Current theories of applicant motivation do not take the scoring of the selection measure into account. We propose that selection measures scored objectively versus using ratings have different motivational antecedents and consequences than selection measures scored using performance ratings. Results from two studies indicated differences between a cognitive ability test (scored objectively) and both an interview and written role‐play (scored using ratings) regarding the amount of self‐reported motivation, factors related to motivation (i.e., procedural justice, perceived performance, and perceived influence), and the relationship between motivation and performance. Both perceived performance and procedural justice were related to motivation across selection measures but only procedural justice was equally important. Perceived influence was only related to motivation regarding the interview. Motivation predicted performance only on the cognitive ability test. Thus, it appears that how a selection measure will be scored should be taken into account when investigating applicant motivation.