@article{noble_saville_foster_2022, title={VR as a choice: what drives learners' technology acceptance?}, volume={19}, ISSN={["2365-9440"]}, DOI={10.1186/s41239-021-00310-w}, abstractNote={AbstractPost-secondary institutions are investing in and utilizing virtual reality (VR) for many educational purposes, including as a discretionary learning tool. Institutions such as vocational schools, community colleges, and universities need to understand what psychological factors drive students’ acceptance of VR for learning in discretionary contexts. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT; Venkatesh et al. in MIS Quarterly 27:425–478, 2003) offers a theoretical framework for understanding students’ receptivity to VR for learning. Undergraduate university students (N = 300) read a description of VR and video training mediums, then indicated which they would choose to learn a novel task. Three psychological variables—performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence—tended to be related to acceptance of VR, which was measured in two ways: (a) rated intentions to use VR and (b) preference for VR over a video-based alternative. Relative weight analyses compared the importance of the three predictors and revealed that performance expectancy tended to be the most influential antecedent of VR acceptance.}, number={1}, journal={INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION}, author={Noble, Sean M. and Saville, Jason D. and Foster, Lori L.}, year={2022}, month={Jan} }
 @article{noble_foster_craig_2021, title={The procedural and interpersonal justice of automated application and resume screening}, volume={29}, ISSN={["1468-2389"]}, DOI={10.1111/ijsa.12320}, abstractNote={AbstractResearch on organizational justice theory has yet to fully explore how automated application and resume screening procedures affect justice perceptions. In a 2 × 3 experimental design, MTurk workers (N = 360) were randomly assigned to read one of six vignettes describing a job application scenario of either a traditionally administered or algorithmically administered screening procedure with an outcome favorability of acceptance, rejection, or unknown. They then rated procedural and interpersonal justice across eight dimensions. A MANOVA and follow‐up univariate ANOVAs indicated that automated screening was rated lower on job relatedness‐predictive, job relatedness‐content, opportunity to perform, reconsideration opportunity, treatment, two‐way communication, and propriety of questions, and higher on consistency. The interaction between screening procedure and outcome favorability showed mixed results.}, number={2}, journal={INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT}, author={Noble, Sean M. and Foster, Lori L. and Craig, S. Bartholomew}, year={2021}, month={Jun}, pages={139–153} }