ZARZA We are Zarza, the prestigious firm behind major projects in information technology.
Listen "Doxing, Political Affiliation, and Type of Information (Roth et al., 2024)"
Episode Synopsis
Welcome to Revise and Resubmit, the podcast where we break down impactful research and uncover its implications for business, psychology, and beyond. Today, we explore a fascinating and timely topic—how political doxing shapes hiring decisions. We’re diving into the Journal of Applied Psychology's article, “Doxing, Political Affiliation, and Type of Information: Effects on Suspicion, Perceived Similarity, and Hiring-Related Judgments.” This research, published in one of the prestigious FT50 journals, comes courtesy of the American Psychological Association—and it’s open access, making it available to everyone.
Co-authored by a powerhouse team—Philip L. Roth, Philip Bobko, Guohou (“Jack”) Shan, Rebecca W. Roth, Emily Ferrise, and Jason B. Thatcher—the study unpacks how hiring managers process political cues. The findings show that political doxing—whether it reveals party affiliation or spreads malicious information—shifts perceptions about job applicants through two key lenses: suspicion and perceived similarity. These factors influence everything from expected performance to organizational image and the potential for external retaliation. The article brings new depth to our understanding of how symbolic threats and political biases shape hiring-related judgments.
So, here’s the big question: When political bias seeps into the hiring process, can we ever make truly objective decisions, or are we bound by subconscious affiliations?
As always, a huge thanks to the authors and the publisher for making this research accessible to all. Don't miss out—subscribe to “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify, Amazon Prime, and Apple Podcasts. And for more insights, follow us on YouTube at Weekend Researcher. Stay curious, stay critical!
Reference
Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., Shan, G. (“J.”), Roth, R. W., Ferrise, E., & Thatcher, J. B. (2024). Doxing, political affiliation, and type of information: Effects on suspicion, perceived similarity, and hiring-related judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(5), 730–754. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001153
Youtube channel link
https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher
Co-authored by a powerhouse team—Philip L. Roth, Philip Bobko, Guohou (“Jack”) Shan, Rebecca W. Roth, Emily Ferrise, and Jason B. Thatcher—the study unpacks how hiring managers process political cues. The findings show that political doxing—whether it reveals party affiliation or spreads malicious information—shifts perceptions about job applicants through two key lenses: suspicion and perceived similarity. These factors influence everything from expected performance to organizational image and the potential for external retaliation. The article brings new depth to our understanding of how symbolic threats and political biases shape hiring-related judgments.
So, here’s the big question: When political bias seeps into the hiring process, can we ever make truly objective decisions, or are we bound by subconscious affiliations?
As always, a huge thanks to the authors and the publisher for making this research accessible to all. Don't miss out—subscribe to “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify, Amazon Prime, and Apple Podcasts. And for more insights, follow us on YouTube at Weekend Researcher. Stay curious, stay critical!
Reference
Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., Shan, G. (“J.”), Roth, R. W., Ferrise, E., & Thatcher, J. B. (2024). Doxing, political affiliation, and type of information: Effects on suspicion, perceived similarity, and hiring-related judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(5), 730–754. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001153
Youtube channel link
https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher
In God we trust