The Effects of Job Attribute Specificity on Organizational Attractiveness
and Acceptance Intention
How job seekers perceive the information presented to them on job advertisements is of
paramount interest to HR personnel and the organizations they serve. This paper examined
the relationship between the specificity of job attribute information and its influence on
organizational attractiveness and acceptance intentions. A total of 252 students from a
Taiwanese university were randomly assigned to read on of 8 hypothetical job advertisements
were manipulated based on the specificity of the following job attributes: company
information, type of work information, and pay information. Empirical findings indicated
that subjects who received specific information about a) company information and b) pay
information rated organizational attractiveness and acceptance intentions higher than those
who received general information, thus suggesting that specific recruitment messages were
preferred over general recruitment messages. A discussion of the findings and research
implications were also presented.
1. Introduction
Attracting and selecting candidates to fill employment positions are major initiatives of
firms’ human resource departments (Allen, Van Scotter, & Otondo, 2004). Recruitment is
the functional step in creating sufficient applicant pools that allow companies to gain a
competitive edge in the marketplace (Cappelli, 2000). From an organizational perspective,
human resource departments have made continuous efforts to improve the overall recruitment
process in order to help attract better people in a more cost-effective manner (Ryan & Tippins,
2004). To do so, organizations must be familiar with what types of recruitment tools exist,
and which ones have been effective in attracting job seekers (Hausknecht, Day, & Thomas,
2004).
The use of traditional recruitment methods is still prominent within organizations;
however, companies have been changing their recruitment practices with the growth of new
technologies and global recruiting trends (Cober, Brown, & Levy, 2004).
The adoption of
the Internet as a medium for recruitment has allowed organizations and job applicants to gain
access to job information electronically. Organizations have the ability to build online job
advertisements with job content that is specific to the marketing of future employees (Pavlou,
1
2006).
The popularity of advertising job openings online has been steadily increasing
(Allen et al., 2004).
In addition to employee referrals and general job boards, organization
web pages generate a significant portion of applicant pools (Cober & Brown, 2006; Cober et
al., 2004).
Companies that use recruitment advertisements must have a basic understanding
of what type of information should be included (or not include) on their job advertisements in
order to attract the best applicants.
Turban Eyring, & Keon’s (1993) study on organizational
attractiveness noted that individual differences could influence the dynamics of
organizational characteristics.
Therefore, organizations need to know how individuals
perceive the information provided on organizational websites so that a match between the
person and the organization can be achieved (Feldman, Bearden, & Hardesry, 2006).
Most literature based on job information has been taken from an organizational
perspective (Braddy, Meade, & Kroustalis, 2006).
Studies have traditionally focused on
how organizational recruitment messages provide prospective applicants with information
about their company, but fail to mention how actual job seekers perceive such information.
Barber (1998) argued that the initial phase of recruitment is the most important stage, given
that it’s the first opportunity to for individuals to increase their awareness of employment
opportunities within organizations.
Jennings, Werbal, & Power (2003) argued that job
information needs to be reliable and valid for work context to match job seekers’ work
preferences. However, little is known about the actual perceptions that individuals possess on
the information provided by organizations in the attraction phase (Barber, 1998).
Furthermore, Rafaeli (2006) argued that individuals were not inherited with the knowledge
about job openings without some methods of retrieving such information.
Moreover,
knowledge acquisition must occur from the job information provided by the organization
(Rafaeli, 2006).
The extent that this knowledge can be acquired needs to be measured by
2
the perceptions of job seekers as to their attitudes toward the organization and intentions to
pursue employment opportunities (Allen et al., 2004).
Organizations that do not consider individual preferences of certain job content in
planning their job advertisements run the risk of missing their target applicant pool, thus
defeating the purpose of attracting the best candidates for the job (Collins & Han, 2004).
To
combat these risks, organizations must develop and understanding of which job information
is viewed more favorably by potential employees and how it could attract candidates to apply
for employment positions.
This purpose of this study was to measure the specificity of information contained in job
advertisements and how it influenced job seekers' perceptions of organizational attractiveness
and acceptance intentions. By manipulating the specificity of such job attribute information,
we were able to determine whether or not more specific job information could influence
individuals’ overall acceptance intentions.
Most importantly, we attempted to provide
empirical support for the argument that a more detailed job description is perceived as more
attractive for the job candidates that read them.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Recruitment
Recruitment is a process of attracting and selecting the most competent people to fill job
vacancies or newly created jobs (Huo, Huang, & Napier, 2002). Rynes, Bretz, & Gerhart
(1991) defined recruitment as the inclusion of all organizational practices and decisions that
affect the type, and number of individuals that are willing to apply for a job. Recruitment
has also been described as a process of attracting, screening, and job acceptance decisions
that both organizations and potential job seekers must go through together (Cappelli, 2001).
Of the three phases of recruitment, less emphasis has been placed on the attraction phase
(Roberson, Collins, & Oreg, 2005), yet the attraction phase has been described as the critical
3
point in time where the recruitment process begins (Carlson, Connerly, & Mecham, 2002;
Barber, 1998).
The remainder of this study focused on recruitment initiatives from the
initial, or attraction phase of the recruitment process.
2.2 Job Attributes
The term, job attributes refers to the factors that make a job good or bad (Jurgensen,
1978). Jurgensen (1978) argued that the following attributes could influence perceptions of
jobs: advancements, benefits, company, co-workers, hours, pay, security, supervisors, type of
work and working conditions.
Turban et al., (1993) also found that applicants’ perceptions
of job attributes influenced organizational attraction and overall job decisions.
Attributes
related to job training have also received preference by individual job seekers (Cable &
Graham, 2000).
Research has provided evidence that the attributes provided by
organizational advertisements had a positive effect on recruitment image (Gatewood, Gowan,
& Lautenschlager, 1993).
In this study, individual perceptions of job attributes were used
establish how they influenced organizational attractiveness, and acceptance intentions.
These attributes included: company information, type of work, and pay.
2.3 Specificity of Job Information
Job advertisements help provide organizations with the tools to attract applicants.
Job
advertisements have an abundance of advantages with respects to cost, time and the ability to
create a larger applicant pools (Braddy et al., 2006; Cover & Brown, 2006).
Job
advertisements are also flexible in terms of the type of information (or content) that can be
placed within them (Feldman et al., 2006; Roberson, et al., 2005), the objective being to
attract the most qualified candidates for the job (Cappelli, 2001; Rafaeli, 2006). Whether or
not the use of more specific recruitment messages actually builds stronger applicant pools is a
topic that has generated interest from a number of authors (Rafaeli, 2006; Feldman et al.,
4
2006; Robertson et al., 2005; Carlson et al., 2002; Cappelli, 2001; Barber, & Roehling, 1993).
As suggested by the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) suggested that specificity of
information provided in certain advertisements could affect the perceptions of individuals
(Petty & Cacioppo, 1981; 1986).
Job advertisements can be used in such a way as to
influence individuals’ attitudes towards organizations and the jobs they offer, provided that
job information is specific enough
(Roberson et al., 2005; Petty, Haugtvedt, & Smith,
1995).
2.4 Organizational Attractiveness
Literature addressing applicant perceptions of recruitment information is evaluated by
individuals' attractiveness to a job or to an organization (Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll,
Piasentin, & Jones, 2005). Organizational attractiveness is a key measurement of the how
individual needs match the requirements of the organization (Turban et al., 1993).
The
relationship that exists between individuals and organizations both prior to and after being
hired is described as person-organization (P-O) (Robertson et al., 2005). P-O fit is “the
compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when (a) at least one entity
provides what the other one needs (Kristof, 1996, p. 4).
Individuals’ perceptions of job
offers tend to be more positive when there is a close match between the characteristics of the
organization and the personal characteristics of the individual (Erhart & Ziegert, 2005;
Dineen, Ash, & Noe, 2002; Schneider, 1987).
P-O fit has also been used to test the
relationship between the specificity of information provided by organizations and
individuals’ perceptions of that particular organization (Carless, 2005; Dineen et al., 2002).
P-O fit tends to be higher when recruitment messages are more specific, which suggests that
more specific job information can lead to more favorable perceptions of an organization
(Roberson et al., 2005; Ganzach, Pazy, & Ohayun, 2002).
5
2.5 Acceptance Intentions
Acceptance intentions refers to the likelihood that an individual might accept a job offer
from a given organization based on the information that he or she has obtained about the job
(Chapman et al., 2005; Carless, 2005; Boswell, Roehling, LePine, & Moynihan, 2003).
Applicant reactions to successful recruitment campaigns by organizations have been
commonly measured as a function of acceptance intentions.
Preliminary studies by
Schwab, Rynes, & Aldag, (1987) described job intentions as the process characterized by
decisions made by applicants to pursue possible employment within an organization.
Additions to the model proposed by Schwab et al. (1987) were addressed by Gatewood et al.
(1993) who concluded that the intention to accept a job offer begins with individual
evaluations of the recruitment advertisements and media messages of the recruitment source.
Barber (1998) added that job attribute information was a key factor that influenced
organizational attractiveness and acceptance intentions.
Rynes et al. (1991) provided
evidence that applicant job intentions were heavily based on the impressions of
organizational attractiveness, developed through the individual perceptions of the initial
information that they received about the organization.
Furthermore, individuals are capable
of self-selecting whether or not they intend to pursue job opportunities based on a realistic
preview of the job information provided to them (Roberton et al., 2005; Carless, 2005).
The
relationship between individuals’ perceptions of a given act and how these perceptions
influence behavioral intentions has its theoretical roots in the theory of reasoned action (TRA)
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).
number of disciplines, including recruitment.
The TRA model has been applied to a
In the context of recruitment attraction,
perceptions of an organization have significant impacts on individuals’ intentions to apply for
a job (Carless, 2005).
Based on this information we proposed:
H1: More specific information provided about (a) the company, (b) type of work, and
(c) pay will have a positive influence on organizational attractiveness.
6
H2: More specific information provided about (a) the company, (b) type of work, and
(c) pay will have a positive influence on acceptance intentions.
H3: Organizational attractiveness will have a positive influence on acceptance
intentions.
3.
Methodology
3.1 Experimental Design
The experiment design was a 2x2x2 between-subjects factorial design, similar to the
design used by Feldman et al. (2006).
Participants received a description of a job
advertisement based on the following conditions: specificity of information about the type of
work, specificity of information about the company, and specificity of information about pay.
Each of these independent variables was measured by two conditions: specific information
and general information.
In all, 8 separate job descriptions were written and randomly
distributed to subjects.
3.2 Sample
The population of this study consisted of graduate students enrolled in the faculty of
business administration at a Southern University in Taiwan.
In total, 252 valid
questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 78% (252/320). Questionnaires were
administered during lecture classes throughout the final semester of the students’ studies. .
Post-hoc tests were administered on the following demographic information: applicant age,
gender, employment status, citizenship, desired job industry, and job location preferences.
3.3 Procedure
Questionnaires were administered to graduate students at a Southern Taiwan University.
Each participant received a packet containing a printout of a job advertisement for an entry
level position as well as a copy of the questionnaire. The cover letter of the questionnaire
provided brief information about the nature of the study as well as specific instructions on
7
how to fill out the questionnaire. Participation for this study was voluntary and respondents
were assured that the information they provided the researcher would remain confidential and
not be misused in any way by the researcher. Demographic information was collected at the
end of the survey to allow for post-hoc tests.
It should be noted that firm reputation (Cable
& Grahm, 2000; Gatewood, 1993) and job location (Rynes & Lawler, 1983; Turban et al.,
1993) have been shown to influence applicants’ decisions to apply for jobs.
For these
reasons, no company name or job location was provided on any of the job advertisements.
This study adopted the marker variable technique for the treatment of common method
variance (CMV). A marker variable was placed in the questionnaire between organizational
attractiveness and acceptance intentions in order to reduce co-linearity between the two
research constructs (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Malhorta, Kim, & Atil,
2006; Lindell & Whitney, 2000). The unrelated construct was taken from Kankanhalli, Tan,
& Wei (2005) which measured the Knowledge Self-Efficacy of individuals.
3.4 Survey Instrument
A 25-item questionnaire was used to gather respondent data.
Specificity of job attributes
was measured by 4 items adapted from Feldman et al. (2006). These items assessed the
level of information that the job advertisement provided about each of the following
attributes: type of work, company information, and pay.
These items served as
manipulation checks to test the respondents’ perceptions of the specificity of information for
each of the advertisements being tested.
A sample item included, “The advertisement
provides potential applicants with specific information of the job being offered.”
Organizational attractiveness was assessed by five items adapted from Rau & Hyland (2002).
A sample item includes, “I have a favorable impression of this company.” Acceptance
intentions adopted has been measured by a number of different scales (Harris & Fink, 1987;
Taylor & Bergman, 1987; Chapman & Webster, 2006; Resick, Baltes, & Shantz, 2007).
8
This study adopts 6 items taken from these studies to measurement of acceptance intentions.
Sample items include, “If I was offered a job from this organization, I would accept it” and
“If I was searching for a job, I would apply to this organization.” The response format for
both independent variables was a 7-point Likert scale with 1 representing strongly disagree
and 7 representing strongly agree.
3.5 Pretest
A pre test was conducted to determine whether or not experimental manipulations of the
independent variables produced the expected results. A total of 47 subjects were given
questionnaires, which included both general and specific information pertaining to the
independent variables (company information, type of work, and pay).
Results indicated that
individuals who received specific information about the company rated the job advertisement
as more specific than those who received general information about the company (M = 4.02
vs. 2.88; t = 2.69, p < .05). Similar results were found for type of work (M = 4.34 vs. 2.96; t
= 2.85, p < .01). However, there was no significant difference between respondents who
received general or specific information about pay (M = 4.09 vs. 3.25; t = 1.704, p > .05) for
the pretest sample.
4.
Results
4.1 Factor Analysis and Reliability Testing
SPSS 13.0 was used to analyze the data collected in this study.
Factor analysis was
performed for each of the dependent variables (organizational attractiveness and acceptance
intentions) as well as the manipulation checks for the three independent variables (specificity
of company information, type of work and pay). Table 1 displays these results.
Factor
loadings for each of the scale items were significant (Factor loadings > 0.5: Eigen-value >
1.000; accumulated percent of variance > 60%).
The reliability of scale items for
organizational attractiveness (Cronbach's α = .947), acceptance intentions (Cronbach's α
9
= .956) specificity of company information (Cronbach's α = .913), specificity of type of work
information (Cronbach's α = .944), and specificity o pay information (Cronbach's α = .941)
were significant.
[Insert Table 1 here]
4.2 Pair-wise Sample Correlation
Table 2 presents the group differences between the specific and general conditions of
company information.
Respondents who received specific information about the company
rated organizational attractiveness as 4.87 versus 4.36 for individuals who received general
information (t = 2.94, p < .01).
In addition, respondents that received specific information
about the company rated acceptance intentions as 4.89 versus 4.31 for general information (t
= 3.587, p < .001.
Respondents who received specific information about the company rated
the specificity of company information as 4.76 versus 3.83 for individuals who received
general information (t = 5.931, p < .001).This evidence suggests that there was a significant
difference between the specific and general condition for company information.
Respondents who received general information about the type of work rated
organizational attractiveness as 4.57 versus 4.67 for individuals who received specific
information (t = .571, p > .10).
In addition, respondents that received general information
about the type of work rated acceptance intentions as 4.54 versus 4.68 for specific
information (t = .878, p > .10).
This evidence suggests that there was no significant
difference between the specific and general conditions for type of work. Respondents who
received specific information about the type of work rated the specificity of type of work
information as 4.81 versus 3.61 for general information (t = 7.39, p < .000).
Group differences between specific and general conditions for pay information were
also included in Table 2.
Respondents who received specific information about pay rated
organizational attractiveness as 4.81 versus 4.43 for individuals who received general
information (t = 2.15, p < .05).
In addition, respondents that received specific information
10
about pay rated acceptance intentions as 4.81 versus 4.41 for general information (t = 2.387,
p < .05). Furthermore, respondents who received specific information about pay, rated the
specificity of pay information as 4.74 versus 2.56 for general information (t = 7.011, p
< .000).
[Insert Table 2 here]
4.3 Analyses of Variance Tests
4.3.1 ANOVA Test for Organizational Attractiveness
Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to test hypothesis 1a-c.
presented in Table 3.
The results are
Results indicate that individuals were more attracted to the
organization when they received specific company information (F = 9.01, p < .01).
Therefore, hypothesis 1a was supported.
Additionally, subjects that received specific
information about pay were significantly more likely to view the job advertisements as more
attractive (F = 5.29, p < .05), thus supporting hypothesis 1c.
There was no significant
difference between the subjects who received specific or general type of work information
and their attraction to the organization (F = .359, p > .10).
Therefore hypothesis 1b was not
supported.
[Insert Table 3 here]
4.3.2ANOVA Test for Acceptance Intentions
A second ANOVA test was administered to test hypothesis 2a-c.
Results (see Table 4)
indicate that individuals rated acceptance intentions significantly higher when they received
specific company information (F = 13.50, p < .001).
supported.
Therefore, hypothesis 2a was
In addition, subjects that received specific information about pay rated
acceptance intentions significantly higher than subjects who received general pay information
(F = 5.04, p < .05).
However, there was no significant difference between the specificity of
11
type of work information and acceptance intentions (F = .345, p > .10), Hypothesis 2c was
not supported.
[Insert Table 4 here]
4.5 Interaction Effects
Pair-wise contrast comparisons were conducted to test for possible interaction effects
between the independent variables and the two dependent variables, organizational
attractiveness and acceptance intentions. First, significant interaction effects were found
between company information and type of work on organizational attractiveness (p < .01).
These results are presented in Figure 1a. Subjects who received specific type of work
information rated organizational attractiveness higher when they received specific company
information (5.030) than when they received general company information (4.297).
Subjects who received specific company information, but general type of work information
rated the organizational attractiveness higher (4.709) than those individuals who received
both general company and type of work information (4.420). Additional interaction effects
between company information and pay on organizational attractiveness (p < .01) were also
observed.
These results are presented in Figure 1b.
Subjects who received specific
company information rated organizational attractiveness as 4.984 for specific pay and 4.762
for general pay. On the contrary, subjects who received general company information rated
organizational attractiveness as 4.640 for specific pay and 4.077 for general pay respectively.
[Insert Figure 1 here]
Figure 1. (a) Interactions effects for company information and type of work information (TW)
on organizational attractiveness.
(b) Interactions effects for company information and pay
information on organizational attractiveness.
Finally, significant interaction effects were observed between company information and
type of work on acceptance intentions (p < .05).
12
There was little difference between
subjects who received general company information and general type of work information
(4.300) compared with subjects who received general company information and specific type
of work information (4.313) on their ratings of acceptance intentions.
However, when
subjects received specific company information, the mean scores for acceptance intentions
was much higher for both general type of work (4.760) and specific type of work (5.015)
conditions. These findings give support for our general assumptions that more specific job
advertisements are perceived as more attractive by job applicants than general ones, thereby
increasing acceptance intentions. The section that follows gives specific empirical support
for the latter.
[Insert Figure 2 here]
Figure 2. Interaction effects for company information and type of work information (TW) on
acceptance intentions.
4.4 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test was administered to test the research
hypotheses (See Table 5).
MANOVA results indicated that there was a significant
difference between the specificity of company information and the two dependent variables;
organizational attractiveness and acceptance intentions (Wilk's λ = .947, F = 6.74, p < .001).
These results supported hypothesis 1a and 2a.
Similar, the main effects of the specificity of
pay information between organizational attractiveness and acceptance intentions was
significant (Wilk's λ = .974, F = 3.23, p < .05), which supported hypothesis 1c and 2c.
However, specificity of type of work information between organizational attractiveness and
acceptance intentions was not significant (Wilk's λ = .996, F = .491, p > .10).
hypothesis 1b and 2b were not supported.
[Insert Table 5 here]
13
Therefore,
4.5 Linear Regression Tests
Linear regression was used to test hypothesis 3.
These results (see Table 6) indicated
that there was a positive relationship between organizational attractiveness and acceptance
intentions based in the minimal criteria for linear regression to be significant (Adjusted R2 >
0.1, F-value > 4, p < .05, 1.5 ≤ D-W ≤ 2.5). The overall model fit displayed suggests that
there was a significant relationship between organizational attractiveness and acceptance
intentions (Adjusted R2 =.728, F = 135.50, p < .001, D-W = 1.71). However, OA3 was not
significant (p > .10) and was deleted from the overall model. The rest of the items
representing organizational attractiveness were significant (p < .05) for each of the
subsequent models tested. Therefore, hypothesis 3 was supported.
[Insert Table 6 here]
5. Discussion
The purpose of this research project was to determine the effects that the specificity of
information provided in job advertisements have on organizational attractiveness and
acceptance intentions.
Empirical results suggest that company information and pay
information had significance influence on individuals overall perceptions of the job
advertisements, thus supporting hypotheses 1a and 1c. Subjects that received specific
information about company and pay information also rated acceptance intentions much
higher than subjects who received general information. Therefore, hypothesis 2a and 2c
were supported.
Conversely, there was no significant difference between specific and
general type of work information on subjects’ ratings of organizational attractiveness and
acceptance intentions. Therefore hypothesis 1b and 2b were not supported.
Empirical
results also showed a significant relationship between organizational attractiveness and
acceptance intentions, thereby supporting hypothesis 3.
14
The findings of this study give rise to a number of practical implications for organizations
that rely on job advertisements as a means of attracting applicants.
For one thing, results
suggest that job seekers respond more positively to job advertisements when the descriptions
of job attributes are more specific than general.
Organizations that provide specific, rather
than general information on their job advertisements might in turn be able improve the
quality of the applicant pools they generate (Cober et al., 2004; Carlson et al., 2002).
Empirical results also found that type of work information was less important than company
information and pay information. These findings imply that varying the specificity of some
job attributes (i.e. type of work information) does not necessarily influence individuals'
perceptions of jobs especially if individuals view alternative job attributes as more important
(Turban, et al., 1993).
Job location (Rynes & Lawler, 1983; Turban et al., 1993) and
company benefits (Roberson et al., 2005; Jennings et al., 2003) are also important attributes
included in job most advertisements.
Researchers and practitioners alike might find it useful
to inquire as to how individuals react to a number of alternative job attributes before building
new recruitment messages.
Nonetheless, there are some key limitations to this study that should be discussed.
First,
choosing a single source of respondents made it difficult to propose any generalizations about
how individuals from non-student populations might have viewed recruitment messages
(Collins & Han, 2004).
Braddy et al. (2006) argued that students tend to have less work
experience; an entry position at a large bank, with a substantial salary might have been
motivation enough for student samples to look favorably on the job advertisements.
A more
heterogeneous sample with more diverse education levels and work experiences might be
employed in additional recruitment-based studies (Feldman et al., 2006).
Second, subjects
in this study were asked to respond to a single hypothetical job offer.
By doing so, the
generalizability of the research findings have been somewhat compromised for improving the
15
internal validity of the experimental design.
How subjects respond to multiple job
advertisements as well as actual job advertisements from real organizations (Jennings et al.,
2003) might be of interest to future researchers.
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbien, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Allen, D. G., Van Scotter, J. R., & Otondo, R. F. (2004). Recruitment communication media:
impact on prehire outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 143-171.
Barber, A. E. (1998). Recruiting employees: individual and organizational perspectives.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Barber, A. E., & Roehling, M. V. (1993). Job postings and the decision to interview: a verbal
protocol analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 845-856.
Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., LePine, M. A., & Moynihan, L. M. (2003). Individual
job-choice decisions and the impact of job attributes and recruitment practices: a
longitudinal field study. Human Resource Management, 42(1), 23.
Braddy, P. W., Meade, A. W., & Kroustalis, C. M. (2006). Organizational recruitment
website effects on viewers' perceptions of organizational culture. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 20(4), 525-543.
Cable, D. M., & Graham, M. E. (2000). The determinants of job seekers' reputation
perceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 929-947.
Cappelli, P. (2000). A market-driven approach to retaining talent. Harvard Business Review,
78(1), 103-113.
Cappelli, P. (2001). Making the best of on-line recruiting. Harvard Business Review, 79(3),
139-146.
Carless, S. A. (2005). Person-job fit versus person-organization fit as predictors of
organizational attraction and job acceptance intentions: a longitudinal study. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 411.
Carlson, K. D., Connerly, M. L., & Mecham, R. L. (2002). Recruitment evaluation: the case
for assessing the quality of applicants attracted. Personnel Psychology, 55(2), 461.
Chapman, D. S., & Webster, J. (2006). Toward an integrated model of applicant reactions
and job choice. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(6),
1032-1057.
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005).
Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: a meta-analytic review of the
correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 928-944.
Cober, R. T., & Brown, D. J. (2006). 2006 DirectEmployers association recruiting trends
survey. Washington, D.C.: Booz Allen Hamilton.
Cober, R. T., Brown, D. J., & Levy, P. E. (2004). Form, content and function: an evaluative
methodology for corporate employment web sites. Human Resource Management,
43(2 & 3), 201-218.
Collins, C. J., & Han, J. (2004). Exploring applicant pool quantity and quality: the effects of
early recruitment practice strategies, corporate advertising, and firm reputation.
Personnel Psychology, 57, 685-717.
Dineen, B. R., Ash, S. R., & Noe, R. A. (2002). A web of applicant attraction:
person-organization fit in the context of web-based recruitment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(4), 723-734.
16
Ehrhart, K. H., & Ziegert, J. C. (2005). Why are individuals attracted to organizations?
Journal of Management, 31(6), 901-919.
Feldman, D. C., Bearden, W. O., & Hardesry, D. M. (2006). Varying the context of job
advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 35(1), 123-141.
Fishbien, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ganzach, Y., Pazy, A., & Ohayun, Y. (2002). Social exchange and organizational
commitment: decision-making training for job choice as an alternative to the realistic
job preview. Personnel Psychology, 55(3), 613-637.
Gatewod, R. D., Gowan, M. A., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (1993). Corporate image,
recruitment image and initial job choice decisions. The Academy of Management
Journal, 36(2), 414-427
Harris, M., & Fink, L. S. (1987). A field study of applicant reactions to employment
opportunities: does the recruiter make a difference. Personnel Psychology, 40,
765-784.
Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection
procedures: an updated model and meta-analysis. personnel Psychology, 57, 639-683.
Huo, Y. P., Huang, H. J., & Napier, N. K. (2002). Divergence or convergence: a
cross-national comparison of personal selection practices. Human Resource
Management, 41(1), 31-44.
Jennings, M., Werbal, J. D., & Power, M.L. (2003). The impact of benefits on graduating
student willingness to accept a job offer. The Journal of Business and
Communication, 40(4), 289-302.
Jurgensen, C. E. (1978). Job performances: what makes a job good or bad? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 63, 267-276.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge in electronic
knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113-143.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualization,
measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1-49.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in
cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114-121.
Malhorta, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Atil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: a
comparison of alternative approached and a reanalysis of past research. Management
Science, 52(12), 1865-1883.
Pavlou, P. A. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: an
extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 115-141.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: classic and contemporary
approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.
Advances in Hydroscience, 19, 124-205.
Petty, R. E., Haugtvedt, C. P., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of attitude
strength: creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In
R. E. Petty, & Krosnick, J. A. (Ed.), Attitude strength: antecedents and consequences
(pp. 93-130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. K., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Rafaeli, A. (2006). Sense-making of employment: on whether and why people read
employment advertising. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 747-770.
17
Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. M. (2002). Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: the
effects on applicant attraction. Personnel Psychology, 55, 111-136.
Resick, C. J., Baltes, B. B., & Shantz, C. W. (2007). Person-organization fit and work-related
attitudes and decisions: examining interactive effects wit job fit and
conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1446-1455.
Roberson, Q. M., Collins, C. J., & Oreg, S. (2005). The effects of recruitment message
specificity on applicant attraction to organizations. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 19(3), 319-339.
Ryan, A. M., & Tippins, N. T. (2004). Attracting and selecting: what psychological research
tells us. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 305-318.
Rynes, S. L., & Lawler, J. (1983). A policy-capturing investigation of the role of expatriates
in decisions to pursue job alternatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 620-631.
Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D., & Gerhart, B. (1991). The importance of recruitment in job choice:
a different way of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44, 487-521.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-454.
Schwab, D. P., Rynes, S. L., & Aldag, R. J. (1987). Theories and research on job search and
choice. In K. M. R. G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personal and human resources
management (Vol. 5, pp. 129-166). Greenwich, CT: JIA Press.
Taylor, M. S., & Bergmann, T. J. (1987). Organizational recruitment activities and applicants'
reactions at different stages of the recruitment process. Personnel Psychology, 40,
261-285.
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.
Appendix: Survey Instrument
Organizational Attractiveness
1. I would be interested in pursuing employment opportunities with this company
2. I would sign up for an interview with this company.
3. I would contact this company directly for an interview
4. I would be interested in learning how I can apply for a job with this company.
5. This seems like the kind of company I personally would like to work for.
Acceptance Intentions
1. If I was offered this job, I would take it.
2. If I was offered this job, I would accept it immediately.
3. I am likely to accept a full-time job offer from this organization if I am offered one.
4. If I was searching for a job, I would apply to this organization.
5. I would accept a job offer from this organization based on the information I have so
far.
6. If this organization offered me a job, I would probably take it.
Company Information
1. The job advertisement provides potential applicants with a specific picture of the
company.
18
2. This job advertisement provides a specific description of the company.
3. I believe the information about the company provided in this job advertisement is
very specific.
4. The advertisement provided specific enough detail about the company for me to
decide whether the job opening would be a good fit for me.
Type of Work Information
1. The job advertisement provides potential applicants with a specific picture of the type
of work being offered.
2. This job advertisement provides a specific description of the type of work being
offered..
3. I believe the information about the type of work provided in this job advertisement is
very specific.
4. The advertisement provided specific enough detail about the type of work for me to
decide whether the job opening would be a good fit for me.
Pay Information
1. The job advertisement provides potential applicants with a specific picture of pay..
2. This job advertisement provides a specific description of the pay being offered..
3. I believe the information about pay provided in this job advertisement is very specific.
4. The advertisement provided specific enough detail about pay for me to decide
whether the job opening would be a good fit for me.
(b)
5.030
Specific TW
4.709
4.420
General TW
4.297
General
Organizational Attractiveness
Organizational Attractiveness
(a)
Specific Pay 4.984
4.762
4.640
General Pay
4.077
Specific
General
Company Information
Specific
Company Information
Figure 1.
19
Acceptance Intentions
5.051
Specific TW
4.760
4.313
4.300
General TW
General
Specific
Company Information
Figure 2.
Table 1
Exploratory Factor Analysis for 25-item Survey Instrument
Dimension
Item
Standard
Eigen-value
Estimates
OA2
.933
OA1
.926
Organizational
OA4
.908
4.141
Attractiveness
OA3
.900
OA5
.882
AI6
.936
AI1
.922
Acceptance
AI3
.921
4.917
Intentions
AI5
.888
AI2
.880
AI4
.872
SPC2
.928
Specificity of
SCP3
.902
Company
3.181
SCP1
.878
Information
SCP4
.857
SPTW1
.937
Specificity of
SPTW3
.936
3.435
Type of Work
SPTW2
.934
SPTW4
.899
SPP2
.943
Specificity of
SPP3
.933
.3.408
Pay
SPP1
.922
SPP4
.893
20
Accumulated
(%)
Cronbach’s α
82.81%
.947
81.95
.956
79.53
.913
85.87
.944
85.19
.941
Table 2
Pair-wise Comparison of Research Variables
Items
Specificity of
Information
N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
123
129
123
129
123
129
4.361
4.866
4.311
4.897
3.829
4.761
1.343
1.389
1.275
1.317
1.365
1.123
General
Specific
General
Specific
General
Specific
126
126
126
126
126
126
4.569
4.669
4.538
4.685
3.607
4.807
1.371
1.407
1.314
1.341
1.406
1.161
General
Specific
General
Specific
General
Specific
126
126
126
126
126
126
4.433
4.806
4.414
4.809
3.557
4.738
1.484
1.261
1.424
1.195
1.428
1.238
t-value
Sig.
2.935
.004
3.587
.000
5.931
.000
.571
.568
.878
.381
7.387
.000
2.149
.033
2.387
.018
7.011
.000
Company Information
OAGROUP
AIGROUP
SPCGROUP
General
Specific
General
Specific
General
Specific
Type of Work Information
OAGROUP
AIGROUP
SPTWGROUP
Pay Information
OAGROUP
AIGROUP
SPPGROUP
21
Table 3
ANOVA Test for Organizational Attractiveness
Source
CI
TW
PY
CI*TW
CI*PY
TW*PY
CI*TW*PY
Error
Total
Sum of
Squares
16.636
.663
9.707
3.204
1.832
.534
1.307
450.36
5,861.30
dƒ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
244
252
Mean
Square
16.636
.663
9.707
3.204
1.832
.534
1.307
1.846
F
Sig.
9.013
.359
5.259
1.736
.993
.290
.708
.003**
.557
.023*
.189
.320
.592
.402
Note: CI = Company Information; TW = Type of Work; PY = Pay
* p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01.
22
Table 4
ANOVA Test for Acceptance Intentions
Source
CI
TW
PY
CI*TW
CI*PY
TW*PY
CI*TW*PY
Error
Total
Sum of
Squares
22.525
1.455
10.637
1.210
.251
.034
.210
406.81
5,801.86
dƒ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
244
252
Mean
Square
22.525
1.455
10.637
1.210
.251
.034
.210
1.667
F
Sig.
13.510
.345
5.041
1.727
.965
.285
.697
.000***
.352
.012*
.395
.698
.886
.723
Note: CI = Company Information; TW = Type of Work; PY = Pay
* p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01; *** p ≤ .001.
23
Table 5
MANOVA Test for Organizational Attractiveness and Acceptance Intentions
Source
CI
TW
PY
CI*TW
CI*PY
TW*PY
CI*TW*PY
Wilks'' λ
.947
.996
.974
.992
.993
.998
.995
Error
Total
406.81
5,801.86
dƒ
F
6.737
.491
3.229
.971
.828
.302
.558
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
244
252
1.667
Note: CI = Company Information; TW = Type of Work; PY = Pay
* p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01; *** p ≤ .001.
24
Sig.
.001***
.613
.041*
.380
.438
.739
.573
Table 6
Regression Analysis for Acceptance Intentions
Organizational
Attractiveness
OA1
OA2
OA3
OA4
OA5
Dependent Variable - Acceptance Intentions
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
Beta
VIF
Beta
VIF
Beta
VIF
Beta
VIF
Beta
VIF
.808*** 1.000 .497*** 2.640 .311*** 4.810 .289*** 4.880 .290*** 4.933
.257*** 4.113 .178* 5.057 .280* 5.496
-.005
3.495
.153* 3.604 .155* 3.809
.394*** 2.640 .349*** 2.765 .310*** 3.001 .311*** 3.133
R2
Adjusted R2
F-value
P (sig.)
.652
.651
468.95
.000
.711
.709
306.42
.000
.727
.724
220.24
.000
.734
.729
170.05
.000
.734
.728
135.50
.000
D-W
1.601
1.696
1.670
1.713
1.714
Note: *** represents that the coefficients are significant at 0.001 or better; ** represents that the coefficients
are significant at 0.01 or better; * represents that the coefficients are significant at 0.05 or better.
25