1. Communication in employment Interview

6. Method Sample A- Participants = 163, UK students= 81 and Portugal students= 82 Sample B- effectiveness of the organizational IM manipulation was checked using Sample A’s Portuguese. In UK using an independent convenience sample N=74 Measures 1. IM Fairness items For interviewer fairness items : “At job interviews, interviewers may behave in certain ways in order to create a good impression of themselves and their organization, therefore how fair is it for interviewers to do each of the things listed below to create a good impression?” ( 1= always fair; 5= never fair)

7. For interviewee : “In order to make a good impression at the interview (for job mention in IM and no IM ad), you may behave in particular ways. How fair would it be for you to do each of the things listed below?” ( 1= totally fair; 5=totally unfair ) 2. Machiavellianism: using the scale the scale’s items are worded positively and negatively ( from +3= strongly agree to -3= strongly disagree ) 3. Organizational IM : using two Ad “when writing this ad, how hard do you think the organization was trying to make good impression on potential candidate?” (1= very hard, 5=not hard at all)

8. Procedure The Portuguese translation of the questionnaire was checked through. The participants was presented with 1. The interview IM fairness items 2. Job advertisement and interviewee IM fairness item 3. Machiavellianism scale RESULT No IM ad M=2.28 IM ad M=1.78 Interviewer IM fairness= .798 Interviewee IM fairness= .868 Machiavellianism= .66

11. Relevance Of this Research

13. Implicit sources of bias in employment interview judgments and decisions

15. Hypotheses H1- typee H2- type

17. Type here

20. Relevance Of this Research

22. Future Trend