Video Job Interview May Weaken Your Chances

Under test conditions, job seekers on video were rated as less likeable, and were less likely to be recommended for the job than were those who interviewed in person. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

If you're applying for a job a couple thousand miles away, a Skype interview will certainly be cheaper than meeting in person. But it could end up costing you the job. Because a study finds that a video chat can make you seem less likeable than a face-to-face interview would.

Researchers recruited 104 MBA students, most of whom had about five years' work experience. Half the students acted as job candidates for a position at a fictional company; the other half served as interviewers. Each candidate interviewed both in person and via video chat.

Turns out, job seekers on video were rated as less likeable, and were less likely to be recommended for the job.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


And it's not just the interviewees who got worse scores with video. Interviewers themselves were judged as less personable, competent and trustworthy. Even less attractive. The results appear in the journal Management Decision. [Greg J. Sears et al., A Comparative Assessment of Videoconference and Face-to- Face Employment Interviews]

It's harder to telegraph emotions and maintain eye contact during a video chat. So if Skype's your only option, the researchers recommend positioning your webcam as close to eye level as possible, and being more expressive than usual—it might land you some actual FaceTime down the line.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe