Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

Journal of Applied Psychology

2005, Vol. 90, No. 5, 928 944

Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association


0021-9010/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.928

Applicant Attraction to Organizations and Job Choice: A Meta-Analytic


Review of the Correlates of Recruiting Outcomes
Derek S. Chapman, Krista L. Uggerslev, Sarah A. Carroll, Kelly A. Piasentin, and David A. Jones
University of Calgary
Attracting high-performing applicants is a critical component of personnel selection and overall organizational success. In this study, the authors meta-analyzed 667 coefficients from 71 studies examining
relationships between various predictors with job organization attraction, job pursuit intentions, acceptance intentions, and job choice. The moderating effects of applicant gender, race, and applicant versus
nonapplicant status were also examined. Results showed that applicant attraction outcomes were
predicted by job organization characteristics, recruiter behaviors, perceptions of the recruiting process,
perceived fit, and hiring expectancies, but not recruiter demographics or perceived alternatives. Path
analyses showed that applicant attitudes and intentions mediated the predictorjob choice relationships.
The authors discuss the implications of these findings for recruiting theory, research, and practice.
Keywords: recruiting, job choice, applicant reactions, person organization fit, meta-analysis

a quantitative review of this literature has not been conducted. A


meta-analytic review would complement the existing narrative
reviews by improving the estimation of the relationships between
predictors and outcomes associated with applicant attraction
(Schmidt & Hunter, 2001). Accordingly, the first goal of this study
was to use meta-analytic techniques to summarize the relationships
between traditional predictors and outcomes associated with applicant attraction and job choice processes. These estimates can
then be used to assist researchers in building theory and to guide
practice. Our second goal was to use meta-analytic techniques to
assess whether moderator variables may explain differences in
results among primary studies. A third goal of this study was to
clarify some of the processes involved in job choice decisions by
testing whether the relationship between traditional recruitment
predictors and job choice is mediated by attitudes toward the
organization and acceptance intentions.

The contribution of employee knowledge, skills, and abilities to


organizational performance has been increasingly recognized over
the past 2 decades (Breaugh & Starke, 2000). Furthermore, learning how to attract the best applicants has become critical for many
organizations. Indeed, recruiting qualified applicants may become
increasingly difficult over the next 15 years as demographic and
economic factors create a war for talent (Michaels, HandfieldJones, & Axelrod, 2001).
Hundreds of articles, books, and chapters have been written on
recruiting, and several extensive and comprehensive reviews have
contributed substantially to the understanding of applicant attraction and job choice (Barber, 1998; Breaugh, 1992; Breaugh &
Starke, 2000; Rynes, 1991) as well as applicant reactions to
selection procedures (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000). The knowledge
gained through research in these related areas has helped to guide
human resource practitioners regarding ways to attract and influence the job choices of top applicants.
Although narrative reviews (e.g., Rynes, 1991) have furthered
our understanding of applicant attraction and job choice processes,

Determining the Relevant Outcome and Predictor


Variables
Four methods were used to determine which variables to include
in the meta-analyses. First, we examined several definitions of
recruiting to delineate the scope for our study. Second, narrative
reviews were consulted to identify key recruiting variables. Next,
we used existing recruiting theories to organize and categorize the
variables. Finally, we allowed for new variables to emerge based
on studies we collected in which the initial variables of interest
were examined.

Derek S. Chapman, Krista L. Uggerslev, Sarah A. Carroll, Kelly A.


Piasentin, and David A. Jones, Department of Psychology, University of
Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Krista L. Uggerslev is now at the I. H. Asper School of Business,
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
David A. Jones is now at the School of Business Administration,
University of Vermont.
Funding for this research was provided by the University of Calgary
Starter Grants for New Faculty, the Killam Memorial Trust, and the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We gratefully
acknowledge comments provided by Piers Steel and Kibeom Lee on earlier
versions of this article, and we are indebted to Jerard Kehoe for his many
helpful comments and suggestions. We also thank Jonas Shultz for his
research assistance.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Derek S.
Chapman, Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary,
Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada. E-mail: dchapman@ucalgary.ca

Definition of Recruiting
Several definitions of recruiting were used to determine the
variables that are included in the recruiting rubric. Rynes (1991)
defined recruitment as encompass[ing] all organizational practices and decisions that affect either the number, or types, of
individuals that are willing to apply for, or to accept, a given
vacancy (p. 429). Breaugh (1992) provided a similar definition:
928

APPLICANT ATTRACTION META-ANALYSIS

Employee recruitment involves those organizational activities


that (1) influence the number and/or types of applicants who apply
for a position and/or (2) affect whether a job offer is accepted (p.
4). Barber (1998) proposed a narrower definition of recruiting that
only includes purposeful actions taken by the organization; however, this description excludes important unintended influences on
applicant attraction such as applicant reactions to selection procedures (e.g., Gilliland, 1993) and organizational image (e.g., Turban
& Greening, 1997). We chose to examine a wider range of variables, as suggested by Rynes (1991) and Breaugh (1992).

Recruiting Outcomes
Although several outcome variables of recruiting have been
examined, there is considerable variability in the labels affixed to
these outcomes and some confusion about the constructs being
measured (Highhouse, Lievens, & Sinar, 2003). By closely examining item content, we identified four recruiting outcome variables:
job pursuit intentions, job organization attraction, acceptance intentions, and job choice.
Job pursuit intentions. Applicant intentions to pursue a job or
to remain in the applicant pool are typically measured early in the
recruitment process (Rynes, 1991). In this meta-analysis, job pursuit intentions included all outcome variables that measured a
persons desire to submit an application, attend a site visit or
second interview, or otherwise indicate a willingness to enter or
stay in the applicant pool without committing to a job choice.
Joborganization attraction. One of the most popular outcome
measures in the recruiting literature involves the applicants overall evaluation of the attractiveness of the job and/or organization.
The measures used to assess attraction reflect three variations that
we collapsed into one category. First, some items ask the applicant
to reflect on the job for which he or she was applying (i.e., job
attraction); for example, How attractive is the job to you? (Saks,
Weisner, & Summers, 1994). A second type of item assesses the
extent to which an applicant is personally attracted to the prospective organization (e.g., How much would you like to work for this
company?; Macan & Dipboye, 1990). A third type of item focuses on the attractiveness of the organization in general, without
reference to a particular applicants level of attraction (e.g., [This
organization] is one of the best employers to work for; Smither,
Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, & Stoffey, 1993).
Acceptance intentions. Measures of acceptance intentions assess the likelihood that an applicant would accept a job offer if one
were forthcoming, and they are frequently assessed when actual
job choice information cannot be obtained. Most studies use a
single item such as How likely are you to accept a job offer from
this company? or a small number of items to assess acceptance
intentions.
Job choice. Ultimately, researchers and practitioners are interested in actual job choice. In this meta-analysis, job choice was
defined as choosing whether to accept a real job offer involving an
actual job. When an organization extends a job offer, the applicant
makes a job choice decision that is typically dichotomous in nature
(i.e., either to accept or decline the offer). In contrast, the other
outcome variables reviewed above are attitudinal in nature and
therefore are not dependent on the organization first tendering a
job offer.

929

Predictors
Researchers have examined a wide variety of possible predictors
of applicant attraction over the past 50 years. Several prominent
theories and models in recruiting research (e.g., signal theory;
Rynes, Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991) guided our search for relevant
predictors of the outcome variables and helped to organize our
findings. From these models and the empirical research in which
the models were tested, we identified six broad factors typically
examined as predictors of applicant attraction. Each of these factors is briefly described below.
Job and organizational characteristics. Objective factor theory (Behling, Labovitz, & Gainer, 1968) contends that applicants
base their job choices largely on their evaluations of the job
attributes or vacancy characteristics of the position being evaluated. We categorized these broader attributes into those attributes
that are specific to a job (e.g., pay, benefits, type of work) and
those attributes that are more broadly reflective of the organization
(e.g., company image, size, work environment, location, familiarity). Thus, job organization attributes relate to what specific attributes applicants seek.
Recruiter characteristics. Critical contact theory (Behling et
al., 1968) suggests that because applicants often have insufficient
information about job attributes, they have difficulty making
meaningful comparisons among jobs. Therefore, applicants may
be influenced more by the recruiter than by attributes of the job
(Harris & Fink, 1987). Applicants perceptions of a recruiter
comprise characteristics of the recruiter (e.g., age, function) and
the recruiters behavior (e.g., friendly, competent), which may
provide signals about the attractiveness of a given position (Rynes
et al., 1991). Thus, recruiter characteristics encompasses both who
does the recruiting and how the recruiter behaves.
Perceptions of the recruitment process. Researchers have examined applicants perceptions of the recruitingselection process,
typically described as applicant reactions, as focal predictors of
recruiting outcomes (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000). Research questions
relating to the recruitment process include whether applicants
perceive they are receiving appropriate interpersonal treatment and
timely information during the recruitment process and whether the
selection instruments are perceived to be face valid and procedurally fair. Thus, perceptions of the recruitment process reflect how
the recruitmentselection process should be conducted.
Perceived fit. Thus far, the predictors that we have considered
have been limited to those that are presumed to have simple, linear
relationships with applicant attraction. A more complex view, with
its origins in Schneiders (1987) attraction selection attrition paradigm and Behling et al.s (1968) subjective factors theory, suggests that applicants seek a fit with the organization (person
organization [P-O] fit) or with the type of job being filled (person
job fit; e.g., Cable & Judge, 1996, 1997; Judge & Bretz, 1992;
Kristof, 1996; Tom, 1971). Applicants are proposed to interpret
characteristics of the job, organization, and recruiter in light of
their own needs and values to determine fit. In other words,
applicants perceived fit results from their appraisal of the interaction between their personal characteristics and needs and job
organizational characteristics and supplies (Kristof, 1996).
Perceived alternatives. Several researchers (e.g., Bauer,
Maertz, Dolen, & Campion, 1998) have examined the extent to
which applicants perceive viable alternative employment opportu-

930

CHAPMAN, UGGERSLEV, CARROLL, PIASENTIN, AND JONES

nities (sometimes referred to as perceived marketability). More


perceived available opportunities are thought to have a negative
effect on attraction to any one specific opportunity; however,
findings pertaining to this question are mixed (Barber, 1998).
Hiring expectancies. Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1966) has
played an important role in applicant attraction research, although
few researchers have examined the model fully by including
measures of instrumentality, valence, and expectancy. Nonetheless, researchers have found supportive results for the role of hiring
expectancies in applicant attraction, which are typically operationalized as applicants evaluations of the likelihood of being offered
a position in an organization. Positive hiring expectancies are
predicted to lead to greater applicant attraction (e.g., Rynes &
Lawler, 1983). In this meta-analysis, the hiring expectancy category included applicants perceptions of the likelihood of receiving a job offer and about their performance during the recruitment
selection process.

Moderating Effects of Gender, Race, and Applicant Type


Meta-analysis provides the opportunity to determine whether
between-study differences may explain differential results in the
relationships between predictors and criteria across primary studies (Schmidt & Hunter, 2001). Three possible moderators that are
widely reported across studies were investigated in this study:
gender, race, and applicant type.
Gender. The benefits of recruiting a diverse workforce to
improve performance and/or to meet legislated goals make it
important to determine whether specific recruiting activities by an
organization work equally well across men and women. Recruiting
researchers have investigated gender differences in job attribute
preferences (e.g., Jurgensen, 1978; Wiersma, 1990), job advertisement reactions (e.g., Winter, 1996), recruiter gender (Judge &
Cable, 2000), and applicant reactions to selection procedures (e.g.,
Chapman & Ployhart, 2001).
A potential rationale for these gender differences is the influence of role conflict (Wiersma, 1990). For example, job and
organizational attributes that reduce conflict with nonwork roles
(e.g., flexible hours, location, family-friendly benefits, on-site daycare) may be more attractive to women than to men, although some
researchers have suggested that these differences are disappearing
because of changes in societal norms (Barber & Daly, 1996).
Nonetheless, female applicants might weigh job and organizational
characteristics that have the potential to reduce role conflict more
heavily than might men. Other relationships between recruitmentrelated predictors and outcomes might also be moderated by gender. Several researchers have suggested that individuals from
groups who have experienced historical discrimination may be
more sensitive to injustice (e.g., Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey,
1999; Chapman & Ployhart, 2001; Ryan, 2001; Ryan, Sacco,
McFarland, & Kriska, 2000). Women, then, may be more sensitive
than men to certain characteristics of selection systems, such as
their perceived fairness. Accordingly, the salience of injustice to
women may result in more negative reactions to selection procedures than men, and hence relationships between selection system
fairness and recruitment outcomes may be moderated by gender.
Some relationships in the recruitment literature, however, are
unlikely to be moderated by gender. Previous research, for example, has found that men and women do not differ in their reactions

to recruiter characteristics (such as recruiter gender; e.g., Judge &


Cable, 2000).
Race. Although there is little empirical information on racial
differences in job attribute preferences, legislative and performance goals associated with attracting a diverse workforce
prompted us to explore race as a moderator of applicant attraction.
Racial differences in reactions to recruiter characteristics have
yielded little support (e.g., Judge & Cable, 2000). Nonetheless, we
anticipated that salient knowledge of historical discrimination
might result in racial differences regarding the relationship between applicant reactions to selection procedures and recruitment
outcomes. Specifically, racial minorities may be more vigilant
with respect to justice violations and/or they might react more
strongly to injustices due to the salience of historical racism
(Branscombe et al., 1999; Ryan, Sacco, et al., 2000).
Applicant type. The third moderating variable we explored
was applicant type. The issue of using laboratory-based designs in
recruiting research is a long-standing debate in the field (Barber,
1998; Breaugh, 1992). Specifically, the recruiting context may be
particularly difficult to simulate with nonapplicants because actual
job choice has ramifications that are difficult to model in the
laboratory (e.g., changes in an individuals social group and financial and social status). We were interested in whether studies in
which participants were asked to role play as job applicants (i.e.,
nonapplicants) yielded similar findings to those using actual job
applicants. Examining applicant type might provide answers to
important questions about whether and when findings based on
nonapplicants generalize to real applicants and, conversely,
whether inferences based on applicant samples are consistent with
the possibly more internally valid inferences derived from predominantly experimental research using nonapplicant samples. Testing
potential differences between applicants and nonapplicants might
provide evidence to guide researchers in choosing appropriate
methodologies to study recruiting processes.

A Mediated Model of Job Choice


Several models of behavioral prediction, such as the theories of
reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977) and planned behavior
(Ajzen, 1991), suggest that attitudes relating to a given behavior
lead to behavioral intentions and that intentions predict subsequent
behavior. Implicit in many studies in the recruitment literature is
the belief that applicant attraction to an organization predicts
acceptance intentions, which in turn predicts applicant job choice.
Additionally, the six categories of predictors outlined above are
thought to predict applicant attraction. Thus, we examined whether
acceptance intentions and applicant attraction mediate the relationship between the recruiting predictors and job choice. These results
may offer evidence regarding the extent to which attitudinal outcome variables serve as reasonable proxies for actual job choice
behavior.

Method
Defining the Population of Studies
A systematic and comprehensive search for studies was conducted in
four steps. First, databases in psychology (PsycINFO, January 1967 to July
2002), management (ABI Inform), and education (ERIC) were searched
using 26 recruitment-related terms (e.g., applicant attraction, applicant

APPLICANT ATTRACTION META-ANALYSIS


reactions, job acceptance, job choice, job applicants, organizational attractiveness, recruiter behavior, recruiter characteristics, and recruiting).
Second, the reference lists from six recruiting reviews (Anderson, Born, &
Cunningham-Snell, 2001; Barber, 1998; Breaugh & Starke, 2000; Ryan &
Ployhart, 2000; Rynes, 1991; Rynes & Cable, 2003) were examined. These
reviews also provided information about studies prior to 1967. Third, we
reviewed recent conference programs (1996 to 2002) for the Academy of
Management and the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Fourth, 18 prominent researchers in the recruiting field (i.e., those with
multiple and recent publications in this area) were contacted for any work
in press, under review, or in progress.
A total of 298 recruiting-related studies were identified and reviewed.
Seventy-one of these studies (comprising 74 independent samples), contained data relevant to the applicant attraction variables included in this
meta-analysis. Studies were excluded because they only contained data that
(a) were nonempirical (k 35), (b) were from a recruiter as opposed to an
applicant perspective (k 26), (c) were obtained only after a job offer had
been made (k 25), (d) involved relationships outside the parameters
identified for this meta-analysis (k 94), and/or (e) did not meet the
necessary statistical assumptions underlying meta-analysis (e.g., they only
provided partial or semipartial relationships; Hunter & Schmidt, 1990; k
47).

Coding the Data


Examination of the items used in the primary studies revealed that the
variable labels were not always consistent with the scale content. For
example, the item I intend to continue participation in the application
process (Macan, Avedon, Paese, & Smith, 1994) purportedly measured
acceptance intentions; however, this item was consistent with our definition of job pursuit intentions. Using the original scale items, Krista L.
Uggerslev and Kelly A. Piasentin independently coded each outcome
variable into job pursuit intentions, job organization attraction, acceptance
intentions, or job choice outcome categories. The coders agreed on the
categorizations for 99.3% of the coefficients; 100% agreement was subsequently reached through discussion.
The same process was used to categorize the predictor coefficients.
Krista L. Uggerslev and Kelly A. Piasentin independently coded each of
the predictors into six predictor categories (job and organization characteristics, recruiter characteristics, perceptions of the recruitment process,
perceived fit, perceived alternatives, and hiring expectancies). Subcategories were also inductively identified on the basis of their frequency of
appearance in the literature (e.g., pay, justice perceptions; see the procedure used by Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriesheim, & Carson, 2002). Initial
agreement was 98.3%, and all discrepancies were resolved through
discussion.
Once the data were compiled into categories, Derek S. Chapman examined the coefficients within each category to detect any anomalies (e.g., a
large negative coefficient where all other coefficients were positive). In one
instance, contacting the authors of a primary study resulted in a correction
to the original work, and the correct coefficient was used in this metaanalysis. In summary, the coding process resulted in 618 total coefficients
relevant for 89 predictor criterion relationships that were to be analyzed
and 49 coefficients for the 5 interrelationships among the applicant attraction outcome variables.

Analyses
We conducted the meta-analysis at multiple levels of specificity.
First, we meta-analyzed the coefficients within each subcategory in
relation to each of the four outcome categories. For example, we
meta-analyzed the coefficients for P-O fit (a subcategory of the perceived fit category) with each outcome variable. Second, we metaanalyzed the coefficients from each broader category with the four

931

outcome variables. At the category level, all coefficients were included


in the analysis, including those from the subcategories subsumed within
it as well as coefficients that were relevant for a category but that could
not be classified into a specific subcategory. Building on the earlier
example, at the category level for perceived fit, we incorporated all
P-O, personjob, and personrecruiter fit coefficients as well as those
that were coded to reflect general perceived fit. This procedure allowed
us to determine both (a) the effect of a very specific variable (e.g.,
recruiter friendliness) and (b) the corrected variability accounted for by
a broad category such as recruiter characteristics.
Nonindependence issues. Many recruiting studies measured multiple
predictors and outcome variables, occasionally at more than one point in
time. This introduces the potential for overweighting studies that contain
nonindependent data that can distort the results of the meta-analysis
(Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). Therefore, we used a conservative approach to
minimize the problems associated with nonindependent coefficients. Specifically, when correlations were reported for multiple points in time, only
the wave of data that most closely preceded the outcome variable was used
because maximum exposure to the recruitment process had occurred by
this stage. Moreover, more proximal measures of attitudesintentions are
the best predictors of behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Finally, for those cases
involving more than one coefficient from the same study, the overall study
sample size was distributed evenly among the coefficients.
Computation of population effect sizes. Correlation coefficients were
cumulated using the psychometric meta-analytic techniques outlined by
Hunter and Schmidt (1990). Meta-analysis provides an estimate of the true
population effect size for a given predictor criterion relationship by first
determining how much of the variance in effect sizes across studies is due
to various statistical artifacts and then correcting the effect sizes for the
effects of these artifacts (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990; Schmidt & Hunter,
2001).
Sample-size-weighted average correlation coefficients were computed between the four criterion categories and each of the predictor
categories and subcategories. Analyses were performed for any
predictor criterion relationship with two or more coefficients. These
weighted mean correlation coefficients were then corrected for unreliability in the predictor and criterion measures. Because several studies
were missing reliability coefficients, artifact distributions were used to
correct for unreliability of the measures. We created separate artifact
distributions using the available reliabilities for a given analysis. Following the procedure to correct for unreliability by Hunter and Schmidt
(1990), we first calculated attenuation factors for the predictor and
criterion. The attenuation factors were computed by determining the
square roots of the reliabilities that were available for coefficients in a
given meta-analysis. The attenuation factors for the predictor and
criterion were then multiplied to create a mean compound artifact
attenuation factor, which was used to correct for the effects of unreliability in each meta-analysis. This artifact distribution approach allowed us to correct the distribution (i.e., mean and variance) of the
correlation coefficients subsequent to the sampling error correction.
Finally, we calculated 95% confidence intervals using the standard
error for the mean sample-size-weighted effect size to assess the accuracy of the estimated mean of the population parameters (Whitener,
1990).
Moderator detection and estimation. The second stage of the metaanalysis involved determining whether the studies that were cumulated for
each analysis came from heterogeneous populations (i.e., whether moderator variables were present) and, if so, whether the moderator variables that
were specified a priori accounted for a significant amount of the residual
variance. The Q statistic (Hedges & Olkin, 1985) was used as a test of
effect size homogeneity, with a statistically significant Q indicating heterogeneity of effect sizes.
When a statistically significant Q statistic suggested the presence of
moderator variables, the significance of race and gender moderator vari-

932

CHAPMAN, UGGERSLEV, CARROLL, PIASENTIN, AND JONES

ables was tested using weighted least squares regression (Hedges & Olkin,
1985). Because separate effect sizes for men versus women and Whites
versus minorities were not reported in the primary studies, it was not
possible to conduct subgroup analyses for gender and race moderators. For
the weighted least squares analyses, the correlation coefficients were
regressed on each moderator variable, and the inverse of the sampling error
was used as the weighting variable (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). The moderator
variables were examined alone to determine their individual significance
and as a block to determine the total amount of variance accounted for by
all moderators. Race and gender were coded as the percentage of Whites
and the percentage of men in the study samples, respectively.
To assess the significance of the applicant type moderator, we used the
preferred subgroup method (Schmidt & Hunter, 2001). Because the participants in the primary studies were either actual job applicants or participants role playing as applicants, the effect sizes for coefficients computed
using actual job applicants were compared with those computed for
nonapplicants.
Steel and Kammeyer-Mueller (2002) determined that conducting moderator analyses when the ratio of variables to studies included in the
analysis was low resulted in biased estimates; therefore, we adopted a
conservative approach and only tested for moderator variables when the
ratio of coefficients to variables was at least 10:1. Moderator tests were not
conducted on job choice because of an insufficient number of coefficients.
Path analyses. To determine whether the relationships between the
various predictor categories and job choice were mediated by applicant
attitudes toward the organization and intentions, we conducted structural
equation modeling (SEM) using the correlation matrices obtained from the
meta-analyses. This approach was similar to that used by Tett and Meyer
(1993). To use the correlation coefficients produced by our meta-analyses
within SEM, we assigned each coefficient a mean of zero and a standard
deviation of one (see Tett & Meyer, 1993). We examined whether job
organization attraction (hereafter referred to as attitudes) and acceptance
intentions mediated the relationship between each of the six broad predictor categories and job choice.
The SEM was conducted for each of the six predictor categories. To rule
out the possibility that alternative models fit the data as well as or better
than a fully mediated model, we also assessed three variants of the fully
mediated model for each predictor category (described below). Job pursuit
intentions was omitted from these models because there were no coefficients between this outcome variable and job choice. In combination, the
four models were designed to assess whether the relationship between each
predictor category and job choice was fully mediated by job organization
attraction attitudes and acceptance intentions or whether direct or partially
mediated models provided a better fit to the data (see Baron & Kenny,
1986). Because there were two potentially mediating variables, the number
of alternative models we could test was greater than simply testing a single
mediated versus partially mediated relationship; however, the underlying
logic for our tests was similar. That is, the alternative models were
designed to establish whether we could rule out direct effects of the
predictor on job choice and whether partial mediation was occurring. This
approach is consistent with conservative SEM procedures wherein plausible alternative models can be discounted (Millsap & Meredith, 1994;
Williams, Bozdogan, & Aiman-Smith, 1996). Next, we describe each of
the four models we tested (see Figure 1).
The direct model (see Figure 1A) was a fully independent model
estimating direct paths from the predictor, attitudes, and intentions to job
choice without any mediation. The attitude mediated model (see Figure 1B)
was a partially mediated model in which the predictor relationship with
intentions and job choice was fully mediated by applicant attraction attitudes. A direct path from attraction attitudes to job choice was estimated in
addition to a mediated path through intentions. A third model, the intentions mediated model (see Figure 1C), emphasized the role of intentions in
predicting job choice by including a direct path from the predictor to
intentions (partially bypassing attitudes) and constraining the direct path

from attitudes to job choice to zero. In the hypothesized fully mediated


model (see Figure 1D), the relationship between the predictor category and
job choice was fully mediated by attitudes and subsequently intentions,
with no indirect paths estimated. The overall fit for each model was
assessed using the goodness-of-fit index, the adjusted goodness-of-fit index, the root-mean-square error of approximation, Akaikes information
criterion, and the comparative fit index. Nested model comparisons were
conducted using a combination of chi-square tests and changes in fit
indices in accordance with accepted SEM procedures (e.g., Kline, 1998).
Models with equal degrees of freedom were also compared using Akaikes
information criterion with lower numbers indicating a better fit.

Results and Discussion


Table 1 presents the meta-analytic results for the recruiting
predictors on each of the attraction outcomes. In the next section,
the results are presented and discussed for each outcome variable
in relation to all of the predictors sequentially. Within each outcome variable, we focused our discussion on (a) effect sizes, (b)
general patterns of findings, and (c) key findings for theory and
practice. Next, moderator analyses are discussed. Finally, we discuss the results from the relationships among the outcome variables and, in particular, their consistency with a fully mediated
model in which attitudes and intentions mediate the relationship
between recruiting predictors and job choice.
It is important to note that because the population of applicants
may differ as applicants move through Barbers (1998) stages of
the recruitment process (generating applicants, maintaining applicant status, and influencing job choice), range restriction in the
predictor variables may become increasingly common. Applicants,
for example, may self-select out of the recruiting process if they
perceive poor fit with the organization. Thus, the population of
applicants who are present early on in the recruiting process
(which is typically examined in studies in which job pursuit
intentions is used as an outcome variable) may not be the same as
the population later in the presumed causal sequence, such as when
job choice decisions are being made. Accordingly, comparisons of
relative strength among the predictors are made more confidently
within each outcome variable, whereas a comparison of the
strength of one predictor category across the recruiting outcomes
necessitates more cautious interpretation.

Recruiting Predictors and Attraction Outcomes


To briefly summarize our major findings, it was clear that the
most difficult recruiting outcome to predict on the basis of traditional recruiting predictors was job choice in that the direct effects
of most of the predictors were either nonsignificant or had very
small effect sizes. Additionally, our results suggest that the least
predictive broad category of predictors was perceived alternatives.
Effect sizes found for the remaining relationships between the
traditional predictors and the recruiting outcomes were often moderate effects and there was less differentiation among the predictors than might be expected. Notable exceptions included the
substantial role that P-O fit played in job pursuit intentions relative
to most other predictors and the strong effects of job and organizational characteristics, particularly type of work and perceived
work environment, on applicant intentions.
Job pursuit intentions. Table 1 illustrates that two subcategories identified within job organization characteristics were

APPLICANT ATTRACTION META-ANALYSIS

933

Figure 1. Direct effects path model (A), attitudes mediated model (B), intentions mediated model (C), and fully
mediated path model (D). JOA job organization attraction; AI acceptance intentions.

particularly strong predictors of job pursuit intentions: type of


work ( .53) and organization image ( .51). Indeed, the
95% confidence intervals for these two subcategories did not
overlap with the confidence intervals of any other subcategories, indicating that they are the strongest predictors. It is
interesting to note that the meta-analytic effect sizes of the job
and organization characteristics with job pursuit intentions were
consistent with the direct estimation rankings of job and organization attributes found by Jurgensen (1978) and by Turban,
Eyring, and Campion (1993). In these studies, applicants ranked
type of work as the most strongly preferred of 10 attributes,

with pay and advancement in the middle range. Although direct


estimation techniques have been criticized in the recruiting
literature (e.g., Barber, 1998), our findings suggest that it is
possible that applicants have some degree of accurate insight
into their decision-making processes. Nonetheless, this insight
may be restricted to the strongest (and therefore most salient)
predictors, as the order of the remaining predictors was not
replicated.
Osborn (1990) investigated whether job choice decisions
were made using compensatory models (which propose that
high attraction to some variables compensates for low attraction

3,172
1,529

1,529
1,123

2,859
1,394
1,394

512
1,093
745

1,508
1,438
519

8
8

8
3

35
12
11

2
8
3

12
7
3

.26
.28
.22

.18
.44
.50

.23
.21
.20

.33
.50

.33

.17

.32
.27
.13
.14
.46
.31
.19
.43

rxy
.38
.30a
.14
.15
.53
.36a
.23
.51

.21

.37

.37a

.27
.25
.25

.21
.55
.62a

.33
.35
.25

.27.39
.29.41
.15.34

.11.30
.49.61
.55.68

.23.31
.19.31
.19.31

.32.42
.46.55

.34.44

.17.25

.35.40
.26.35
.08.20
.09.22
.46.60
.33.39
.13.34
.47.54

95% CI
6,589
1,986
1,728
1,362
1,084
6,072
860
3,121
703
1,079
2,197
554
1,561
327
327
327
1,268
896
545
717
130
247
9,069
8,135
8,130
375
582
3,462
2,714
460
3,191
448
489
2,501
5,387
1,089
4,480

4
9
31
9
21

98
28
16
8
9
65
8
27
3
4
6
3
54
8
3
3
38
9
8
8
4
5
62
43
39
2
3
12
5
2
10
4

.28
.12
.28
.22
.30

.32
.24
.22
.22
.29
.31
.47
.40
.24
.11
.26
.14
.23
.03
.04
.01
.23
.34
.24
.24
.21
.21
.34
.33
.32
.41
.36
.34
.35
.25
.30
.40

rxy
.39
.30a
.27
.27
.37
.37a
.60
.48
.32
.12
.31
.20
.29
.03
.04
.01
.29
.42
.29
.31
.26
.25
.42
.40a
.39
.46
.46
.42
.45
.32
.45
.46

.34
.16a
.33
.26a
.36

.24.43
.11.21
.30.36
.19.32
.32.39

.36.42
.25.35
.22.33
.21.33
.30.44
.34.40
.53.66
.44.51
.22.41
.06.19
.27.36
.08.31
.23.36
.09.15
.08.16
.12.10
.23.36
.35.49
.19.39
.22.40
.06.47
.11.39
.40.44
.37.42
.37.41
.36.55
.37.55
.38.45
.41.49
.21.43
.40.50
.37.56

95% CI

Joborganization attraction

466
527
414
386
1,668
5,940
2,096
4,465

2
3
8
28
13
14

329
851

2
5
2
7

2,348
1,836
1,425
839
190
306
7,231
5,445
5,445

2,880
567
567

9,589
2,633
906
761
1,481
5,692
1,104
4,547
1,123
312
2,768

31
9
8
7
3
4
40
20
19

41
3
2

68
23
7
3
9
31
6
17
3
2
4

.37
.03
.05
.23
.28
.22

.22
.32

.38
.16

.22
.24
.19
.06
.18
.42
.33
.30
.30

.25
.04
.04

.47
.39
.30
.28
.44
.31
.45
.34
.31
.03
.24

rxy
.57
.45a
.42
.28
.52
.36a
.53
.41
.35
.03
.32

.32
.05
.05

.29a
.30
.24
.09
.23
.53a
.42
.40a
.40

.53
.21

.29
.37

.45
.04
.06a
.30
.36a
.30a

95% CI

.34.55
.08.16
.13.00
.27.34
.31.41
.26.34

.17.41
.28.47

.40.66
.13.29

.24.34
.25.36
.18.30
.01.18
.05.40
.42.65
.39.45
.37.43
.37.43

.28.36
.14.05
.14.05

.55.59
.42.49
.34.51
.21.35
.47.56
.34.39
.4859
.38.44
.28.40
.09.14
.27.36

Acceptance intentions

625

5
6
6

6
3
2

3
3
3

4
3

816
720
720

118
118
118

674
674
674

614
599

599

702

748
661
584
584

14
3
2
2

.06
.16
.16

.06
.17
.06

.07
.07
.07

.09
.10

.10

.06

.07

.09
.10
.12
.12

rxy

.11

.10
.11

.09
.09
.09

.07
.18
.06

.07
.17
.17

.09

Job choice

.01.15
.09.24
.09.24

.13.26
.00.37
.24.13

.00.18
.00.18
.00.18

.02.19
.03.20

.02.19

.02.13

.01.14

.02.17
.03.18
.04.20
.04.20

95% CI

Note. When rxy (mean weighted coefficient) and (coefficient corrected for the unreliability of predictor and criterion) are identical, it is because of rounding. A dash in the column indicates that
no reliability information was available to correct the weighted mean coefficient for this artifact. CI confidence interval.
a
This relationship has a significant Q statistic. b Pay is also included in the subcategory of compensation.

7,171
1,921
1,077
934
705
5,647
489
3,718

60
18
14
7
3
40
6
18

Job and organizational characteristics


Job characteristics
Compensation and advancement
Payb
Type of work
Organizational characteristics
Work environment
Organization image
Location
Size
Familiarity
Hours
Recruiter characteristics
Demographics
Gender
Function
Recruiter behaviors
Personableness
Competence
Informativeness
Trustworthiness
Perceptions of recruiter
Perceptions of recruitment process
Justice perceptions
Procedural justice
Timely response
Opportunity to perform
Job related
Treatment
Consistency
Perceived fit
Personorganization fit
Personjob fit
Personrecruiter fit
Perceived alternatives
Hiring expectancies
Perceived hiring expectancies
Perceptions about performance

Predictor

Job pursuit intentions

Table 1
Meta-Analyses of Recruitment Predictors and Applicant Attraction Outcomes

934
CHAPMAN, UGGERSLEV, CARROLL, PIASENTIN, AND JONES

APPLICANT ATTRACTION META-ANALYSIS

to other variables) or noncompensatory models (which propose


that minimal levels of attractiveness of certain variables must
be met before the position is competitive). Osborn found that
pay level, benefits offered, and advancement opportunities were
potential deal breakers (i.e., noncompensatory factors). Nevertheless, we found that pay and compensation and advancement
predicted job pursuit intentions to a much lesser extent than
most other job and organization characteristics. Why might pay,
compensation, and benefits be relatively weak predictors? The
majority of studies that have investigated pay were field studies
where pay varied naturally; thus, there may have been a restriction in the range of pay. As Rynes, Schwab, and Heneman
(1983) highlighted, attributes that do not vary much across
offers may receive less weight than attributes that have greater
variability. In short, noncompensatory strategies may be used
early in the job choice process to reduce the number of potential
employers (Osborn, 1990) and, therefore, applicants may not
have applied for a position in the first place when the pay was
deemed unacceptable. Thus, applicants may have used rational
economic models during the job search process and only applied to those jobs meeting their reservation wage (Anderson
et al., 2001). Concerning the overall job organizational characteristics predictor category, the weak effects for pay ( .15)
and for the more global compensation and advancement subcategory ( .14) may have diluted the stronger effects from
type of work and organization image, resulting in a mediumsized overall category validity coefficient ( .38; Cohen,
1988).
Among the recruiter characteristics, recruiter personableness
was a particularly strong predictor of job pursuit intentions
( .50). Nonetheless, this large validity coefficient must be
interpreted with caution because it was only based on three
studies (N 1,123). Additional research on other recruiter
behaviors is needed to ascertain whether recruiter personableness is significantly more predictive of job pursuit intentions
than other recruiter behaviors (e.g., competence,
informativeness).
Joborganization attraction. As with job pursuit intentions,
Table 1 reveals that the perceived work environment has the
strongest relationship with job organization attraction (r .60).
Medium effect sizes were observed for a large number of traditional recruiting predictors, such as P-O fit ( .46), organizational image ( .48), and justice perceptions ( .40). Among
the organizational characteristics predictor category, work environment ( .60) and organizational image ( .48) were the
strongest predictors of job organization attraction.
The recruiter demographic variables were not significant
predictors of job organization attraction. Despite contrary findings reported in primary studies (cf. Taylor & Bergmann, 1987;
Turban & Dougherty, 1992), these null meta-analytic coefficients are consistent with the weak overall effects summarized
by Barber (1998). In contrast, the recruiter behaviors all have
medium effect sizes, with rhos ranging from .26 to .42. This
finding has implications for the signal model of recruiting
(Rynes et al., 1991) in that applicants may experience recruiter
behaviors as stronger signals than recruiter demographics when
forming impressions of the organization. Furthermore, because
recruiter characteristics ( .29) were not found to have
relationships with job organizational attraction as strong as

935

job organization characteristics ( .39), perceptions of the


recruitment process ( .42), or perceived fit ( .45),
applicants may rely less on signals from recruiters as more
information about job and organizational characteristics becomes available. These findings are consistent with Behling et
al.s (1968) critical contact theory.
Acceptance intentions. Table 1 shows that the broad job and
organizational characteristics category was a stronger predictor
of acceptance intentions ( .57) than were recruiter characteristics ( .32), perceptions of the recruitment process (
.42), perceived fit ( .37), perceived alternatives ( .06),
and hiring expectancies ( .30). Among the strongest narrow
predictors of acceptance intentions were perceived work environment ( .53), perceptions of the recruiter ( .53),
opportunity to perform ( .53), and type of work ( .52).
This suggests that applicants place a lot of weight on what they
imagine their future job environment will be like when forming
their acceptance intentions. Thus, later in the recruiting process
employers may want to focus their efforts on providing detailed
information on actual working conditions in the organization. It
is also apparent that there is some spillover from the applicant
maintenance stage in that applicants who perceive that the
organizations selection practices are not providing them with
an opportunity to demonstrate their abilities will be less likely
to form intentions of accepting an offer. This finding highlights
the importance of ensuring the face validity of selection procedures and/or providing detailed explanations of why selection
procedures are chosen.
Later in the recruiting process the applicant may have a better
understanding about other characteristics of the job and organization and, therefore, have more complete information on
which to base their acceptance intentions. In addition, events
occurring closer to the job choice decision may be more salient
and, thus, have greater influence than earlier events (Barber,
1998). More evidence was found for the importance of the
perceived fit between applicant and job characteristics over
recruiter fit in the later stages of recruitment. Specifically,
personjob fit appeared to be a stronger predictor of acceptance
intentions ( .45) than personrecruiter fit ( .04), given
that the confidence intervals did not overlap. This finding is
also consistent with that of Judge and Cable (1997) who found
that perceived fit significantly predicted acceptance intentions
incremental to the attractiveness of job attributes. Thus, future
research should assess unique effects and whether a greater
proportion of variability in acceptance intentions can be accounted for by considering multiple recruiting variables simultaneously. Also, a somewhat surprising finding was that the
perceived alternatives category was not a significant predictor
of acceptance intentions. We speculate that perhaps the quality
of the competing alternatives is more important than the number
of competing offers. Given the small number of studies that
have examined this issue, continued research is necessary in
order to fully understand whether the perceived alternatives
category is a useful predictor of acceptance intentions.
Job choice. All predictors of job choice had either small
effects or were not significant. Indeed, the largest significant
validity coefficient was only .17 (hiring expectancy),

936

CHAPMAN, UGGERSLEV, CARROLL, PIASENTIN, AND JONES

accounting for just over 3% of the variability in job choice.1


There are at least four possible explanations for why the effect
sizes for predicting job choice decisions are low. First, because
job choice decisions are typically dichotomous in nature, pointbiserial correlations were used to calculate the effect sizes.
Point-biserial correlations are limited by the distributions of
both the dichotomous and continuous variables and in the most
typical cases will have ceilings well below .80,2 and, thus,
comparing the effect sizes for job choice and other outcome
variables should be done with caution. Second, job choice
requires both the applicant and the employer to commit to one
another. It is likely that some employers are highly attractive to
most applicants; however, if only a few positions are offered,
the relationship between attraction and job choice is necessarily
attenuated. Studies that measure job choice regardless of
whether an applicant receives an offer from a specific employer
typically find that the applicants simply reciprocate the rejection from the target employer and choose another position
regardless of their initial attraction to the target organization
(e.g., Chapman & Webster, in press). This reduces the observed
effect sizes for predictors of job choice when rejected applicants are included in the sample.
Third, Judge and Cable (1997) offered a possible explanation for
the nonsignificant relationship between P-O fit and job choice.
These authors suggested that the attenuated effect is due to the fact
that only applicants who pursued and then received jobs are
included at this late stage of the recruitment process. In other
words, applicants may be offered positions because of a perceived
fit with the organization (Chatman, 1989, 1991); however, they
may self-select out of the recruitment process prior to the job
offering stage if they perceive a lack of fit with the organization
(Rynes, 1991). Thus, there may be range restriction in the level of
P-O fit of applicants in the pool when job choice decisions are
made (Judge & Cable, 1997). Indeed, Rynes et al. (1991) found
that nearly half of all applicants withdrew after an initial interview,
and Barber, Hollenbeck, Tower, and Phillips (1994) reported that
one third of applicants withdrew prior to the job choice stage.
Thus, our meta-analytic evidence is consistent with the contention
that applicant withdrawal during the recruitment process may
result in restricted ranges for many of the recruiting predictors, and
it may attenuate the effects of these predictors on job choice
(Rynes et al., 1983).
Finally, it is highly likely that the relationship between these
predictors and job choice is not direct (Judge & Cable, 1997).
Specifically, processes such as attraction and intentions may mediate these relationships as might other variables such as perceived
alternatives (Cable & Judge, 1996) or knowledge of the organization (Chapman, Uggerslev, & Webster, 2003). We present the
results of our tests of these mediated models after the results of the
moderator analyses.
In all analyses, only a few studies were included in which job
choice was measured. Recruiting scholars (e.g., Barber, 1998;
Ryan & Ployhart, 2000) have urged researchers to move beyond an
examination of intentions to accept an offer or pursue a particular
job by examining actual job acceptance behaviors. More primary
research is needed to assess whether job choice can be reliably
predicted.

Moderator Analyses
The Q statistic indicated the presence of moderator variables for
17 relationships between the predictor subcategories and the attitudinal outcomes. Where sufficient data were available, the
weighted least squares regression analyses found little or no evidence supporting moderator effects for gender or race. Gender was
a significant moderator for only 2 of 11 opportunities. Specifically,
women placed more weight on job characteristics ( .51, p
.001) and less weight on fairness perceptions ( .46, p .001)
than did men in determining the attractiveness of the job
organization. Race was not a significant moderator for any of the
eight opportunities where sufficient data were available to test this
moderator.
Table 2 shows the results of the subgroup analyses that were
conducted to estimate the relationships between predictors and the
applicant attraction outcomes for applicants and nonapplicants
when the Q statistic detected the presence of moderator variables.
Significant subgroup differences are indicated by confidence intervals that do not overlap. The subgroup analyses show that job
applicants were likely to weigh job characteristics more strongly
than nonapplicants in evaluating job organization attractiveness.
Real applicants also weighed justice perceptions more strongly
than nonapplicants in evaluating the attractiveness of jobs and
organizations.
The type of applicant also moderated two predictoracceptance
intentions relationships. Table 2 shows that organizational characteristics were a more important consideration to applicants than to
nonapplicants. Likewise, applicant justice perceptions were also
more strongly related to acceptance intentions for real applicants
than they were for nonapplicants.

Relationships Among the Outcome Variables


The meta-analytic results for the intercorrelations among the
four applicant attraction variables are presented in Table 3. The
correlation coefficients among the applicant attraction outcomes
were substantial except for the coefficients with job choice behavior. All of the perceptual variables were measured prior to an offer
being extended (and, therefore, prior to a job choice decision).
Higher coefficients between these perceptions and job choice may
have been obtained if the perceptions were measured after the job
choice decision was made (Lawler, Kuleck, Rhode, & Sorensen,
1975). Specifically, applicants may adjust their perceptions to
match their behaviors after the fact (Soelberg, 1967), or there may
be perceptual distortion after a job choice decision (Vroom, 1966).
These mechanisms, as well as the others mentioned earlier, may
account for the relatively low correlations between job choice and
the perception measures.

Testing a Fully Mediated Model in the Job Choice


Process
We tested the four models of job choice processes illustrated in
Figure 1 using the meta-analytically derived matrices in Tables 1
1
Although P-O fit has the largest rho, the confidence interval for this
predictor includes zero and, thus, P-O fit is not a significant predictor of job
choice.
2
We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this explanation.

APPLICANT ATTRACTION META-ANALYSIS

937

Table 2
Subgroup Meta-Analyses for Applicant Type Moderator Variable
Job pursuit intentions
Predictor
Job characteristics
Applicants
Nonapplicants
Organizational characteristics
Applicants
Nonapplicants
Justice perceptions
Applicants
Nonapplicants
Recruiter behaviors
Applicants
Nonapplicants
Perceived alternatives
Applicants
Nonapplicants
Perceived hiring expectancies
Applicants
Nonapplicants
Perceptions about performance
Applicants
Nonapplicants

rxy

95% CI

40 5,647 .31 .36 .18 .33.39


4 1,658 .34 .41 .13 .34.47
36 3,989 .29 .34 .19 .31.38

28
5
23
65
10
55
43
34
9

1,986
286
1,700
6,072
2,540
3,532
8,135
7,139
996

.24
.41
.21
.31
.29
.32
.33
.34
.27

.30
.53
.27
.37
.35
.39
.40
.42
.30

.12
.08
.09
.18
.19
.16
.06
.05
.00

.25.35
.41.65
.21.32
.34.40
.31.39
.35.42
.37.42
.39.44
.23.36

23
11
12
31
18
13
20
13
7
31
24
7
8
5
3
13
9
4
14
5
9

rxy

Acceptance intentions

95% CI

Joborganization attraction
n

rxy

95% CI

2,633
.39
.45 .09
.42.49
2,261
.40
.47 .10
.43.51
372
.32
.35 .00
.25.45
5,692
.31
.36 .12
.34.39
3,651
.35
.42 .07
.38.45
2,041
.23
.27 .14
.22.31
5,445
.30
.40 .07
.37.43
4,880
.31
.42 .07
.39.46
565
.21
.28 .00
.17.38
2,348
.22
.29 .08
.24.34
2,157
.23
.29 .09
.24.34
191
.17
.21 .00
.03.38
1,668 .05 .06 .15 .13.00
1,435 .04 .06 .14 .13.01
168 .04 .04 .13 .19.12
2,096
.28
.36 .08
.31.41
1,519
.26
.33 .07
.27.39
577
.33
.42 .06
.32.51
4,465
.22
.30 .15
.26.34
3,922
.21
.30 .15
.25.34
543
.30
.38 .11
.28.48

Note. Dashes indicate that there were no data available to estimate these relationships. rxy mean weighted coefficient; coefficient corrected for the
unreliability of predictor and criterion; corrected standard deviation; CI confidence interval.

and 3 for each predictor category. Specifically, the fit of the


meta-analytic data to the direct effects, attitude mediated, intentions mediated, and fully mediated models was compared separately with each of the six predictor categories. Neither the fully
mediated nor the direct effects model provided the best fit to the
data for any of the six predictor categories.3 Instead, for all
predictor categories, one of the two partially mediated models (i.e.,
the attitude mediated or intention mediated model) provided the
best fit to the data (see Tables 4 and 5 for the path coefficients and
fit indices for each predictor category with its best fitting model).4
These two models are similar in that they both permit partially
mediated mechanisms involving attitudes and intentions but they
preclude a direct relationship from the predictor category to job
choice. The direct effects model was the poorest fitting for all of
the predictors, and fit indices suggest that this was an unacceptable
fit in all circumstances. The fully mediated model provided an
acceptable fit for each of the predictor categories except for job
and organizational characteristics. Otherwise, the models tested
resulted in an acceptable fit for the predictors, and the differences
among them, although small, were often significant.
Recruiter characteristics, hiring expectancy, and perceived fit
were all found to predict job choice through the attitudes mediated
model (see Table 4). Recruiter characteristics may be providing
information about the attractiveness of the organization through a
signal mechanism (Rynes et al., 1991), and the resultant attitudes
influence on job choice is then partially mediated by intentions.
Total effects of recruiter characteristics were .37, .30, and .07, for
attitudes, intentions, and job choice, respectively. The finding that
hiring expectancies also predicted job choice through a positive
relationship with attitudes is consistent with Janis and Manns
(1977) bolstering theory of decision making. Initially, individuals

tend to elevate choices that are more likely to occur by inflating the
positive aspects of that option and playing down the negative
aspects (see Chapman & Webster, in press; the total effects were
as follows: attitudes .33, intentions .26, and job choice
.06). The finding that the relationship between perceived fit and
job choice was also best described by the attitude mediated model
is somewhat surprising in that a more direct route was expected
between the appraisal of fit and intentions. The total effects of
perceived fit were found to be .45, .35, and .09 for attitudes,
intentions, and job choice, respectively.
The intentions mediated model provided the best fit for the
job organizational characteristics, perceptions of the recruiting
process, and perceived alternatives predictor categories. Table 5
reveals that job organizational characteristics played a prominent
role in forming acceptance intentions and consequently a stronger
role in job choice than the predictor categories that were best
described by the attitude mediated model (total effects were as
follows: attitudes .39, intentions .57, and job choice .19).
Similarly, perceptions of the recruiting process also played a major
role in job choice as a result of the more immediate effects on
applicant intentions (total effects were as follows: attitudes .42,
3
The direct model was also tested with the parameter estimated between
job organization attraction and acceptance intentions. Although this improved the overall fit of the direct model, it did not improve it sufficiently
to make it the best fitting model in any circumstances.
4
For the sake of parsimony, path coefficients and fit indices are not
presented for each of the six predictor categories with each of the four
alternative path models. For the complete path analysis results, please
contact Derek S. Chapman.

CHAPMAN, UGGERSLEV, CARROLL, PIASENTIN, AND JONES

938

Table 3
Meta-Analysis for Coefficients Between Applicant Attraction Outcomes
Job pursuit intentions

Joborganization attraction

Acceptance intentions

Outcome

rxy

rxy

rxy

Job pursuit intentions


Joborganization attraction
Acceptance intentions
Job choice

7
8

2,371
2,826

.56
.61

.67
.74

26
3

7,470
656

.61
.18

.78
.19

752

.29

.33

Note. Dashes in the job choice row indicate that there were insufficient data to estimate these relationships. rxy mean weighted coefficient;
coefficient corrected for the unreliability of predictor and criterion.

intentions .42, and job choice .14). This finding underscores


the need to pay attention to recruiting and selection practices that
have the potential to be perceived negatively by applicants. For
example, delays in responding to applicants or using selection
procedures that produce negative reactions may have unintended
ramifications for job choice. Perceived alternatives were also
found to predict job choice through the intentions mediated model.
Overall the effect sizes for perceived alternatives were marginal:
.16, .06, and .02 for attitudes, intentions, and job choice,
respectively.

General Discussion
Our first goal for this study was to provide a comprehensive,
meta-analytically derived examination of the relationships between commonly used predictors of applicant attraction and other
important outcomes of recruitment. Three important patterns
emerged from these results that warrant further elaboration. First,
these meta-analyses underscore that what is being offered by the
Table 4
Path Estimates and Fit Indices for Recruiter Characteristics,
Hiring Expectancy, and Perceived Fit Using the Attitude
Mediated Model
Estimated path
and model statistic
Estimated path
PredictorJOA
JOAAI
JOAJC
AIJC
Model statistics
2
RJC
2
GFI
AGFI
AIC
RMSEA
CFI

Recruiter
characteristics

Hiring
expectancy

Perceived
fit

.37
.78
.17
.46

.33
.78
.17
.46

.45
.78
.17
.46

.12
2.82
.998
.991
26.47
.075
.991

.12
11.33
.993
.963
27.33
.079
.990

.12
1.31
.999
.995
25.14
.074
.992

Note. This is the best fitting of the models tested. To obtain the results for
the poorer fitting models, please contact Derek S. Chapman. JOA
joborganization attraction; AI acceptance intentions; JC job choice;
2
RJC
variance accounted for in job choice; GFI goodness-of-fit index;
AGFI adjusted goodness-of-fit index; AIC Akaikes information
criterion; RMSEA root-mean-square error of approximation; CFI
comparative fit index.

organization is related to applicant attraction. Characteristics of


both the job and organization (i.e., objective factors; Behling et al.,
1968) were important determinants of recruiting outcomes.
Second, it is clear that how the recruiting is conducted (i.e.,
critical contact; Behling et al., 1968) is also important; however,
who does the recruiting appears not to be important. Therefore,
recruiters who are selected for desired qualities (e.g., personableness) and trained to provide the correct information in a manner
that is consistent and fair will likely be more successful, regardless
of their organizational function, gender, or race. This does not
preclude the possibility that there may be other individual differences that could predict recruiter effectiveness; however, researchers should examine factors other than demographics. For example,
cognitive ability, personality, recruiting experience, physical attractiveness, and training should be explored to determine whether
individual differences in recruiter effectiveness exist. Furthermore,
recruiter behaviors and organizational characteristics that enhance
applicants expectations of receiving an offer were also related to
applicant attraction.
Third, and perhaps not surprisingly, perceptions of fit (i.e.,
subjective factors) proved to be one of the strongest predictors of
the attitudinal applicant attraction outcomes. Nevertheless, despite
many instances in which fit perceptions were significantly stronger
predictors than recruiter characteristics, job organizational characteristics, and so forth, the extent of the improvement was often
small. This is important because it takes considerably more organizational resources to target individual applicant needs than it
does to provide broad-based recruiting practices that are attractive
to the vast majority of applicants. For certain key positions or for
positions that are difficult to fill, it may still be beneficial to engage
in highly targeted recruitment processes to maximize fit, but the
gains of such practices may be smaller for positions that have
numerous vacancies or are filled frequently. Future research
should examine the relative use of customized recruitment practices versus those that have broader appeal.
The second goal of the present research was to identify the role,
if any, that moderators might play in the relationships among the
predictors and outcomes. Our analyses suggested that several of
these relationships might contain moderators that deserve future
research attention and further exploration into why these differences exist. Some of the heterogeneity observed in these results,
however, may have been a consequence of combining predictor
and outcome variables into larger categories. Nonetheless, we

APPLICANT ATTRACTION META-ANALYSIS

Table 5
Path Estimates and Fit Indices for JobOrganizational
Characteristics, Perceptions of the Recruiting Process, and
Perceived Alternatives Using the Intentions Mediated Model
Perceptions of
the recruiting
process

Perceived
alternatives

.39
.31
.66
.33

.42
.11
.73
.33

.16
.19
.81
.33

.11
24.77
.984
.920
40.77
.123
.980

.11
10.98
.993
.964
26.98
.077
.991

.11
27.27
.984
.919
43.27
.125
.974

Estimated path
Joborganizational
and model statistic
characteristics
Estimated path
PredictorJOA
PredictorAI
JOAAI
AIJC
Model statistics
2
RJC
2
GFI
AGFI
AIC
RMSEA
CFI

Note. This is the best fitting of the models tested. To obtain the results for
the poorer fitting models, please contact Derek S. Chapman. JOA
joborganization attraction; AI acceptance intentions; JC job choice;
2
RJC
variance accounted for in job choice; GFI goodness-of-fit index;
AGFI adjusted goodness-of-fit index; AIC Akaikes information
criterion; RMSEA root-mean-square error of approximation; CFI
comparative fit index.

found evidence that two of the three moderators we identified a


priori may explain some of this heterogeneity.
Our moderator analyses provided interesting results with respect
to gender differences in the recruiting and job choice processes. It
is interesting to note that the differences between these men and
women were evident for how the recruiting process was conducted
as well as for what was being offered in the job. Women used
information about job characteristics (e.g., location, pay) more
than men in determining the attractiveness of the position. This
finding is consistent with role theories (e.g., Wiersma, 1990) in
that women may be more likely than men to seek out positions that
offer a location or benefits that minimize conflicts with other life
roles (e.g., spouse, parent). We also found in one instance that
perceptions of fairness had weaker effects on job organizational
attraction among women than among men. This finding is in the
opposite direction of what we expected on the basis of the notion
that women might be particularly sensitive to perceived unfairness
due to historical discrimination. One possible explanation for this
moderator effect is that despite persistent gender inequalities in the
labor force (e.g., Gibelman, 2003), women tend to report being
satisfied with their situation, which produces a paradoxical contentment effect (Major, 1994). Thus, some women may come to
accept historical discrimination as the way things are and, hence,
may weigh fairness information less heavily in the recruitment
process than men. We caution against overinterpreting this effect
or the explanation we offered, however, because the moderator
effect for fairness was found in only one instance and our speculative explanation has not been tested in the recruiting literature.
A long-standing debate is the relative merits of laboratory
versus field research for understanding workplace phenomena.
Concerns about the generalizability of laboratory results and the
internal validity of field designs are common. Our results provide

939

some justification for both positions. In support of laboratory


research, most relationships did not vary considerably because of
applicant type. This finding is likely due, in part, to the many
creative laboratory studies that have used a variety of techniques to
make the process approximate real job choices as closely as
possible. Nevertheless, our results showed several areas in which
laboratory researchers may need to be cautious. For instance,
applicants weighed job characteristics more heavily than nonapplicants when determining job pursuit intentions and job
organizational attractiveness. In addition, applicants paid more
attention to organizational characteristics when determining acceptance intentions. We speculate that it is possible that considerably
less effort is required for laboratory participants to pursue a vacancy. Applicants may consequently screen out job opportunities
more readily on the basis of job characteristics such as compensation or type of work to avoid expending limited resources for
less attractive jobs. Later in the process, applicants may consider
organizational criteria more heavily because the consequences of
picking a poorly fitting organization are more salient. Justice
perceptions were also weighed more heavily in determining job
organizational attraction and acceptance intentions for real applicants versus nonapplicants. Simulating injustice in a recruitment
context may be difficult in a laboratory setting where participants
may feel less personally involved in the process.
A greater number of significant Q statistics (see Table 1) suggest that there was more heterogeneity of effect sizes and more
subgroup differences for acceptance intentions than for job pursuit
intentions. Thus, researchers may do a better job using nonapplicants to model early recruitment processes than those more proximal to job choice decisions. One challenge for laboratory research
is that it is difficult to simulate the job choice context because the
consequences of that choice are not immediate. Furthermore, unlike nonapplicants, real applicants may progressively self-select
out of the applicant pool on the basis of perceived fit or other
factors at each stage of the recruitment process creating differences
in range restriction. In fact, the reduction of range restriction in
laboratory settings may facilitate modeling job choice decisions if
range restriction was the origin of the observed differences.5
Nevertheless, until it is ruled out that the mind-set of laboratory
participants is different from that of real applicants in the final
decision stages, researchers should be cautioned that using nonapplicants to model later stages of the recruiting process may generate inaccurate effect sizes and distorted models. In summary, we
feel strongly that laboratory-based research has a substantial role
to play in examining recruiting processes, particularly for earlier
stages of employee attraction. We would also encourage recruiting
researchers to design more sophisticated longitudinal research
using computer simulations to more closely approximate the recruiting and job choice process. For example, computer simulations that require the participant to expend considerable effort to
apply for a job, or that generate more tangible consequences for
making simulated job choices, are more likely to generalize to real
world conditions. Realistic computer simulations also may provide
the opportunity to test mechanisms of job choice in real time
something that is nearly impossible to capture in a field setting.
5

We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this potential benefit


of laboratory research.

940

CHAPMAN, UGGERSLEV, CARROLL, PIASENTIN, AND JONES

As noted previously, the Q statistic indicated the likely presence


of moderators for 17 of the relationships in Table 1. Although
gender and applicant type accounted for a significant proportion of
the residual variance for some of these relationships, unexplained
variance for other relationships suggests the occurrence of additional moderators.6 One potential moderator that was not directly
tested in this meta-analysis was the recruiting stage in which the
relationship was measured. Although we have suggested a greater
presence of moderators for the acceptance than job pursuit intentions and that acceptance intentions may typically be measured
later in the recruitment process, future research should directly
examine the stage at which the outcome variables are measured to
test this postulate explicitly. Another potential moderator of recruiting effects that has received recent theoretical attention and
empirical support is the degree to which applicants carefully
consider recruiting messages (see Chapman & Jones, 2002; Shultz,
Jones, & Chapman, 2004). Additionally, there may be stronger
effect sizes for career as opposed to position jobs. Further research
conducted using more established nonstudent applicants for actual
positions will also afford a refinement of the real applicants
subgroup (into student and nonstudent subgroups). Finally, more
research using longitudinal versus cross-sectional designs will
allow for a test of whether research design might moderate the
predictor outcome relationships.
The third goal of our research was to examine the strengths and
patterns of the relationships among the recruiting outcome variables. Notably, there was considerable overlap among the outcomes given that some of the corrected correlations approached
.80. Thus, more work is needed in the recruiting area to develop
common definitions and operationalizations for the constructs being measured. In conducting this meta-analysis, we had to rely
heavily on item content rather than the labels affixed to scales.
Factor analytic work (e.g., Highhouse et al., 2003) may be particularly valuable to (a) determine orthogonality among the outcome
variables and to (b) construct valid items that provide sufficient
discriminant validity among the recruiting outcome constructs.
The results from our path analyses suggest that the relationships
between the recruiting predictors and job choice are neither direct
nor predicted by a fully mediated model in which a given predictor
relates to attraction attitudes, which leads to acceptance intentions
and, in turn, job choice. Instead, we found that two models involving a partial mediation by attitudes and intentions of the relationships between predictors and job choice provided the best description. These results may explain why it is difficult to predict job
choice directly. Recruiting variables, such as pay, type of work,
and organizational image, are therefore important to the extent that
they predict individuals attitudes toward the job and organization
and/or intentions to accept an offer. Because intentions were found
to be the most proximal mediator of recruiting predictors and job
choice, those recruiting factors that have a more direct influence on
intentions rather than attitudes are likely to be most effective. For
example, job organizational characteristics, such as the type of
work and perceptions of the work environment, were found to have
a more direct influence on intentions and therefore had the strongest role in determining job choice. Perceptions of the recruiting
process were also found to predict job choice through the intentions mediated model and therefore were somewhat more predictive of job choice than other predictors. Although still important,
recruiter behaviors such as personableness had a weaker effect on

job choice because of the fact that they influenced attitudes toward
the organization more than intentions. It would be interesting to
determine whether recruiting techniques could be developed
whereby recruiter behaviors have a direct positive influence on
intentions.
Our results suggest that measuring acceptance intentions is the
best available proxy variable for actual job choice, in that it was
found to mediate much of the variance between traditional predictors and job choice. Nevertheless, researchers should be cautious
not to become overly reliant on intentions alone as considerable
unexplained variance in job choice existed in our models, and, for
some predictors, the relationship between job organizational attraction and job choice was only partially mediated by intentions.
An important practical question is, What should employers do to
maximize the effects of their recruiting efforts with the fewest
resources? Our results suggest several answers to this question.
Early in the recruiting process, recruiters demonstrating personable
behaviors may entice applicants to pursue the position. Thus,
selecting recruiters for personableness or training them to be
personable would be worthwhile. Emphasizing positive characteristics associated with the work environment and organizational
image may also enhance attraction to the position. Fair and considerate treatment throughout the recruiting process appears to be
important with respect to acceptance intentions. Training recruiters
to enhance perceptions of fairness by providing explanations for
selection procedures, keeping applicants informed, and avoiding
undue delays in responses are all recommended to improve recruiting effectiveness. Although it is not a marked effect, a recruiter may entice a desired applicant into accepting a job offer by
letting the applicant know that a job offer is likely forthcoming in
an effort to raise expectations about being hired. At a minimum,
recruiters using difficult selection procedures should attempt to
mitigate the negative consequences of reduced expectations of
being hired by informing candidates that the selection task is very
difficult and that many successful applicants find it challenging.
Recruiters should also be aware that if time and resources are
available, additional gains may be had by focusing on the values
and needs that seem most in line with the values and needs of the
applicant (i.e., enhancing the applicants perceived fit with the
organization). Next, we will discuss the limitations associated with
this research and suggest some issues that we believe researchers
should focus on in the future.
All meta-analyses share the same underlying weakness in that
the results obtained are only as meaningful as the primary studies
from which they were derived. For example, many of the studies
examining attraction and job choice processes involved graduating
students seeking their first jobs upon graduation. Although this is
a legitimate population to study, researchers should be encouraged
to examine these processes in a wider variety of applicants to
ensure that processes generalize to other situations.
On the basis of this meta-analysis, we are unable to determine
whether the recruiting variables can predict the applicant attraction
outcomes incrementally to one another. Wanous and Collela
(1989) described a contest among the recruiting variables to
6
Some of the residual variance may be explained by artifacts not
corrected for in this meta-analysis (e.g., dichotomization, departures from
perfect construct validity of the predictors or criterion).

APPLICANT ATTRACTION META-ANALYSIS

determine whether job or organization attributes or recruitment


practices had a greater impact on job choice. They maintained that
it is difficult to set up fair comparisons among the recruiting
variables (Cooper & Richardson, 1986). Deciding which of Behling et al.s (1968) theories is most important may be superceded
by deciding whether objective, subjective, or critical contacts
independently affect job choice and the extent to which they can be
modified in a recruitment context (Barber, 1998).
Additionally, many of the predictors in recruiting may be interdependent. Rottenberg (1956) suggested that an applicant might
evaluate one piece of information about a position in light of other
available information. For example, a candidate may consider the
amount of pay relative to the remoteness of the location when
making a decision to accept or reject a position. The applicant may
reject the position if the pay is not sufficiently high or accept it if
the pay is deemed high enough to offset the remoteness of the
location. Thus, the relative strength of predictors across studies
may vary somewhat depending on what other factors are being
considered by the applicant or measured by the researcher in each
study. Although meta-analysis is designed, in part, to minimize the
contextual effects created by each study, future studies should
strive to measure as many variables as is practical to determine the
relative effects of each variable and to provide as much detail as
possible about the sample and occupation being evaluated.
Another limitation of these meta-analyses arises from the necessity of collapsing many narrow predictors into larger categories.
Although we found high interrater agreement for the categorization, it remains possible that the broader categories are less homogeneous than desirable. For example, the variance accounted for
by recruiter characteristics may be underestimated because of the
nonsignificant effects from recruiter demographics; other recruiter
behaviors may indeed be very important. To help address this
issue, we also presented the narrowest predictor level warranted by
the available data in addition to the broader categories.
As with all meta-analyses using large numbers of coefficients,
some caution should be used with respect to interpreting whether
moderators exist for some of these relationships. Although the Q
statistic is more prone to Type II error than Type I bias (Hunter &
Schmidt, 1990), the large number of moderator analyses conducted
increased the chances of detecting moderators when none exist.
Throughout this article, we stressed the importance of predicting
actual job choice behaviors. Nevertheless, if a prospective applicant fails to apply to an organization in the first place or drops out
of the selection process early, the opportunity for the organization
to influence that individuals job choice is lost. Although we have
attempted to provide as much information as possible regarding
correlates of these other stages, future research is encouraged to
model each stage of the recruiting process with data that permit
incremental assessment of predictors.
One of the most often researched topics in the recruitment
literature is applicant reactions to recruitingselection activities.
Although we focused on four particular outcome measures used to
assess the effectiveness of recruiting activities in this metaanalysis, it should be noted that many of the studies that examine
applicant reactions do not attempt to predict these outcome measures. Common outcome measures in applicant reactions studies
include procedural and outcome fairness. Although our metaanalysis included applicant reactions as a predictor category, we
did not intend to provide a comprehensive analysis of all possible

941

relationships with these variables, and we believe the literature


would benefit from meta-analytic investigation of other applicant
reaction outcomes such as job satisfaction or turnover.
Finally, there is a need to collect more empirical data on many
of the predictors of applicant attraction in this meta-analysis.
Although some predictors, such as recruiter personableness and
procedural justice, have received extensive research attention,
many others have not. Perhaps more importantly, more studies
should examine actual job choice outcomes. Few predictors of job
choice for real applicants have been examined, and a handful of
studies are responsible for most of what researchers know about
job choice by real applicants. This study identifies several gaps and
areas for recruitment researchers to examine in the future.

References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
*Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T. N., & Cable, D. M. (2001). Are you attracted?
Do you intend to pursue? A recruiting policy-capturing study. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 16, 219 237.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179 211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin,
84, 888 918.
Anderson, N., Born, M., & Cunningham-Snell, N. (2001). Recruitment and
selection: Applicant perspectives and outcomes. In N. Anderson, D.
Ones, H. Kepir Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 200 218). London: Sage.
*Barber, A. E. (1990). Pay as a signal in job choice (Doctoral dissertation,
University of WisconsinMadison). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(4), 1298A.
Barber, A. E. (1998). Recruiting employees: Individual and organizational
perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Barber, A. E., & Daly, C. L. (1996). Compensation and diversity: New pay
for a new workforce? In E. E. Kossek & S. A. Lobel (Eds.), Managing
diversity: Human resource strategies for transforming the workplace
(pp. 194 216). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Barber, A. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Tower, S. L., & Phillips, J. M. (1994). The
effects of interview focus on recruitment effectiveness: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 886 896.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 11731182.
*Bauer, T. N., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1996). Green career choices: The
influence of ecological stance on recruiting. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 10, 445 458.
*Bauer, T. N., Maertz, C. P., Dolen, M. R., & Campion, M. A. (1998).
Longitudinal assessment of applicant reactions to employment testing
and test outcome feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 892903.
*Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Sanchez, R. J., Craig, J. M., Ferrara, P., &
Campion, M. A. (2001). Applicant reactions to selection: Development
of the Selection Procedural Justice Scale (SPJS). Personnel Psychology,
54, 387 403.
Behling, O., Labovitz, G., & Gainer, M. (1968). College recruiting: A
theoretical basis. Personnel Journal, 47, 1319.
Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving
pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for
group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77, 135149.

942

CHAPMAN, UGGERSLEV, CARROLL, PIASENTIN, AND JONES

Breaugh, J. A. (1992). Recruitment: Science and practice. Boston: PWSKent.


Breaugh, J. A., & Starke, M. (2000). Research on employee recruitment:
So many studies, so many remaining questions. Journal of Management,
26, 405 434.
*Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). The role of human resource systems
in job applicant decision processes. Journal of Management, 20, 531
551.
*Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Pay preferences and job search
decisions: A person organization fit perspective. Personnel Psychology,
47, 317348.
*Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person organization fit, job choice
decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294 311.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers perceptions of person
organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546 561.
*Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. (2000, April). The value of organizational
image in the recruitment context: A brand equity perspective. Paper
presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
*Campion, M. A. (1980). Relationship between interviewers and applicants reciprocal evaluations. Psychological Reports, 47, 13351338.
*Carless, S. A. (2002, April). Recruitment and job choice: How important
are fit perceptions? Paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.
Chapman, D. S., & Jones, D. A. (2002, August). Recruiting as persuasion:
Making the square hole appear round and making the round peg feel
square. In D. J. Cohen (Chair), Recruitment and retention. Symposium
conducted at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management,
Denver, CO.
Chapman, D. S., & Ployhart, R. E. (2001, April). Gender and perceptions
of justice violations in the magnitude of perceived injustice. In R. E.
Ployhart & D. M. Truxillo (Chairs), Presenting selection information to
applicants: Theoretical and practical implications. Symposium conducted at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
*Chapman, D. S., & Rowe, P. M. (2002). The influence of videoconference
technology and interview structure on the recruiting function of the
employment interview: A field experiment. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 10, 185197.
*Chapman, D. S., Rowe, P. M., & Webster, J. (1999, April). Modeling
applicant reactions to selection interview structure and communication
medium: Signal detection, justice or meta-perception? In R. L. Dipboye
(Chair), From both sides of the desk: Applicant and interviewer perspectives. Symposium conducted at the 14th Annual Meeting of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., & Webster, J. (2003). Applicant
reactions to face-to-face and technology-mediated interviews: A field
investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 944 953.
*Chapman, D. S., & Webster, J. (in press). Toward an integrated model of
applicant reactions and job choice. International Journal of Human
Resource Management.
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A
model of person organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14,
333349.
Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and
socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459 484.
*Cober, R. T., Brown, D., Levy, P. E., Cober, A. B., Kermes, J., & Baznik,
D. (2002, April). The effects of job-seeker reactions to corporate employment websites. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario,


Canada.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cooper, W. H., & Richardson, A. J. (1986). Unfair comparisons. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 71, 179 184.
*Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1993). Potential job applicant reactions to
employee drug testing: The effect of program characteristics and individual differences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 279 290.
*Feldman, D. C., & Arnold, H. J. (1978). Position choice: Comparing the
importance of organizational and job factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 706 710.
*Gatewood, R. D., Gowan, M. A., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (1993). Corporate image, recruitment image, and initial job choice decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 414 427.
*Giannantonio, C. M. (1989). The effect of recruiter friendliness, verifiable
job attributes, and nonverifiable job attributes on reactions to the employment interview (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(4), 1002A.
Gibelman, M. (2003). So how far have we come? Pestilent and persistent
gender gap in pay. Social Work, 48, 2232.
Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An
organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18,
694 734.
*Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on
reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
691701.
*Harris, M. M., & Fink, L. S. (1987). A field study of employment
opportunities: Does the recruiter make a difference? Personnel Psychology, 40, 765784.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
*Hernandez, M., Avery, D. R., & Hebl, M. R. (2001, April). Recruiting
diversity: The race is on. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego,
CA.
*Highhouse, S., Beadle, D., Gallo, A., & Miller, L. (1998). Get em while
they last! Effects of scarcity information in job advertisements. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 779 795.
*Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring attraction to
organizations. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 63, 986
1001.
*Highhouse, S., Zickar, M. J., Thorsteinson, T. J., Stierwalt, S. L., &
Slaughter, J. (1999). Assessing company employment image: An example in the fast food industry. Personnel Psychology, 52, 151172.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis
of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.
*Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice
decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 261271.
*Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50,
359 395.
*Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (2000, April). Role of organizational
information sessions in applicant job search decisions. Paper presented
at the 15th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
Jurgensen, C. E. (1978). Job preferences (what makes a job good or bad?).
Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 267276.
*Keenan, A. (1978). The selection interview: Candidates reactions and
interviewers judgements. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 201209.
Kinicki, A. J., McKee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A., & Carson, K. P.

APPLICANT ATTRACTION META-ANALYSIS


(2002). Assessing the construct validity of the Job Descriptive Index: A
review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 14 32.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
*Kluger, A. N., & Rothstein, H. R. (1993). The influence of selection test
type on applicant reactions to employment testing. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 8, 323.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person organization fit: An integrative review of its
conceptualization, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 150.
Lawler, E. E., Kuleck, W. J., Jr., Rhode, J. G., & Sorensen, J. E. (1975).
Job choice and post decision dissonance. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 13, 133145.
*Liden, R. C., & Parsons, C. K. (1986). A field study of job applicant
interview perceptions, alternative opportunities, and demographic characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 39, 109 122.
*Lievens, F., Decaesteker, C., Coetsier, P., & Geinaert, J. (2001). Organizational attractiveness for prospective applicants: A person
organisation fit perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 30 51.
*Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. (2002, April). The effects of instrumental
and symbolic attributes on a companys attractiveness as an employer.
Paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
*Macan, T. H., Avedon, M. J., Paese, M., & Smith, D. E. (1994). The
effects of applicants reactions to cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47, 715738.
*Macan, T. H., & Dipboye, R. L. (1990). The relationship of interviewers
preinterview impressions to selection and recruitment outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 43, 745768.
Major, B. (1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role
of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group membership. In
M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6,
pp. 293335). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
*Maurer, S. D., Howe, V., & Lee, T. W. (1992). Organizational recruiting
as marketing management: An interdisciplinary study of engineering
graduates. Personnel Psychology, 45, 807 833.
*Maynard, D. C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Job attributes, justice perceptions, and applicant outcomes. Unpublished manuscript.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for
talent. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Millsap, R. E., & Meredith, W. (1994). Statistical evidence in salary
discrimination studies: Nonparametric inferential conditions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29, 339 364.
*Oliver, D. H. (1998). Exploring applicant reactions to selection processes
from an organizational justice perspective. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(2), 0902B. (UMI No. 9823911)
Osborn, D. P. (1990). A reexamination of the organizational choice process. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 45 60.
*Perkins, L. A., Thomas, K. M., & Taylor, G. A. (2000). Advertising and
recruitment: Marketing to minorities. Psychology and Marketing, 17,
235255.
*Ployhart, R. E., & Ryan, A. M. (1997). Toward an explanation of
applicant reactions: An examination of organizational justice and attribution frameworks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 308 335.
*Ployhart, R. E., & Ryan, A. M. (1998). Applicants reactions to the
fairness of selection procedures: The effects of positive rule violations
and time of measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 316.
*Powell, G. N. (1984). Effects of job attributes and recruiting practices on
applicant decisions: A comparison. Personnel Psychology, 37, 721732.
*Powell, G. N. (1991). Applicant reactions to the initial employment
interview: Exploring theoretical and methodological issues. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 67 83.

943

*Powell, G. N., & Goulet, L. R. (1996). Recruiters and applicants


reactions to campus interviews and employment decisions. Academy of
Management Journal, 39, 1619 1640.
*Quintero, V. C., & Strickland, O. J. (2002, April). Technology during
interviewing: Effects on applicant reactions to interview strategy. Paper
presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
*Rafaeli, A. (1999). Pre-employment screening and applicants attitudes
toward an employment opportunity. Journal of Social Psychology, 139,
700 712.
*Ralston, S. M. (1993). Applicant communication satisfaction, intent to
accept second interview offers, and recruiter communication style. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21, 53 65.
*Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. A. (2003). Corporate teamwork and diversity
statements in college recruitment brochures: Effects on attraction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 24652492.
*Roesch, M. A. (1992). The effects of recruiter friendliness and job
information on engineering applicants stated interest in a second interview. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(6), 3196B3197B. (UMI
No. 9221304)
Rottenberg, S. (1956). On choice in labor markets. Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, 9, 183199.
Ryan, A. M. (2001). Explaining the Black/White test score gap: The role
of test perceptions. Human Performance, 14, 4575.
*Ryan, A. M., Horvath, M., & Kriska, S. D. (2000, April). The role of
recruiting source informativeness and organizational perceptions in
decisions to apply. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2000). Applicants perceptions of selection
procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future.
Journal of Management, 20, 565 606.
*Ryan, A. M., Sacco, J. M., McFarland, L. A., & Kriska, S. D. (2000).
Applicant self-selection: Correlates of withdrawal from a multiple hurdle process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 163179.
Rynes, S. L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences:
A call for new research directions. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough
(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.,
Vol. 2, pp. 399 444). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D., Jr., & Gerhart, B. (1991). The importance of
recruitment in job choice: A different way of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44, 487521.
Rynes, S. L., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Recruitment research in the twentyfirst century. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of
psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp.
5576). New York: Wiley.
Rynes, S. L., & Lawler, J. (1983). A policy-capturing investigation of the
role of expectancies in decision to pursue job alternatives. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 68, 620 631.
Rynes, S. L., Schwab, D. P., & Heneman, H. G. (1983). The role of pay and
market pay variability in job application decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 353364.
*Saks, A. M. (1989). An examination of the combined effects of realistic
job previews, job attractiveness and recruiter affect on job acceptance
decisions. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38, 145163.
*Saks, A. M., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1990). A process investigation of
realistic job previews: Mediating variables and channels of communication. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 221236.
*Saks, A. M., Leck, J. D., & Saunders, D. M. (1995). Effects of application
blanks and employment equity on applicant reactions and job pursuit
intentions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 415 430.
*Saks, A. M., Wiesner, W. H., & Summers, R. J. (1994). Effects of job
previews on self-selection and job choice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 297316.
*Scheu, C. R., & Ryan, A. M. (2001). Achieving recruiting goals: Applying

944

CHAPMAN, UGGERSLEV, CARROLL, PIASENTIN, AND JONES

what we know about person organization fit across a range of organizational image. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2001). Meta-analysis. In N. Anderson, D.
Ones, H. Kepir Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 5170). London:
Sage.
*Schmitt, N., & Coyle, B. W. (1976). Applicant decisions in the employment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 184 192.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology,
40, 437 453.
*Schurkamp, C. B., & Schmitt, N. (2002, April). Applicant reactions to
selection procedure fairness: The impact of interpersonal effectiveness
of the test administrator. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Shultz, J. W., Jones, D. A., & Chapman, D. S. (2004, April). The elaboration likelihood model, job ads, and application decisions. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.
*Smither, J. W., Millsap, R. E., Stoffey, R. W., Reilly, R. R., & Pearlman,
K. (1996). An experimental test of the influence of selection procedures
on fairness perceptions, attitudes about the organization, and job pursuit
intentions. Journal of Business & Psychology, 10, 297318.
*Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey.
R. W. (1993). Applicants reactions to selection procedures. Personnel
Psychology, 46, 49 75.
Soelberg, P. O. (1967). Unprogrammed decision making. Industrial Management Review, 8, 19 29.
Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic
moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 96 111.
*Stevens, C. K. (1997). Effects of preinterview beliefs on applicants
reactions to campus interviews. Academy of Management Journal, 40,
947966.
*Stevens, C. K. (1998). Antecedents of interview interactions, interviewers ratings, and applicants reactions. Personnel Psychology, 51, 55 86.
*Stevens, C. K., Dragoni, L., & Collins, C. J. (2001, April). Familiarity,
organizational images, and perceived fit as antecedents to the application decision of new graduates. Paper presented at the 16th Annual
Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
San Diego, CA.
Taylor, M. S., & Bergmann, T. J. (1987). Organizational recruitment
activities and applicants reactions at different stages of the recruitment
process. Personnel Psychology, 40, 261285.
Tett, R., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analysis based on metaanalytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259 293.
*Thorsteinson, T. J., Billings, M. A., & Joyce, M. C. (2001, April).
Matching recruitment messages to applicant preferences. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Tom, V. R. (1971). The role of personality and organizational images in the
recruiting process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
6, 573592.

*Truxillo, D. M., & Bauer, T. N. (2001, April). Selection information,


personality, and applicant reactions: A field quasi-experiment. Paper
presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
*Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., Campion, M. A., & Paronto, M. E. (2002).
Selection fairness information and applicant reactions: A longitudinal
field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1020 1031.
*Turban, D. B. (2001). Organizational attractiveness as an employer on
college campuses: An examination of the applicant population. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 58, 293312.
*Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1992). Influences of campus recruiting on applicant attraction to firms. Academy of Management Journal,
35, 739 765.
Turban, D. B., Eyring, A. R., & Campion, J. E. (1993). Job attributes:
Preferences compared with reasons given for accepting and rejecting job
offers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66,
71 81.
*Turban, D. B., Forret, M. L., & Hendrickson, C. L. (1998). Applicant
attraction to firms: Influences of organizational reputation, job and
organizational attributes and recruiter behaviors. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 52, 24 44.
Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance
and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of
Management Journal, 40, 658 672.
*Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An
interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 184 193.
*Turban, D. B., Lau, C., Ngo, H., Chow, I. H., & Si, S. X. (2001).
Organizational attractiveness of firms in the Peoples Republic of China:
A person organization fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 194 206.
Vroom, V. H. (1966). Organizational choice: A study of pre- and postdecision processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1,
212225.
Wanous, J. P., & Collela, A. (1989). Organizational entry research: Current
status and future directions. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research
in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 7, pp. 59 120).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility
intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 315321.
Wiersma, U. J. (1990). Gender differences in job attribute preferences:
Work home role conflict and job level as mediating variables. Journal
of Occupational Psychology, 63, 231243.
Williams, L. J., Bozdogan, H., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1996). Inference
problems with equivalent models. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 279 314). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Winter, P. A. (1996). Applicant evaluations of formal position advertisements: The influence of sex, job message content, and information order.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10, 105116.

Received December 4, 2002


Revision received November 11, 2004
Accepted November 19, 2004

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen