1 / 47

Quinetta M. Roberson Christopher J. Collins Cornell University Shaul Oreg University of Haifa

THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 3, Spring 2005. Quinetta M. Roberson Christopher J. Collins Cornell University Shaul Oreg University of Haifa. A Presentation of:

kyra-chavez
Download Presentation

Quinetta M. Roberson Christopher J. Collins Cornell University Shaul Oreg University of Haifa

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONSJournal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 3, Spring 2005 Quinetta M. Roberson Christopher J. Collins Cornell University ShaulOreg University of Haifa A Presentation of: Chi Square  Correlation  MANOVA Variable Recoding  Mediation Categorical Moderation  Regression By: Mike Reeves & Mary Jane Potocnik

  2. Predictor Mediators Moderator Outcome (IV) (DV) Recruitment Message Specificity Organizational Attributes Recruitment Message Specificity Organizational Attractiveness Intentions To Apply Person- Organization Fit MANOVA Linear Regression

  3. Discussion Topics • The Elaboration Likelihood Model • Introduction to Variables • Hypothesis 1 and MANOVA • Hypothesis 2 and Mediation • Hypothesis 3 and Moderation • Discussion • Limitations • Questions

  4. Elaboration Likelihood Model • Describes how recruitment advertisements with specific information may lead to positive recruitment outcomes. • Suggests receivers of an advertising message are active participants in the persuasion process. • Persuasion affects the attitudes of receivers through two routes: • The central route to persuasion: involves specific attitudes toward a product/company through processing advertised arguments, ideas, and content. (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981; Petty, Haugtvedt, & Smith, 1995) • The Peripheral route to persuasion: involves general perceptions about • the product/company through cues other than argument • strength . (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). • credibility of the spokesperson • Doesn’t involve processing of detailed information THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  5. Organizational Attributes • During a job search: applicants do not hold perfect information about important job attributes • Job seekers rely on more observable attributes of the organization and job. • Central processing of recruitment information should enhance beliefs about specific attributes of the organization (pay, benefits, location). • Since recruitment information is more likely to • be processed centrally: • more detailed recruitment information • will result in favorable perceptions of • organizational attributes – Hypothesis 1a. • 8-item measure with 7-point scale ( = .80). Organizational Attributes Organizational Attributes H1a H1a Recruitment Message Specificity Organizational Attractiveness H1b Recruitment Message Specificity Organizational Attractiveness H1b H1c H1c Person- Organization Fit Person- Organization Fit THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  6. Organizational Attractiveness • With more specific information about an organization’s attributes: • job seekers should also perceive that an organization is more likely to provide desired positive outcomes as opposed to an organization offering more general company information. • Perceptions of organizational attractiveness • will be higher when recruitment messages • are specific rather than general – Hypothesis 1b. • 6-item measure with 7-point scale ( = .88). Organizational Attributes Organizational Attributes H1a H1a Recruitment Message Specificity Organizational Attractiveness H1b Recruitment Message Specificity Organizational Attractiveness H1b H1c H1c Person- Organization Fit Person- Organization Fit THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  7. Person-Organization Fit • Does the organization provide what the applicant needs? • Changes in fit assessments are due to more detailed job and/or organizational information. • Greater information about values, culture and work environment, increases accuracy of fit perceptions (Cable & Judge, 1994; Kristof, 1996). • Central processing of recruitment practices should • lead to perceptions about the ability of a job • opportunity to meet job seeker needs. • Perceptions of P–O fit will be higher • when recruitment messages are specific rather • than general – Hypothesis 1c. • 4-item measure with 7-point scale ( = .90). Organizational Attributes Organizational Attributes H1a H1a Recruitment Message Specificity Organizational Attractiveness H1b Recruitment Message Specificity Organizational Attractiveness H1b H1c H1c Person- Organization Fit Person- Organization Fit THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  8. H1 Analyses • To indicate whether the company information provided was explicit and straightforward or implicit and vague. • A test was conducted to determine a difference in response patterns across the two conditions • Chi Square Test of Independence (p<.001) Specific Recruitment Message Specificity General THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  9. H1Analysis • What is the next test that is presented in the article? • Correlation! THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  10. H1 Analysis • The next analysis performed tests the joint effects on three criterion variables by the independent variable • Multivariate Analysis of Variance • Assessed whether or not significant differences exist for all attraction variables (i.e., organization attributes, organizational attractiveness and P–O fit) • when comparisons are made between specific and general recruitment messages. Organizational Attributes • MANOVA may have more power if all of the DVs are moderately correlated. • All DV correlations were rather high • May not be enough variance left over after the first DV is fit. • What would be the consequence of DVs having a low or no correlation? • Lack of sufficient power H1a Recruitment Message Specificity Organizational Attractiveness H1b H1c Person- Organization Fit THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  11. H1 Results • Results of the MANOVA indicated that there were significant differences for the three attraction variables based on recruitment message specificity • F (3, 167) = 4.37, p < .01, 2 = .07. • Results were via Hotelling’s Trace, • instead of the more preferred Wilk’s Lambda • This effects the significance and effect size. • Hotelling’s trace = pooled ratio of effect variance to error variance • Wilks’ Lambda = pooled ratio of error variances to effect variance plus error variance THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  12. H1 Results • Post-Hoc Analyses • On the IV side: • there is only one IV, so pair-wise comparisons are not appropriate. • On the DV side: • Multiple ANOVAs were conducted to assess the between-subject effects of each individual IV on the DV. • This Multiple ANOVA actually answered the research questions, unlike the MANOVA. Organizational Attributes H1a: 2 = .06** Results Organizational Attributes H1a Recruitment Message Specificity H1b: NS Organizational Attractiveness Recruitment Message Specificity H1b Organizational Attractiveness H1c: 2 = .02* Person- Organization Fit H1c Person- Organization Fit THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  13. The Role of Attitudes and Perceptions • These general perceptions and attitudes about organizations strongly influence individuals’ decisions to apply. • This is the case because individuals have access to only a relatively small amount of information about the organization. • Perceptions and attitudes provide another source of information. THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  14. Their Role as Mediators: Mediation Process • Recruitment message specificity may have an indirect effect on decisions to apply, working through applicant perceptions of the organization. • More specific recruitment information may encourage direct processing of information, enhancing perceptions of and attraction to an organization. • In turn, favorable perceptions may heighten interest in an organization and their intentions to apply. THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  15. Their Role as Mediators: Mediation Process Organizational Attributes H2a H1a Recruitment Message Specificity Organizational Attractiveness Intentions To Apply H1b ns H2b ns, 1streq not met H1c H2c Person- Organization Fit THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  16. Mediation Hypotheses Hypothesis 2a: The relationship between recruitment message specificity and intent to apply to an organization will be mediated by perceptions of organization attributes THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  17. Mediation Hypotheses Hypothesis 2b: The relationship between recruitment message specificity and intent to apply to an organization will be mediated by perceptions of organizational attractiveness. THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  18. Mediation Hypotheses Hypothesis 2c: The relationship between recruitment message specificity and intent to apply to an organization will be mediated by perceptions of person-organization fit. THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  19. Assessment of Mediation Effects • Independent Variable: • Recruitment Message Specificity • Mediator Variables: • Organization Attributes • Organization Attractiveness • Person-Organization Fit • Dependent Variable: • Intentions to Apply (measured using a 4-item scale: Cronbach alpha of .94) THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  20. Assessment of Mediation EffectsBaron and Kenny’s (1986) three-step procedure Step 1: The independent variable must be significantly related to the mediator variables. - Tested with MANOVA but Regression was also used to confirm MANOVA results. - Categorical variable (message specificity) used in MANOVA was recoded to be used in regression 0=specific 1=general ?? - Tested using 2 separate regression analyses; one for Organization Attributes, and one for P-O fit - Condition met only for Organization Attributes ( =-.26, p<.01) and P-O Fit ( =-.15, p<.05), not for Attractiveness. Both were significantly predicted by message specificity. THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  21. Assessment of Mediation Effects: Results THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  22. Assessment of Mediation Effects • Step 2: The independent variable should be related to the dependent variable. • Tested using regression • Message Specificity significantly predicted Intention to Apply ( = -.15, p<.05) THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  23. Assessment of Mediation Effects: Results THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  24. Assessment of Mediation Effects Step 3: The mediating variables should be related to the dependent variable with the independent variable included in the analysis - The mediators was added to both regression equations - Organization Attributes did not mediate the relationship between Message Specificity and Intentions to Apply ( =.11, n.s.) even though message specificity became insignificant when Organization Attributes was added. - P-O Fit fully mediated the relationship ( =.60, p<.01). In addition to P-O fit being significant, Message Specificity became insignificant when P-O fit was added to the equation (= -.02, n.s.) THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  25. Assessment of Mediation Effects: Results THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  26. Assessment of Mediation Effects: Results Organizational Attributes H2a (R2 = .07,  = .11), ns H1a (2= .06**,  = -.26**) Recruitment Message Specificity Organizational Attractiveness Intentions To Apply H1b ns H2b ns, 1streq not met H1c (2 = .02*,  = -.15*) H2c (R2= .02, = .60**) Person- Organization Fit THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  27. Moderating Role of Message Specificity • Specific recruitment ads lead to central processing • Job seeker is more able to process detailed information • Central processing leads to more specific beliefs about the company or product (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). • Perceptions of organization attributes and PO fit require a comparison between: • specific beliefs about an organization’s characteristics (pay, culture) • personal needs and interests Specific Recruitment Information Hypothesis 3A Organizational Attributes Organizational Attractiveness Intentions To Apply Person- Organization Fit

  28. Moderating Role of Message Specificity • Such perceptions are likely to be cognitively complex in nature. • Therefore specific recruitment messages will lead to intentions to apply through their influences on the more cognitively complex beliefs about organizational attributes and P–O fit. • Hypothesis 3a: Perceptions of organization attributes and P–O fit will have more influence on intentions to apply to the organization than will perceptions of organization attractiveness when recruitment messages are specific. Specific Recruitment Information Hypothesis 3A Organizational Attributes Organizational Attractiveness Intentions To Apply Person- Organization Fit

  29. Moderating Role of Message Specificity • Recruitment sources providing general information are likely to result in what type of processing? • Peripheral processing: there is no real information for job seekers to consider and process (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). • Individuals develop general cognitions toward a brand when information is processed peripherally(Aaker, 1991). • Perceptions of company attractiveness (global feelings toward a company or job) are general cognitions in a recruitment context. General Recruitment Information Hypothesis 3B Organizational Attributes Organizational Attractiveness Intentions To Apply Person- Organization Fit

  30. Moderating Role of Message Specificity • Therefore, perceptions of attractiveness should have more influence over intentions to apply when recruitment messages are general. • Hypothesis 3b: Perceptions of organization attractiveness will have more influence on intentions to apply to an organization than will perceptions of organization attributes and P–O fit when recruitment messages are general. General Recruitment Information Hypothesis 3B Organizational Attributes Organizational Attractiveness Intentions To Apply Person- Organization Fit

  31. Moderating Role of Message Specificity Specific Recruitment Information Hypothesis 3A Organizational Attributes Organizational Attractiveness Intentions To Apply Person- Organization Fit General Recruitment Information Hypothesis 3B Organizational Attributes Organizational Attractiveness Intentions To Apply Person- Organization Fit

  32. Assessment of Moderation Effects Procedure: • Not able to use a product term in the regression equation to detect a moderation effect because the suspected moderator variable is categorical and not continuous. • Instead, the sample was split into 2 groups based on message specificity (General and Specific). • Two separate regression analyses were run (one for each group) with P-O Fit, Organization Attractiveness, and Organization Attributes included in both. THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  33. Assessment of Moderation Effects Consequences of using this procedure: • Moderation effects can be detected this way BUT the procedure provides much less information than using a product term. • This procedure does not allow for a statistical test of significance of the interaction effect. THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  34. Assessment of Moderation Effects: Results • Hypothesis 3a was supported: • When recruitment messages were specific, perceptions of P-O Fit and Organization Attributes had more influence on Intentions to Apply than Organization Attractiveness. THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  35. Assessment of Moderation Effects: Results THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  36. Assessment of Moderation Effects: Results Hypothesis 3b was only partially supported: When recruitment messages were general, perceptions of Organization Attractiveness did have more influence on Intentions to Apply than perceptions of Organization Attributes BUT not more than perceptions of P-O fit. THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  37. Assessment of Moderation Effects: Results THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  38. Assessment of Moderation Effects: Results THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  39. Assessment of Moderation Effects: Results THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  40. Assessment of Moderation Effects: Results THE EFFECTS OF RECRUITMENT MESSAGE SPECIFICITY ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION TO ORGANIZATIONS

  41. Predictor Mediators Moderator Outcome (IV) (DV) Recruitment Message Specificity (Expanded on next slide) Organizational Attributes H3a/b H2a ( = .11), ns H1a (2= .06**,  = -.26**) H3a/b Recruitment Message Specificity Organizational Attractiveness Intentions To Apply H1b ns H2b ns, 1streq not met H3a/b H1c (2 = .02*,  = -.15*) H2c ( = .60**) Person- Organization Fit MANOVA F (3, 167) = 4.37, p < .01, 2 = .07) Linear Regression, Baron & Kenny’s (1986) Assessment of Mediation (R2 = .02 , R2 = .62) ( = -.02, p > .05), ns - indicating complete mediation for P-O Fit

  42. Discussion • Specific recruitment messages may lead to greater positive perceptions about the organization. • Particularly perceptions about P-O Fit and Organization Attributes. • These perceptions can then lead to increased intentions to apply . • Particularly perceptions of P-O fit. Questions?

  43. Discussion • P-O fit influences intentions to apply more than other perceptions no matter what the level of message specificity is. • Organizational attractiveness influences intentions to apply more when the message is general. • Organization attributes influence intentions to apply more when the message is specific. Questions?

  44. Limitations • Student Sample (students looking for internships used) • Laboratory Setting • Educated Sample • Only measures Intentions to Apply • Common Source Bias (relationships do not appear to be inflated in results) • Could not test to see if different people respond differently to different levels of specificity Questions? Questions?

  45. Hypotheses H1 a, b, and c were worded as though they were looking at the relationship between the IV and each DV independently.  There was no hypothesis attempting to support an effect of the IV on the DVs concurrently.  Couldn't the researchers have simply performed multiple ANOVAs? Questions? Questions?

  46. MANOVA only has greater power than multiple ANOVA when the DVs are moderately correlated.  However, the correlations between the DVs were rather high.  Will this distort the results due to a lack of variance? Questions? Questions?

  47. In the results section, the authors report that there were significant differences between the 3 attraction variables based on message specificity.  Then, the authors say that there were significant main effects for only organization attributes and P-O fit but the main effect for organization attractiveness was not significant.  What does this mean? Questions? Questions?

More Related