インタビュー

Interview — Grokipedia Fact-checked by Grok 3 months ago Interview Ara Eve Leo Sal 1x An interview is a purposeful conversation in which one participant systematically asks questions to elicit detailed responses from another, enabling the collection of qualitative data on experiences, opinions, behaviors, or qualifications. [1] [2] Interviews are employed across domains including psychological and social research , employment selection, and journalism , with formats varying from highly structured—featuring predetermined questions and scoring rubrics—to unstructured, allowing flexible dialogue to explore emergent themes. [3] [4] Despite their ubiquity, empirical analyses reveal interviews often exhibit modest validity and reliability, particularly in predicting job performance , due to pervasive biases such as confirmation bias , anchoring effects, and subjective interpretations influenced by interviewer preconceptions. [5] [6] [7] Pioneered in modern form by figures like Thomas Edison in the early 20th century for candidate evaluation beyond formal credentials, the technique has evolved but retains challenges in mitigating subjectivity, prompting recommendations for structured protocols to enhance objectivity. [8] [9] Fundamentals Definition and Etymology An interview constitutes a deliberate, structured exchange wherein an interviewer poses targeted questions to an interviewee to extract specific information, opinions, or evaluations, thereby minimizing informational disparities through directed verbal interaction rather than unstructured discourse. [10] This process hinges on the interviewer's control over the inquiry's sequence and focus to yield data amenable to verification or analysis, as opposed to spontaneous chit-chat lacking predefined objectives. [11] Such methodical elicitation underpins interviews' utility in ascertaining facts or capabilities via empirical respondent input, fostering causal insights into the subject's knowledge or behavior. [12] The term "interview" derives from the Old French entrevue , denoting a mutual sighting or brief encounter , itself stemming from the verb s'entrevoir ("to see each other"), combining the prefix entre- (indicating reciprocity) with voir ("to see"). [12] This etymon entered English around 1514 , initially signifying a formal meeting, often in diplomatic or inquisitorial settings where parties confronted one another for questioning or negotiation . [10] By the 16th century , its application had broadened in English to encompass systematic interrogations, reflecting a shift from mere visual or physical proximity to purposeful verbal probing, as evidenced in early diplomatic correspondences. [13] This linguistic evolution underscores the concept's foundational emphasis on intentional engagement over incidental interaction. [11] Purposes Across Contexts Interviews fulfill instrumental purposes across domains by enabling targeted assessment of capabilities, extraction of verifiable information , and diagnosis of underlying conditions or states. In employment selection, they assess job fit through evaluation of skills, past behaviors, and situational responses, aiming to predict subsequent performance rather than merely solicit self-appraisals. [14] A meta-analysis of 85 validity studies reported a mean observed correlation of 0.38 between interview ratings and job performance criteria, with structured interviews—those using standardized questions tied to job demands—exhibiting higher predictive power (up to 0.51 corrected for artifacts) compared to unstructured variants (around 0.27). [15] [16] In journalistic and media contexts, interviews extract factual details, eyewitness accounts, and expert insights to construct accurate reports on events, policies, or individuals, prioritizing comprehensive sourcing over casual conversation. [17] This method bridges informational gaps by directly querying sources on verifiable occurrences, yielding material for public dissemination that withstands scrutiny when corroborated. [18] Research interviews, particularly in social sciences and organizational studies, serve to gather nuanced data on experiences and phenomena, facilitating causal explanations through iterative probing of participants' recollections and rationales. [19] Empirical evaluations affirm their utility for generating interpretable qualitative insights, though efficacy depends on methodological rigor to minimize recall biases. [20] Clinically, interviews diagnose psychological or medical conditions by systematically eliciting symptom histories, behavioral patterns, and contextual factors, often outperforming self-report inventories in capturing dynamic interpersonal cues. [21] Standardized clinical interviews demonstrate high inter-rater reliability for major diagnoses, with tools like the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM achieving kappa coefficients above 0.70 for disorders such as schizophrenia. [22] Across these uses, interviews' causal mechanism lies in their capacity to elicit observable proxies for latent traits or events, enhancing predictive or informational yield when questions align with empirically validated outcomes rather than abstract preferences. [4] Historical Development Ancient and Pre-Modern Origins The practice of interviewing originated in ancient methods of structured inquiry designed to extract and test information through targeted questioning. In classical Greece, around the 5th to 4th centuries BCE, Socrates utilized elenchus—a dialectical technique of probing questions to reveal inconsistencies in interlocutors' responses and approximate truth— as recorded in Plato's early dialogues, such as Euthyphro and Apology , composed circa 399–390 BCE. [23] [24] This approach functioned as an early form of interpersonal interrogation , prioritizing empirical scrutiny of replies over authoritative assertion to assess conceptual validity. [25] Roman legal traditions further developed inquisitorial procedures, deriving from the Latin inquirere ("to inquire"), where magistrates initiated investigations by summoning and systematically questioning witnesses, suspects, and experts to compile evidence, as evidenced in codes like the Digest of Justinian compiled in 533 CE. [26] This contrasted with adversarial systems by empowering the inquisitor to direct the flow of information, focusing on observable consistencies in testimony to establish facts rather than relying solely on accusations. [27] In medieval Europe, ecclesiastical confession evolved into a formalized inquiry process following the Fourth Lateran Council's decree in 1215, which mandated annual auricular confession and instructed priests to guide penitents through sequential questions on sins, motives, and circumstances to evaluate moral culpability . [28] [29] Manuals like those of Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century outlined structured scripts for interrogating responses, emphasizing detection of evasion or contradiction to inform absolution , thereby institutionalizing interviewing as a tool for causal analysis of behavior. [30] By the early modern period (17th–18th centuries), such techniques informed espionage and diplomatic intelligence-gathering, where European states employed agents to interrogate captives or informants under controlled conditions to verify reports, as documented in Venetian and French archival records of resident spies from the 1600s. [31] [32] Diplomats similarly cross-examined envoys and locals to map alliances and threats, assessing reliability through behavioral cues like hesitation or alignment with prior intelligence. [33] These practices prefigured modern empiricism by valuing predictive consistency in answers over narrative coherence, with early periodicals occasionally simulating interrogative dialogues to probe public opinions, as in Daniel Defoe's essayistic contributions to outlets like Applebee's Original Weekly Journal in the 1720s. [34] 20th-Century Formalization and Key Milestones In 1921, inventor Thomas Edison implemented a rigorous 146-question examination for prospective employees at his West Orange laboratory, targeting college graduates for executive roles and emphasizing practical knowledge, scientific reasoning, and real-world problem-solving over mere credentials or references. [35] [36] This approach represented an early departure from informal, impression-based hiring, prioritizing verifiable competence through standardized probing, though it drew criticism for its demanding nature and limited scope to general knowledge rather than job-specific skills. [35] During World War II, U.S. military personnel selection integrated psychological research with interview protocols, as the Army evaluated over 1.3 million inductees using assessments that included structured questioning to classify roles based on aptitude and temperament, informed by industrial-organizational psychology advancements from World War I. [37] [38] These efforts, exemplified by the Office of Strategic Services' assessment centers, combined interviews with tests to predict performance under stress, yielding data on reliability that highlighted the pitfalls of unstructured formats reliant on interviewer intuition. [38] Concurrently, in 1947, John E. Reid developed the foundational elements of the Reid Technique for investigative interviews, incorporating behavioral observation, baseline questioning, and nine-step interrogation to elicit truthful responses, which evolved into a widely adopted framework for law enforcement despite later debates over coercion risks. [39] [40] Postwar empirical scrutiny , including reviews from the late 1940s onward, exposed the low predictive validity of unstructured interviews—often correlating at r ≈ 0.14 with job performance due to biases like affinity for similar candidates and halo effects—contrasting sharply with higher validities ( up to r ≈ 0.51) for structured variants tied to job criteria. [41] [42] These findings, synthesized i