inappropriate questions asked during doc and internship interviews

[MCParent]

This just got posted to Ken Pope's listserv, so I thought I'd share it here too. The paper has the results from data collection done partially through this forum.

***


From: Ken Pope <>
Subject: Inappropriate Interview Questions for Psychology Doctoral & Internship Applicants
Date: October 5, 2014 11:39:28 AM CDT
To: Ken Pope <>

*Training and Education in Professional Psychology* has scheduled an article for publication in a future issue of the journal: "'So What Are You?': Inappropriate Interview Questions for Psychology Doctoral and Internship Applicants."

The authors are Mike C. Parent, Dana A. Weiser, and Andrea McCourt.

Here's how the article opens:

[begin excerpt]

Social scientists have long recognized and investigated the pervasive inequalities found in the job application process.

Arvey (1979), in a review of the literature, found that applicants were evaluated differently during interviews based on their gender, race, age, and disability status. More recently, researchers have found that pregnant women, individuals with disabilities, and minorities are more likely to be evaluated negatively during job applications (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004; Bragger, Kutcher, Morgan, & Firth, 2002; Hebl & Kleck, 2002).

Thus, we as psychologists have keen insight into discriminatory practices that occur in other employment fields.

It is surprising then that psychologists have done so little to evaluate our own field to ensure that applicants are provided with a fair, respectful, and culturally competent application experience.

To minimize potentially discriminatory hiring practices, interviewers should not ask about personal qualities that may be the basis of discrimination.

Whereas such practices are rigidly enforced in most workplace environments, it is unclear whether psychology professionals appropriately follow guidelines when interviewing applicants for graduate school and internship.

The current study assessed whether applicants to psychology doctoral programs and internships report being asked inappropriate questions during interviews.

First, we examined whether certain types of programs were reported to be more or less likely to pose such questions during the interview process.

Second, we assessed whether certain applicant characteristics were related to being asked inappropriate questions.

Finally, we explored whether applicants' qualifications were associated with having been asked these questions.

[end excerpt]

Here's how the article closes:

[begin excerpt]

This research offers a glimpse into a dark side of the graduate and internship application process.

From the data collected, it appears that graduate and internship applicants are regularly subjected to questions that constitute violations of privacy and open universities and internships to potential legal action.

Such questions are also antithetical to the ethical obligations of psychologists to abide by laws, to protect the dignity of others, and to engage in beneficence and nonmaleficence.

It is essential that doctoral and internship faculty, staff, and students/interns revisit ethical and legal issues surrounding recruitment processes, consult with professionals well-versed in human resources management, and revise practices to better respect applicants.

[end excerpt]

Reprints: Mike C. Parent, Department of Psychology, Texas Tech University, Lub- bock, TX 79409-2051. E-mail: <>

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

nice!

 

[MCParent]

I'm just going to bump this a little ;-) Doc program and internship application and interview time is coming up. When I was a doctoral student, no one said anything to use about what might or might not be appropriate to say and ask during doctoral applicant interviews, especially at the pre-interview social. But, doctoral students are "employees" of the university (if they're funded, anyway) and they're interacting (HR would call any interaction potentially part of an interview) with potential new hires. So, the situation is rife for mis-steps.

Since publishing this paper, I've gotten emails from about two dozen doc or intern applicants who told me about inappropriateness during interviews, and many said this impacted their decisions about what programs to attend or how to rank internships.

 

[WisNeuro]

Are you trying to bump up your article views and download count, Mike?

 

[MCParent]

Are you trying to bump up your article views and download count, Mike?

My h index doesn't need any help


In seriousness, I do care about this a lot. My area (counseling psych) claims to be about social justice and equality but we are apparently regularly invading the privacy of our own applicants and asking inappropriate questions, down to asking people their sexual orientation or gender identity. I think that's awful.

 

[PsychBiker]

In theory, we have the right to say we are uncomfortable answering that question, no one is forcing us; in practice I know that is rarely done.

To play devil's advocate, who is to say that an interviewer isn't asking inappropriate questions to gauge the assertiveness of an application (e.g. to see if they would "stand-up" to them)?

 

[G Costanza]

In theory, we have the right to say we are uncomfortable answering that question, no one is forcing us; in practice I know that is rarely done.

To play devil's advocate, who is to say that an interviewer isn't asking inappropriate questions to gauge the assertiveness of an application (e.g. to see if they would "stand-up" to them)?

How is that an argument that makes this okay?

 

[MCParent]

To play devil's advocate, who is to say that an interviewer isn't asking inappropriate questions to gauge the assertiveness of an application (e.g. to see if they would "stand-up" to them)?

Most of them aren't inappropriate in the sense of merely making someone uncomfortable; they're inappropriate in the sense that if you asked them in an industry interview, you could get your company sued.

If you ask any question, and the applicant is denied the position, the applicant could say they were denied the job based on their response to the question. Because the purpose of an interview is to assess fit, you would have a hard time arguing that your question about an applicant's religion, sexual orientation, or marital status was not part of that assessment of fit and that you did not discriminate against the applicant based on that question.

Asking a question to see if an applicant would stand up to them seems to also be exactly the abuse of the position that I'm talking about in the paper.

 

[WisNeuro]

My h index doesn't need any help
In seriousness, I do care about this a lot. My area (counseling psych) claims to be about social justice and equality but we are apparently regularly invading the privacy of our own applicants and asking inappropriate questions, down to asking people their sexual orientation or gender identity. I think that's awful.

Oh, most definitely. I have been fortunate that I haven't had problems with this, but have heard some stories from others.

 

[QAsPsych]

To play devil's advocate, who is to say that an interviewer isn't asking inappropriate questions to gauge the assertiveness of an application (e.g. to see if they would "stand-up" to them)?

And by devil's advocate you mean literally an advocate for the devil, I see.

(Certain types of questions are essentially illegal to ask on interviews under federal law, making the response to your question more mu than on what planet is that an acceptable form of behavior)

 

[jakeislove]

Declaring certain questions as inappropriate doesn't address the fact that people are going to make judgements based upon on race, school, pregnancy, weight, sexual orientation, etc...

The interview process (itself) is unbalanced but there really aren't any questions I'd be uncomfortable giving an honest answer to. 4 years is a long time and I wouldn't really want to be in a place where there was a bad fit.

 

[cara susanna]

Declaring certain questions as inappropriate doesn't address the fact that people are going to make judgements based upon on race, school, pregnancy, weight, sexual orientation, etc...

The interview process (itself) is unbalanced but there really aren't any questions I'd be uncomfortable giving an honest answer to. 4 years is a long time and I wouldn't really want to be in a place where there was a bad fit.

That doesn't apply to everyone. Also, this paper looked at internship interviews specifically, which imo are even worse than grad program interviews in terms of power imbalance.

 

[jakeislove]

That doesn't apply to everyone. Also, this paper looked at internship interviews specifically, which imo are even worse than grad program interviews in terms of power imbalance.

At best, there are inappropriate responses to questions.

I don't have any areas of particular sensitivity. That being said, it's highly unlikely someone is going to be happy with the answers. I'm not an expert enough interviewee to frame every response in the manner they want to hear it.

Being former military colors the perspective.
Basically there are three possible answers for every question: 1 the right answer. 2 the wrong answer. 3 what they want to hear.

You're always supposed to choose #3.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

At best, there are inappropriate responses to questions.

I don't have any areas of particular sensitivity. That being said, it's highly unlikely someone is going to be happy with the answers. I'm not an expert enough interviewee to frame every response in the manner they want to hear it.

Being former military colors the perspective.
Basically there are three possible answers for every question: 1 the right answer. 2 the wrong answer. 3 what they want to hear.

You're always supposed to choose #3.

I understand the point/sentiment, but would say that the bolded portion can depend on your ultimate goal(s). If you're trying to land the position, then yeah, #3 might be the safest bet. However, if you're trying to find a position with which you'll be both happy and compatible, #3 has the potential to backfire.

Although framing and delivery are of course also important. Being unhappy with an answer is one thing; being unhappy with how the person said it is another.

 

[MCParent]

I understand the point/sentiment, but would say that the bolded portion can depend on your ultimate goal(s). If you're trying to land the position, then yeah, #3 might be the safest bet. However, if you're trying to find a position with which you'll be both happy and compatible, #3 has the potential to backfire.

Although framing and delivery are of course also important. Being unhappy with an answer is one thing; being unhappy with how the person said it is another.

Agreed. The question we're asking is heavily dependent on power dynamics. If there were more internship spots than applicants, I bet fewer of these questions would get asked even if they askers aren't consciously aware of their inappropriateness/illegality.

 

[erg923]

At best, there are inappropriate responses to questions.

I don't have any areas of particular sensitivity. That being said, it's highly unlikely someone is going to be happy with the answers. I'm not an expert enough interviewee to frame every response in the manner they want to hear it.

Being former military colors the perspective.
Basically there are three possible answers for every question: 1 the right answer. 2 the wrong answer. 3 what they want to hear.

You're always supposed to choose #3.

Well, this aint the military, is it? We dont "follow orders." This is a dicipiline whos ideals and goals are ethically obligated to fall within justice and beneficence. You uphold those ideals for students by behavioral example. The condoning of "do as I say not as I do" is antithetical to all that.

 

[jakeislove]

Well, this aint the military, is it? We dont "follow orders." This is a dicipiline whos ideals and goals are ethically obligated to fall within justice and beneficence. You uphold those ideals for students by behavioral example. The condoning of "do as I say not as I do" is antithetical to all that.

Is the sky a real pretty color of blue where you're living, Doc? It's getting cold in NY and I'm thinking about moving.

I'm fine with accepting that the human element plays a role in some of the decisions that impact our lives. My problem is when people/programs aren't honest about what they're truly looking for or are deceptive about complying with Federal rules.

A program may feel its ethical obligation is to choose candidates from certain schools, for example. Is that inherently evil?

It's not about "following orders" or lying, either. I'm simply saying your chances are improved by phrasing answers in the manner people want to hear them. Simplest example I can come up with is how the STAR format should be used to answer questions when interviewing for pharmaceutical jobs.

Asking about your family life, hobbies, or "why did you choose to apply here?" will pretty much reveal sexual orientation, pregnancy ideas, and a host of other things people aren't supposed to ask. It doesn't always stem from a negative place.

 

[MCParent]

Asking about your family life, hobbies, or "why did you choose to apply here?" will pretty much reveal sexual orientation, pregnancy ideas, and a host of other things people aren't supposed to ask. It doesn't always stem from a negative place.

There's a major difference, legal and practical, between an applicant raising something and an interviewer outright asking it.

We were looking only at interviewers' unprompted questions. You may wish to read the article before commenting about it further in specific.

If an applicant raises one of the points, there is no legal problem with discussing it. E.g., an applicant might say, I have kids, how're the schools around here. That's fine. But interviewers should just be telling all applicants the schools are good (or whatever). There's no justifiable reason to ask that question.

 

[erg923]

Is the sky a real pretty color of blue where you're living, Doc? It's getting cold in NY and I'm thinking about moving.

I'm fine with accepting that the human element plays a role in some of the decisions that impact our lives. My problem is when people/programs aren't honest about what they're truly looking for or are deceptive about complying with Federal rules.

A program may feel its ethical obligation is to choose candidates from certain schools, for example. Is that inherently evil?

It's not about "following orders" or lying, either. I'm simply saying your chances are improved by phrasing answers in the manner people want to hear them. Simplest example I can come up with is how the STAR format should be used to answer questions when interviewing for pharmaceutical jobs.

Asking about your family life, hobbies, or "why did you choose to apply here?" will pretty much reveal sexual orientation, pregnancy ideas, and a host of other things people aren't supposed to ask. It doesn't always stem from a negative place.

If your referencing idealism with that, the only response I have is that is that modeling of behavior you want to instill in others is the first step. You can take that however you like.

 

[PositivelySkewed]

Just watch the interview scene from the movie Step Brothers to avoid inappropriate interview questions on your side of the table. Don't do any of the things in that scene and you'll be fine.

 

[smalltownpsych]

At the sites that I interviewed at, we were asked specific questions from a script. They were all geared specifically to find out what the applicants' clinical experiences were. I don't see why a personal question would be relevant. In my last position, I interviewed lots of applicants and I never asked personal info although some interviewees provided way too much info at times.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I wonder if perhaps some of the inappropriate questions came up during "down" times (e.g., when applicants and current students/interns were sitting around and informally talking between interviews)...?

 

[VeryHopeful2010]

I just don't see this as cut and dry. Psychology is a field that while in training (and beyond), you bring a lot of yourself into supervision, casework, etc. Your thoughts/reaction/feelings are a reflection of your background, experiences, etc. I can see some personal questions as relevant. For example, while interviewing potential internship applicants (as a current Intern), applicants often asked me what the city was like/how affordable the city was - and much of that depends on if you are relying on one salary to live here (an expensive East Coast city!). So, naturally in the context of conversation, we frequently discussed their planned living situation. This personal information was never used on MY end to make decisions - it was more for the applicants to decide if this was going to be feasible for them.

That said, when I was interviewing for internship, a training director discussed the pregnancy status of a former Intern that was from my school. He sort of stopped and glared at me and I felt the need to blurt out that I was not planning on pregnancy during my internship year. That was not OK!

 

[MCParent]

For example, while interviewing potential internship applicants (as a current Intern), applicants often asked me what the city was like/how affordable the city was - and much of that depends on if you are relying on one salary to live here (an expensive East Coast city!). So, naturally in the context of conversation, we frequently discussed their planned living situation.

Why would you need to know their living situation in order to answer that? You can just tell them that it's more livable on two salaries.

That question would terrify your hr reps if they knew you asked it.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I think that one of the problems could be that psychologists are so used to asking these types of personal questions from clients every day that they end up doing that during interviews and it is just not appropriate. How a prospective intern is going to deal with the stress of moving, finances, or family issues around that are none of the employers business. This can also happen in supervision and when it does it can become a problem. In supervision, a trainee will have lots of personal issues that can play a role in their own counter-transference. As a supervisor, I don't need to know what those are other than a very general way. It is also important for trainees to learn how to communicate these issues appropriately, too. Complete openness is only appropriate in a psychotherapeutic or personal relationships, not in a professional relationship.

 

[MCParent]

I think that one of the problems could be that psychologists are so used to asking these types of personal questions from clients every day that they end up doing that during interviews and it is just not appropriate. How a prospective intern is going to deal with the stress of moving, finances, or family issues around that are none of the employers business. This can also happen in supervision and when it does it can become a problem. In supervision, a trainee will have lots of personal issues that can play a role in their own counter-transference. As a supervisor, I don't need to know what those are other than a very general way. It is also important for trainees to learn how to communicate these issues appropriately, too. Complete openness is only appropriate in a psychotherapeutic or personal relationships, not in a professional relationship.

We had thought that too, though it was the experimental programs, not clinical/counseling, that asked disproportionately more of the inappropriate questions.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yeah, my grad school had an experimental program, and I would be there for some of the more neuro experimental candidates for grad and fellowship positions. I was appalled by some of the interviewers questions. I've generally only seen appropriate ones asked from clinical peeps. Nothing egregious comes to mind.

 

[smalltownpsych]

We had thought that too, though it was the experimental programs, not clinical/counseling, that asked disproportionately more of the inappropriate questions.

Yeah, my grad school had an experimental program, and I would be there for some of the more neuro experimental candidates for grad and fellowship positions. I was appalled by some of the interviewers questions. I've generally only seen appropriate ones asked from clinical peeps. Nothing egregious comes to mind.

Hmmm. I wonder why that would be. I have not met any pure experimental psychologists so would not want to speculate.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I guess I could speculate that the clinical people are doing a better job with these boundaries as that is a part of our training. So that is a good thing.

 

[WisNeuro]

Perhaps we are used to occupying many roles. I am a clinician in different ways (npsych evaluation, some therapy) that are different roles. I am a supervisor to prac students, interns, postdocs, which are different roles. I have colleagues on the same level that I interact with both clinically and research-wise. You can't treat every social interaction the same. If I acted in public all the time like I do in therapy, I'd want to kick my own a$^.

 

[LETSGONYR]

Why would you need to know their living situation in order to answer that? You can just tell them that it's more livable on two salaries.

That question would terrify your hr reps if they knew you asked it.

I agree. I've been in the same situation, and usually say something like... "I don't know your living situation, but it was tough for me to live here on one salary. I had to look for a place further from work to find cheaper rent. If you have more savings or a partner with an income, it will probably be less of an issue for you."

If they volunteer info then I'll talk about my perspective on their potential situation, but I wouldn't ask.

 

[MCParent]

I agree. I've been in the same situation, and usually say something like... "I don't know your living situation, but it was tough for me to live here on one salary. I had to look for a place further from work to find cheaper rent. If you have more savings or a partner with an income, it will probably be less of an issue for you."

If they volunteer info then I'll talk about my perspective on their potential situation, but I wouldn't ask.

I think that's by far the best way to do it. Doesn't assume anything and you don't need extra info to give your perspective.

BTW, these rules DO tend to be followed in job interviews. I interviewed for one faculty position and asked some of the students about things to do in town, what's nice, etc. One student asked me if I had a dog and was immediately hushed by another student, and the first one then changed to "IF you have a dog, you can blah blah blah parks." So clearly some places are aware of this in some circumstances, but it gets fuzzier elsewhere for some people, apparently.

Not always, though. I was asked the gender and age of my partner at another faculty interview. Oh, well.

 

[cara susanna]

I really felt like APPIC guidelines/rules were an issue during interviews. It resulted in this awkward dance of "I like you, but I can't say that I like you!" or "I want to ask if you like me, but I can't" for both sites and applicants. I also got the impression that many sites don't follow the "just rank who you like, don't try to play the numbers game" advice that APPIC gives.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I really felt like APPIC guidelines/rules were an issue during interviews. It resulted in this awkward dance of "I like you, but I can't say that I like you!" or "I want to ask if you like me, but I can't" for both sites and applicants. I also got the impression that many sites don't follow the "just rank who you like, don't try to play the numbers game" advice that APPIC gives.

I've only been involved in the process at a couple training sites, but I can say that they generally didn't take how they expected applicants to rank them into consideration. If the sites liked an applicant, they rated them highly regardless, and just understood that they very well could end up somewhere else. However, there are numerous other factors that come into play (e.g., having multiple folks from the same grad school, multiple folks with the same/similar interests and for whom resources might not all be available, etc.) for sites that aren't applicable to students.

 

[WisNeuro]

Agree with AA, I've been part of the process three times now, fourth upcoming. We rank on merit first. It helps if someone shows enthusiasm for the program. But I can't think of any situation where we changed a ranking depending on whether or not we thought about how the applicant would rate us back.

As for the multiple students from one school, I have seen that come into play. But you can change those settings in APPIC. For example, we limited it to 2 students from one local program.

 

[VeryHopeful2010]

Why would you need to know their living situation in order to answer that? You can just tell them that it's more livable on two salaries.

That question would terrify your hr reps if they knew you asked it.

To clarify, I never said I asked. I was just trying to show that personal stuff comes up in conversations during interviews.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

Very nice!