Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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
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
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
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
932
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
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.
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
Predictor
Table 1
Meta-Analyses of Recruitment Predictors and Applicant Attraction Outcomes
934
CHAPMAN, UGGERSLEV, CARROLL, PIASENTIN, AND JONES
935
936
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.
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
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.
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.
938
Table 3
Meta-Analysis for Coefficients Between Applicant Attraction Outcomes
Job pursuit intentions
Joborganization attraction
Acceptance intentions
Outcome
rxy
rxy
rxy
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.
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.
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.
939
940
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).
941
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
943
944
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.