 2932. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052932 google scholar
  19. Griswold, K. R., Phillips, j. M., Kim, M. S., Mondragon, N., Liff, j., & Gully, S. M. (2022). Global differences in applicant reactions to virtual interview sYnchronicitY. The Internatlonal Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(15), 2991-3018. https://psYcnet.apa.org/ doi/10.1080/09585192.2021.1917641 google scholar
  20. Hirsh, j. B., Mar, R. A., & Peterson, j. B. (2012). PsYchological entropy: A framework for understanding uncertainty-related anxiety. Psychologlcal Revlew, 119(2), 304. https://psYcnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0026767 google scholar
  21. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: Internatlonal dlfferences ln work-related values (Vol. 5). Sage. google scholar
  22. Huffcutt, A. l., & Arthur, W. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: lnterview validitY for entrY-level jobs. Journal ofApplled Psychology, 79(2), 184-190. https://doi.org/l0.1037/0021-9010.79.2184 google scholar
  23. İlhan Ü. D., Kümbül-Güler, B., Turgut, D., & Duran, C. (2025) Opportunities and challenges of asynchronous video interviews: Perceptions of human resources professionals from Türkiye. PLoS One 20(6), Article e0325932. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325932 google scholar
  24. Ipsos. (2025). Ipsos global views on artificial intelligence 2025. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos.com/tr-tr/ipsos-yapay-zekaya-globalbakis google scholar
  25. Jaser, Z., Petrataki D, Starr R, Oyarbide E, Newton B., & Williams J (2021). Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the job interview process. Toolkit for employers, careers advisors and hiring platforms. Institute for Employment Studies. google scholar
  26. Kim, H. Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restoratlve Dentlstry & Endodontlcs, 38(1), 52-54. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52 google scholar
  27. Köchling, A., & Wehner, M. C. (2020). Discriminated bY an algorithm: A sYstematic review of discrimination and fairness bY algorithmic decision-making in the context of HR recruitment and HR development. Buslness Research, 13(3), 795-848. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s40685-020-00134-w google scholar
  28. Köchling, A., Wehner, M. C., & Warkocz, j. (2023). Can I show mY skills? Affective responses to artificial intelligence in the recruitment process. Revlew of Managerlal Sclence, 17(6), 2109-2138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00514-4 google scholar
  29. Kusku, F., Ataman, B., & Çakmak, A. F. (2003). İş görüşmelerinin değerlendirilmesi: AdaY MemnunİYeti Ölçeği. Yönetim Araştırmaları Derglsl, 3(1), 29-55. google scholar
  30. Langer, M., König, C. j., & Hemsing, V. (2020). Is anYbodY listening? The impact of automaticallY evaluated job interviews on impression management and applicant reactions. Journal of Managerlal Psychology, 35(4), 271-284. https://psYcnet.apa.org/doi/10.1108/jMP-03-2019-0156 google scholar
  31. Langer, M., König, C. j., & Krause, K. (2017). Examining digital interviews for personnel selection: Applicant reactions and interviewer ratings. Internatlonal Journal of Selectlon and Assessment, 25(4), 371-382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12191 google scholar
  32. Langer, M., König, C. j., & Papathanasiou, M. (2019). Highly automated job interviews: Acceptance under the influence of stakes. Inter-natlonal Journal of Selectlon and Assessment, 27(3), 217-234. https://psYcnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/ijsa.12246 google scholar
  33. Lee, M. K. (2018). Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic manage-ment. Blg Data & Soclety, 5(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718756684 google scholar
  34. Levine, S. P., & Feldman, R. S. (2002). Women and men’s nonverbal behavior and self-monitoring in a job interview setting. Applled HRM Research, 7(1), 1-14. google scholar
  35. Lin-Stephens, S., & Manuguerra, M. (2023). Using visual stimuli in narrative career interventions: Effects of image-supported storytelling on interview anxietY and performance. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 1-27. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10775-023-09603-0 google scholar
  36. Lukacik, E. R., Bourdage, j. S., & Roulin, N. (2022). lnto the void: A conceptual model and research agenda for the design and use of asYnchronous video interviews. Human Resource Management Review, 32(1), 100789. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zi.hrmr.2020.100789 google scholar
  37. McCarthY, j. M., Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., Shao, Y., Wang, M., Liff, j., & Gardner, C. (2021). Distressed and distracted bY COVlD-19 during high-stakes virtual interviews: The role of iob interview anxietY on performance and reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(8), 1103-1117. https:ZZdoi.org/l0.1037ZapL0000943 google scholar
  38. McCarthy, j., & Goffin, R. (2004). Measuring iob interview anxietY: BeYond weak knees and sweaty palms. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 607-637. https://psYcnet.apa.Org/doi/l0.111l/i.1744-6570.2004.00002.x google scholar
  39. McCoLL, R., & Michelotti, M. (2019). Sorıy could you repeat the question? Exploring video-interview recruitment practice in HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 29(4), 637-656. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12249 google scholar
  40. Meiia, C., & Torres, E. N. (2018). lmpLementation and normalization process of asynchronous video interviewing practices in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(2), 685-701. https://doi.org/10.1108/ljCHM-07-2016-0402 google scholar
  41. MeLchers, K. G., Petrig, A., Basch, j. M., & Sauer, j. (2021). A comparison of conventionaL and technoLogY-mediated seLection interviews with regard to interviewees’ performance, perceptions, strain, and anxietY. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 603632. https://doi.org/10. 3389/fpsYg.2020.603632 google scholar
  42. Mirowska, A., & Mesnet, L. (2022). Preferring the deviL You know: PotentiaL applicant reactions to artificiaL inteLLigence evaLuation of interviews. Human Resource Management Journal, 32(2), 364-383. https:/ZpsYcnet.apa.orgZdoi/10.1111/1748-8583.12393 google scholar
  43. Moscoso, S., SaLgado, j. F., & Anderson, N. (2017). How do l get a iob, what are they looking for? PersonneL seLection and assessment. ln N. ChimieL, F. FraccoLi, & M. Sverke (Eds.), An introduction to work and organizational psychology (pp. 25-47). http://dx.doi.org/10. 1002/9781119168058.ch2 google scholar
  44. Ore, O., & Sposato, M. (2022). Opportunities and risks of artificiaL inteLLigence in recruitment and seLection. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(6), 1771-1782. http:Z/dx.doi.orgZ10.1108ZljOA-07-2020-2291 google scholar
  45. Ötting, S. K., & Maier, G. W. (2018). The importance of procedural iustice in human-machine interactions: lntelligent systems as new decision agents in organizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 27-39. https://psYcnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/i.chb.2018.07.022 google scholar
  46. PotoskY, D. (2008). A conceptuaL framework for the roLe of the administration medium in the personneL assessment process. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 629-648. google scholar
  47. PoweLL, D. M., StanLeY, D. j., & Brown, K. N. (2018). Meta-anaLYsis of the reLation between interview anxietY and interview performance. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 50(4), 195-207. doi: 10.1037/cbs0000108 google scholar
  48. Rigos, j. C. (2022). Applicant reactions to highly automated video-interviews: Examining the influence of augmentation and discrimination experience. Hofstra UniversitY. google scholar
  49. Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., Van lddekinge, C. H., & Thatcher, j. B. (2016). SociaL media in employee-seLection-related decisions: A research agenda for uncharted territorY. Journal of Management, 42(1), 269-298. https://doi/10.1177/0149206313503018 google scholar
  50. RouLin, N., Wong, O., Langer, M., & Bourdage, j. S. (2023). ls more aLwaYs better? How preparation time and re-recording opportunities impact fairness, anxiety, impression management, and performance in asYnchronous video interviews. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 32(3), 333-345. http://dx.doi.org/l0.1080/l359432X.2022.2156862 google scholar
  51. Schneider, L., PoweLL, D. M., & Bonaccio, S. (2019). Does interview anxiety predict iob performance and does it influence the predictive validity of interviews?. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27(4), 328-336. https://doi.org/10.1111/iisa.12263 google scholar
  52. Sears, j. G., Zhang, H., H. Wiesner, W., D. Hackett, R., & Yuan, Y. (2013). A comparative assessment of videoconference and face-to-face empLoYment interviews. Management Decision, 51(8), 1733-1752. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2012-0642 google scholar
  53. ShaughnessY, j. j., Zechmeister, E. B., & Zechmeister, j. S. (2000). Research methods in psychology. McGraw-HiLL. google scholar
  54. Short, j., WiLLiams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. john WiLeY & Sons. google scholar
  55. Smith, P. C., & KendaLL, L. M. (1963). RetransLation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scaLes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47(2), 149-155. https://psYcnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0047060 google scholar
  56. Stanford UniversitY. (2025). Artificial intelligence index report 2025. Stanford lnstitute for Human-Centered ArtificiaL lnteLLigence (HAl). Retrieved from https://aiindex.stanford.edu google scholar
  57. Strauss, A., & Corbin, j. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory (2. ed). Sage. google scholar
  58. Suen, H. Y., Chen, M. Y. C., & Lu, S. H. (2019). Does the use of synchrony and artificial intelligence in video interviews affect interview ratings and applicant attitudes?. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 93-101. https://doi.orgZ10.1016Zi.chb.2019.04.012 google scholar
  59. Toldi, N. L. (2011). job applicants favor video interviewing in the candidate-selection process. Employment Relations Today, 38(3), 19-27. google scholar
  60. Turgut, D., Kümbül-Güler, B., & Yüzbaşı, D. V. (2024). Seçim Mülakatlarinda Kaygı Ölçeği (Masi)’nin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 26(2), 785-814. google scholar
  61. Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK). (2025). Artificial Intelligence statistics 2025. Retrieved from https://data.tuik.gov.tr google scholar
  62. UniversitY of Dundee. (2023, julY 7). Practise job interviews using shortlist.me. Retrieved October 10, 2023, from https://www.dundee.ac. uk/guides/practise-job-interviews-using-shortlistme google scholar
  63. Van Iddekinge, C. H., RaYmark, P. H., Roth, P. L., & PaYne, H. S. (2006). Comparing the psychometric characteristics of ratings of face-to-face and videotaped structured interviews. International Journal of Selectlon and Assessment, 14(4), 347-359. https://psYcnet. apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00356.x, google scholar
  64. Woods, S. A., Ahmed, S., Nikolaou, I., Costa, A. C., & Anderson, N. R. (2020). Personnel selection in the digital age: A review of validity and applicant reactions, and future research challenges, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 64-77. https://psYcnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1681401 google scholar