Is the job-hopping penalty merited? Predicting selection decisions, turnover, and performance of job hoppers.

Despite the prevalence of job hopping in the modern world of work, it remains unclear whether penalizing applicants with a history of job hopping is merited. We conducted four studies to investigate the extent of the job-hopping penalty in the selection process and whether that penalty is merited when predicting turnover and performance. In Study 1, we reviewed definitions and gathered insights from human resource practitioners (N = 61) to offer a refined definition of job hopping. In Study 2, we implemented an experimental hiring scenario and found that hiring managers (N = 85) consistently rated job-hopping applicants lower than non-job-hopping applicants and that this occurred, in part, through lower expected commitment and performance. Although career progression did not weaken the impact of job hopping on application evaluations through expected commitment and performance, it did weaken the direct impact of job hopping on application evaluations. In Study 3, we analyzed data from job applicants for a sales position (N = 30,640) and found that job hopping related to fewer job offers, higher turnover, and lower job performance and predicted these outcomes beyond other selection procedures (e.g., a situational judgment test). Further, prehire experience moderated (weakened) the negative relationship between job hopping and job offers. In Study 4, we replicated these findings in a sample of job applicants for a retail manager position (N = 37,105). Together, these studies show that job hoppers are penalized, the penalty is warranted, and career progression and prehire experience can weaken the impact of the penalty. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).