Researchers have found that political affiliations and the way information about these affiliations is revealed (a practice known as ‘doxing‘) can significantly influence hiring decisions in the workplace. The research, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, revealed that negative political information tends to lower expectations of job performance and heightens the perceived risk of workplace retaliation.
The study was motivated by the growing political polarization observed globally, particularly in the United States. Political divisions have escalated to the point where they’re not just confined to the political arena but have started to permeate everyday life, including the workplace. The researchers aimed to understand how political affiliations, and the manner in which they are disclosed, impact hiring decisions – an area that has seen little exploration despite its increasing relevance in today’s politically charged environment.
“My colleagues and I have been interested in the role of political affiliation (e.g., Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian) on decisions in organizations. Despite polarization being at very high levels, there is remarkably little research on this topic in applied psychology or management,” said study author Philip L. Roth, a Trevillian Distinguished Professor of Management at Clemson University.
“Our past work suggests that political dissimilarity leads to lower hiring related ratings compared to political similarity. For example, an applicant posts he is a Democrat on his Facebook page. The rater knows this and is also a Democrat. That applicant would get higher hiring ratings than a Republican applicant. A Democratic rater and a Republican applicant are dissimilar, likely on key values that are strongly held. So, the Republican applicant will likely get lower ratings.”
“In this case, doxing allows individuals outside the organization to inject politics into organizational decisions. For example, an organization does a social media assessment and finds that an applicant was doxed (i.e., had information about the applicant revealed without their consent or knowledge, usually with the intent to hurt the applicant). All of a sudden, decision makers know an applicant’s affiliation without the applicant doing anything.
“As you might guess, political dissimilarity again results in lower hiring ratings. When the doxed information is negative in nature (e.g., a meme that notes ‘I would rather vote for a potato than… fill in the blank with a politicians name’) the effect is even larger/stronger.”
Study 1 involved 392 participants, all of whom were full-time workers with more than a year of work and hiring experience, and native English speakers. They were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform. The study design required participants to review a standard job description and a resume, then randomly assigned them to one of nine conditions.
These conditions varied based on whether the applicant’s political affiliation was doxed (publicly revealed), the type of political information available (positive or negative), and the applicant’s political party (Democrat or Republican).
The doxing manipulation was particularly significant. In the ‘no doxing’ condition, participants were informed that the applicant’s Facebook page was found during a routine social media assessment by the organization. In contrast, the ‘doxing’ condition involved a scenario where the Facebook page was discovered through a tweet from an anonymous individual, intended to harm the applicant’s reputation.
The type of political information (positive or negative) and the political party affiliation (Democrat or Republican) were intertwined. Positive information was represented by images and memes supporting a party in an affirming manner, while negative information consisted of images and memes derogatory towards the opposing party. To ensure the credibility and relevance of these images/memes, they were selected based on their clarity and ability to signify political affiliation, as rated by a separate group of upper-level business administration students.
The study utilized several measures to assess the impact of these manipulations. These included actual political similarity (whether the rater’s political affiliation matched the applicant’s), perceived similarity (how similar the rater felt to the applicant), suspicion of the applicant, expected task performance, and potential impact on the organization’s image and likelihood of retaliation against the organization.
Surprisingly, when political affiliations were doxed, or publicly disclosed, participants tended to be less suspicious of the applicant. This suggests that the manner in which political information comes to light can influence a hiring manager’s trust in potential candidates. It’s a counterintuitive finding, as one might expect doxed information, typically associated with negative connotations, to increase suspicion.
Another significant finding was the relationship between suspicion and perceived similarity with other variables like organizational image and retaliation. The study showed that both suspicion and perceived similarity were significant predictors of how the participants perceived the applicant’s potential impact on the organization’s image.
Suspicion was also linked to the expected likelihood of retaliation against the organization. This indicates that the feelings aroused by learning about an applicant’s political views can extend beyond personal biases and influence broader concerns about the organization’s welfare and public perception.
Building on the insights from the first study, Study 2 involved 401 participants recruited through Prolific, a survey platform. Participants in this study had similar backgrounds to those in the first study. The second study followed a similar design to the first but included a more realistic and vivid doxing scenario.
Unlike Study 1, where doxing was simply described to participants, Study 2 used actual tweets to simulate the doxing situation. This approach was intended to provide a more immersive and authentic experience for the participants, making the scenario more closely resemble real-life instances of doxing. In this enhanced doxing condition, participants were informed that the applicant’s Facebook page was brought to the organization’s attention through a negative tweet from a hypothetical individual.
An additional measure introduced in Study 2 was the concept of symbolic threat. This measure aimed to gauge the perceived threat to personal values, beliefs, and principles that might arise from hiring an applicant with differing political views. This new dimension was crucial in understanding the subtler, yet powerful, psychological impacts of political affiliations in hiring decisions.
Unlike Study 1, where doxing led to less suspicion of the applicant, in Study 2, doxing was found to be associated with future expected retaliation. This suggests that the knowledge of an applicant’s political affiliations being publicly disclosed can raise concerns about potential conflicts or backlash within the organization.
The study also reinforced the impact of the type of political information and party similarity observed in Study 1. Negative political information consistently resulted in lower expectations of an applicant’s performance and a higher likelihood of retaliation. This finding aligns with the common intuition that negative information, especially in the context of polarized political views, could foster a more hostile or cautious environment.
Conversely, when participants shared the same political party as the applicant and the information was positive, they exhibited lower levels of suspicion and higher perceived similarity. This indicates that shared political views, particularly when positively framed, can foster a sense of alignment and trust between the applicant and the evaluator.
The researchers also found that symbolic threat was lowest when raters shared the same political party as the applicant and when the information was positive. In contrast, higher levels of symbolic threat were associated with all other combinations of party similarity and type of information. This highlights how perceptions of threat to personal values and beliefs play a crucial role in shaping responses to political information in hiring contexts. Particularly, it suggests that raters may feel more threatened, not just by opposing political views but also by negative portrayals within their own political alignments.
In short, these studies suggest that in the hiring process, how political beliefs are revealed and the nature of these beliefs (positive or negative) can significantly influence a candidate’s chances of being hired. Shared political views generally lead to a more favorable evaluation, but negative information can create concerns about potential conflicts.
“It is increasingly common for individuals to post private information to the internet to try and harm an individual,” Roth told PsyPost. “Recall, members of the truckers strike in Canada were doxed, Capitol Hill rioters were doxed, Supreme Court justice have been doxed. Many lost jobs and endured economic hardship. It is now part of the political warfare in the United States and Canada (and likely elsewhere).”
He further advised to “keep up your privacy screens on your social media accounts. Monitor what is on your social media accounts.”
While these studies offer valuable insights, they come with certain limitations. Both studies were conducted in a laboratory setting, which means the participants knew their decisions wouldn’t have real-world consequences. This could potentially influence how they responded. “Our studies were experiments and so we are interested to learn if these effects occur in actual hiring decisions,” Roth said.
The findings from these studies open up numerous avenues for future research. As political affiliations continue to influence various aspects of life, including the workplace, understanding their impact on organizational dynamics becomes crucial. Future research could explore how organizations signal their own political affiliations and how this influences the applicant pool.
There is also a need to understand how political affiliations interact with other aspects of identity, such as gender and ethnicity, in influencing hiring decisions. Additionally, the impact of political affiliation on key job attitudes and workgroup performance remains an area ripe for exploration.
The study, “Doxing, Political Affiliation, and Type of Information: Effects on Suspicion, Perceived Similarity, and Hiring-Related Judgments“, was authored by Philip L. Roth, Philip Bobko, Guohou (“Jack”) Shan, Rebecca W. Roth, Emily Ferrise, and Jason B. Thatcher.
