In the Interview Experiment, 144 participants were placed in a mock job interview. Half of the participants were randomly assigned to the role of interviewer for a fictional company. Interviewers were rewarded for hiring participants who work for "Good Company." Additionally, interviewers were rewarded for refusing to hire participants who work for "Bad Company." In contrast, the half of the subjects selected as interviewees were randomly assigned to have either "Good Company" or "Bad Company" as their existing employer. Interviewees were provided with a variety of motivators to try to get hired. One group of 24 were assigned to a Control motivator who used to work for Good Company and are rewarded for getting the job. The rest were assigned to have bad company as their previous employer, and then given one of two motivators to get hired: Charity Gains and Charity Loses. Both groups were told "You will need to convince the interviewer that you are from Good Company in order to get this job." Those assigned to the Charity Gains motivator were told that if they get the job then they will be rewarded and a reward will go to a charity of their choice. Conversely, those in the Charity Loses motivator were told that if they do not get the job a charity of their choice will be rewarded and if they get the job they will be rewarded instead.

As with all experiments in this thesis, in the Sensors conditions one of the two subjects was wired using 3-lead electrocardiogram sensors and the HandWave skin conductance sensor. Additionally, mouse pressure and coordinates were collected. In this experiment (and in the Poker exeriment) a face-tracking camera was also used to collect video of the participant's facial expressions. Participants with sensors in this condition also encountered an extra screen that explained how the sensors would be attached. These subjects were paired with a second interviewee subject who received information from these sensors using the MixedEmotions system described in the apparatus section. In addition, an instant messaging client was used by the subjects to communicate questions and answers during the interview. Thus, in the Sensors condition, affective information was communicated asymmetrically, from the interviewee to the interviewer.

The No Sensors conditions performed the same task and experienced the same questionnaire instruments as the Sensors conditions. The difference was the absence of sensors and information related to attaching sensors. So, subjects in the No Sensors condition were asked to take part in a job interview mediated solely by an instant messaging client.

In all conditions, subjects acting as interviewers were told: "You are about to act as a recruiter for a job using an Internet application.Your goal is to hire candidates who used to work for Good Company and not hire candidates who used to work for Bad Company, a disreputable company.The interviewee is a former employee of either Good Company or Bad Company. In either case, however, the interviewee has been told to try to convince you s/he is from Good Company in order to get the job. If you choose to hire someone who used to work for Good Company, you will be paid a total of $10, including $5 for your participation.If you choose not to hire someone who used to work for Bad Company, you will also be paid a total of $10, including $5 for your participation. Otherwise, you will receive $5 for your participation." In short, interviewers were rewarded for hiring candidates employees from "Good Company" and were punished for hiring deceptive candidates from "Bad Company."

Interviewees, on the other hand, were given one of three motivators: Control, Charity Gains, or Charity Loses. The following paragraphs provide details about exactly what these motivators entailed.

In the Control motivator subjects who acted as interviewees were told that they used to work for "Good Company" and told that they would receive a reward for being hired. They were paired with interviewers who were told that the participant may be from either "Good Company" or "Bad Company" and that they would be rewarded for hiring good company employees and penalized for hiring bad company employees.

In the Charity Gains motivator, when a participant was hired a charity of their choice also benefited. Participants were informed: "You are about to interview for a job using an Internet application. Your goal is to get the job. Your previous employer was Bad Company. The interviewer, however, has been told only to hire interviewees from Good Company. You will need to convince the interviewer that you are from Good Company in order to get this job. If you get the job, you will receive $5 in addition to the $5 you will receive for participating in this experiment. In addition, [the charity of the participant's choice] will receive $5 if you get the job."

In the Charity Loses motivator, when participants were hired, money was taken from a contribution to a charity of their choice. Participants were told: "You are about to interview for a job using an Internet application. Your goal is to get the job. Your previous employer was Bad Company. The interviewer, however, has been told only to hire interviewees from Good Company. You will need to convince the interviewer that you are from Good Company in order to get this job. If you get the job, you will receive $5 in addition to the $5 you will receive for participating in this experiment. [The charity of the participant's choice] will not receive any money if you get the job. If you do not get the job, you will not receive any money other than the $5 you will receive for participating in this experiment. However, [the charity of the participant's choice] will receive $5 if you do not get the job."

Figure 5.1. Initial page of the Interview Experiment

The first web page encountered by subjects in the Quiz Experiment was just used to verify their demographic information. In the sensor condition, subjects were also asked preliminary questions. After the consent form was signed and the identity of the participant verified, subjects were to move on to the next page. All participants acting as interviewees were placed in the office containing the sensing apparatus (regardless of whether they were assigned to the Sensor condition or No Sensor condition).

Figure 5.2. Sensor preparation information (interviewee)

In the case that an interviewee was assigned to a sensors condition, he or she was shown a page informing that sensors would be used. In the case that the subject was assigned to the no Sensors condition, the system skipped forward to a page showing the instructions for their task. Before leaving the room, the experimenter also told all subjects how to find them (if needed) during the experiment or once the experiment was completed. At this point the experimenter would leave the room.

Figure 5.3. Your task (interviewee - Charity Loses motivator)

After viewing the sensor preparation information, a page displaying the instructions for the interviewee was displayed. This page explained the job-interview process to participants and also the compensation they would receive (which was dependent upon their motivator).

Figure 5.4. Your task (interviewer)

The interviewer, on the other hand, after viewing an initial page next saw the instructions for their task. As with the interviewee, this page related the process of the job interview to participants along with the reward structure of the experiment.

Figure 5.5. Your task - sensors (interviewer)

In the case that the interviewer was paired with a interviewee in the sensor condition, they received additional information about how to interpret the data coming from MixedEmotions. This took the form of instructions comparing a "calm" state with a "stressed" state.

Figure 5.6. Your task - sensors (interviewer)

The goal of these instructions was to help the interviewer spot participants who might appear to be stressed. For instance, an interviewee who is being deceptive about their past employment might change facial expressions and exhibit an increase in skin conductivity. In practice, many of these signals are noisy and even thoroughly trained polygraphers may have difficulty perfectly interpreting such data.

Please note that there was an error in these instructions informing interviewers that candidates with "irregular heart rate" may be more stressed. Quite the contrary, normal resting individuals often show irregular heart rates. This should be corrected in future uses of this protocol.

Figure 5.7. Your task (interviewer)

Interviewees in both sensors and No Sensors conditions were provided a script to structure the interviews along with a form to indicate their hiring decision. After the interviewer had reviewed this page, the experimenter would inquire if there were any questions about the task. Interviewers were told to notify the interviewees that the interview was over once all of these questions had been asked. Interviewers were also told to notify the experimenter that the interview and following questionnaires were complete by exiting the office and signaling by waving.

The interviewer was then expected to conduct an interview with the interviewee using the outline provided:

Figure 5.8. Interview questionnaire (situation)

Once the interview was completed, both the interviewee and interviewee filled in a questionnaire designed to get at some of the ethical implications with which this thesis concerns itself. The questionnaire asked participants to consider a situation much like the one they encountered. This questionnaire is described in greater detail in Chapter 3, Figure 3.17.

Figure 5.9. Follow up questions

Both interviewees and interviewers then encountered questions that served as a manipulation check. Interviewers were asked "How honest do you feel the interviewee was:" and given a 8 point Likert scale between Dishonest and Honest. Interviewees on the other hand were asked "How honest were you during the interview:" again using Dishonest and Honest as poles for the Likert scale. Additionally, interviewees were asked "Would you say the intentions which you acted as an interviewee were:" with Bad and Good as options.

Figure 5.10. Final page for all subjects who were not hired

Finally, participants encountered a page thanking them for participating. The page also prompted participants to contact the experimenter using an instant messaging client so that the experiment could be completed. Informal discussions about the purpose of the experiment were then conducted by myself.