IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0290011.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What should I say? Testing ways to reduce fear and increase disclosure of incivility in reference checks

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin M Walsh
  • Brittany Heighton
  • Chloe Dingens

Abstract

We utilize signaling theory as a foundation for testing ways to decrease reference providers’ fear of adverse consequences and increase disclosure of workplace incivility in reference checks. We focus on three reminders–commonly recommended by practitioners–that may be sent to reference providers in the instructions prior to the reference check: reminders of applicant consent, qualified privilege, and confidentiality. 420 supervisors were recruited via Prolific.co to complete a hypothetical reference check for the employee with whom they least like to work. Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions in a two (applicant consent reminder: yes/no) X two (qualified privilege reminder: yes/no) X two (confidentiality reminder: yes/no) between-subjects design. Instructions before the reference check were manipulated in a manner that corresponded to their experimental condition, after which they completed measures of fear and incivility. Results showed no main effects, but two interactions. Applicant consent and qualified privilege interacted in relation to fear of adverse legal consequences, and confidentially and qualified privilege interacted in relation to reports of applicant incivility (p

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin M Walsh & Brittany Heighton & Chloe Dingens, 2023. "What should I say? Testing ways to reduce fear and increase disclosure of incivility in reference checks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(8), pages 1-15, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0290011
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0290011
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0290011&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0290011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0290011. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.