Too early to call: What we do (not) know about the validity of cybervetting

There is no doubt: Cybervetting is now recruiters’ everyday routine (Berkelaar & Buzzanell, 2015; Hartwell & Campion, 2020). Thus, we could not agree more with Wilcox et al. (2022) that it is important to address the considerable gap between cybervetting practice and research, especially concerning its validity. Their article is a wake-up call that most questions in this issue are still unanswered. We see the point of their distinct skepticism and agree that the validity of cybervetting is unproven. Nonetheless, we argue that this chapter needs a closer look before cybervetting is said to have “dubious effectiveness” (Wilcox et al., 2022, p. X), leads to “dampened productivity” (p. X), and “limits freedom of expression” (p. X). Although there is good reason to be cautious, we put into question whether cybervetting is an “unreflective activity undertaken by individual hiring agents within organizations that alternately ignore or encourage it” (p. X). Many researchers have warned about the risks of cybervetting early on (e.g., Brown & Vaughn, 2011; Caers & Castelyns, 2011; Davison et al., 2011); job candidates report intentions to withdraw applications (Schneider et al., 2015; Suen, 2018) and sue organizations (Stoughton et al., 2015) if cybervetting is used. Recruiters also report ambiguity about this practice (e.g., Hoek et al., 2016; McDonald et al., 2021; Pike et al., 2018). Rather than stakeholders “uncritically” (Wilcox et al., 2022, p. X) accepting cybervetting, we see a vivid debate. Social media (SM) platforms might be a modern, easily available, less faked, and economic source for first impressions of applicants’ traits, replacing traditional resumés (Davison et al., 2011; Landers & Schmidt, 2016)—if there is evidence for its validity. The debate started when Davison et al. (2011), Roth et al. (2016), and Landers and Schmidt (2016) provided mixed conclusions about cybervetting validity. Following, we shine a light on previous findings regarding cybervetting’s validity, deepen the still unknowns, and call for further action.