New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe