Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 3 - 53

Hiring Decisions

Difference in Decision-Making Influences
Independent sample t-tests were conducted
to compare all fourteen influence aspects by
professional status as a full-time professional or graduate assistant. Multiple differences in the mean score were observed across
the two groups and as supported by Sriram
(2017), effect size was examined first, followed by statistical significance. Full-time
professionals reported a higher influence
for interview score, resume, peer advice,
and GPA. Effect size ranged from small,
d = .15 for GPA, to small to medium, d = .32
for interview score; see Table 4 (Morgan et al.,
2013). Graduate assistants reported a higher
mean influence for direct supervisor advice,
leadership experience, references, and candidates' social media. The difference between
the influence of leadership experience was
statistically significant with a small to medium effect size, t(89.158) = 2.354, p = .021,
d = .44. Full-time professionals with a master's degree focus in college student personnel reported statistically significantly
higher influence of the candidates' resume
compared to those whose master's degree
focused on other areas t(31.194) = 2.200,
p = .035. The difference represented a medium effect size (d = .53).
	
Differences in mean score for decision-making influences were also present
between White participants and participants
of color. Specifically, White participants
reported higher influence of candidates'
GPAs compared to participants of color.
This difference reflected a small effect size
(d = .26), but was not statistically significant
(p = .20). However, participants of color reported significantly higher influence compared to White participants on candidates'
social media, t(54.488) = -3.324, p = .002,
and staff diversity, t(85.643) = -2.38, p = .02.
The difference in the influence of the candi50

The Journal of College and University Student Housing

dates' social media was a medium to large
effect size (d = .71), and the difference for
staff diversity reflected a medium effect size
(d = .44). Additionally, participants of color
reported higher mean influence on several
other aspects compared to their White peers
including feedback from current RA staff
(M = 3.60, 3.27, d = .31), direct supervisor
advice (M = 3.54, 3.23, d = .28), references
(M = 3.85, 3.57, d = .26), and observed interactions at group process (M = 4.57, 4.35,
d = .18). Though not statistically significant,
these differences ranged from a small to
medium effect size.
	
Differences in mean score for decision-making influences were present between male and female participants. Male
participants (M = 3.54) reported significantly
higher mean influence for current RA staff
feedback than their female counterparts
(M = 3.14), t(126) = 2.127, p = .035, representing a small to medium effect size (d = .36).
Other observed differences were not statistically significant. Male participants (M = 3.65)
reported a higher influence of the resume
within their hiring decision than female participants (M = 3.11), with a small to medium
effect size (d = .34). Female participants reported a higher mean influence in interview
score (M = 4.12, 3.81), group process score
(M = 4.35, 4.02), observed interactions at
group process (M = 4.52, 4.27), direct supervisor feedback (M = 3.42, 3.21), candidates'
social media (M = 2.85, 2.59), and references
(M = 3.88, 3.43) than male participants. The
effect size for these differences ranged from
a small effect for interactions at group process (d = .19) to medium effect size for references (d = .43).
	
Finally, one-way ANOVA indicated a statistically significant difference in the influence of interview score based on institutional
type, F(3, 126) = 6.237, MSE = 5.379, p = .016,
Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 3
