Assessing social media platforms like LinkedIn has become popular in personnel selection but remains controversial due to varying relevance and availability of job-related content. To better understand the implications of this low information uniformity, we introduce the incomplete LinkedIn information paradigm: How do recruiters react to incomplete LinkedIn profiles? In Study 1 ( N = 460), we found a significant decrease in hireability ratings when job seekers provided just basic LinkedIn information and no details, even outweighing the effect of their qualifications. Perceptions of professionalism and trustworthiness, reflecting overall warmth and competence, served as mediators. An interview study (Study 2, N = 32) confirmed that incomplete LinkedIn profiles diminish hireability ratings and increase suspicion. In studies 1 and 2, raters were presented with no application materials beyond the LinkedIn profile, framing LinkedIn assessments as the active sourcing of passive candidates. Thus, to investigate the effect of incomplete LinkedIn information in a more traditional context, we examined this incomplete LinkedIn information paradigm again in Study 3 ( N = 363), where we framed LinkedIn screenings as background checks beyond the applicant’s complete résumé. Here, incomplete LinkedIn information did not negatively affect hireability, suggesting that providing a complete résumé can offset the negative impressions from incomplete LinkedIn profiles. In summary, we demonstrate that incomplete information on professional platforms has new relevance in digital assessments, but its impact varies by context: Incomplete LinkedIn profiles can harm a passive candidate’s prospects, whereas they do not seem to impact background checks in the same way.
Mönke et al. (2025) studied this question.