Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Research interest in the topic of employee recruitment has increased substantially over the last thirty years. As an example of this increasing interest,
consider that in the first edition of the Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, less than one page of coverage was given to the topic of recruitment
(Guion, 1976). By the time the second edition of this handbook was published,
Direct all correspondence to: James A. Breaugh, School of Business Administration, University of MissouriSt.
Louis, St. Louis, MO 63121; Phone: 314-516-6287; Fax: 314-516-6420.
Copyright 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc. 0149-2063
405
406
407
cruitment variables and the relationship between recruitment variables and other
variables). The organizing framework presented in Figure 1 is based upon models
that have been offered by Barber (1998), Breaugh (1992), and Rynes (1991). We
acknowledge that our framework represents a simplified view of reality. In
addressing the segments of this framework, we will introduce the theoretical
explanations that have been offered for the relationships between variables. We
will not discuss specific research findings until the entire framework has been
introduced.
Before presenting our organizing framework, it seems appropriate to offer a
definition of what we mean by the term recruitment. Although the term recruitment is commonly used, it is not easy to define (see Barber, 1998: 5 6). For our
purpose, the definition offered by Barber will suffice: recruitment includes those
practices and activities carried on by the organization with the primary purpose of
identifying and attracting potential employees (p. 5).
An Organizing Framework for Understanding the Recruitment Process
As noted by Rynes (1991), much recruitment research has focused on the
effects of recruitment sources (e.g., Do individuals referred by current employees
have a lower turnover rate than persons recruited via newspaper ads?), recruiters
(e.g., Do recruiters who offer more information about a job make a better
impression on job applicants?), and realistic job previews (e.g., Does providing
accurate job information result in a higher level of job satisfaction for new
employees?). As depicted in Figure 1, all of these topics can be considered
recruitment activities. Although it is understandable why researchers have frequently focused on the effects of recruitment activities (e.g., most companies
document how applicants heard about job openings), we believe that more
attention should be focused upon the entire recruitment process in order to better
understand whether an employers recruitment activities will accomplish its
objectives.
Establishing Recruitment Objectives and Strategy Development
In discussing the recruitment process, Barber (1998) delineated three phases
(i.e., generating applicants, maintaining applicant status, and influencing job
choice decisions). That is, (a) certain recruitment activities (e.g., advertising on a
Spanish-speaking radio station) may influence the number and type of individuals
who apply for a position, (b) certain activities (e.g., professional treatment during
a site visit) may affect whether job applicants withdraw during the recruitment
process, and (c) certain recruitment actions (e.g., the timeliness of a job offer) may
influence whether a job offer is accepted.
In planning a strategy for generating applicants, a fundamental question that
should be addressed is, What type of individual does the organization want to
recruit (e.g., What knowledge, skills, and abilities are important? Is a diverse
applicant pool desired?)? Until an employer determines the type of applicants it
seeks, it is difficult for it to address several other strategy-related questions:
Where should the organization recruit (e.g., colleges versus state employment
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
408
409
offices)? What recruitment sources should it use to reach the desired applicant
population (e.g., the Web versus job fairs)? When should the employer begin
recruiting (e.g., at the start of a college students senior year versus during the
second semester)? What message should it convey to potential applicants (e.g., a
good deal of job-related information versus information on a few key aspects of
the job)? In order for an organization to intelligently answer these basic questions,
it must have a clear sense of what its recruitment objectives are (Breaugh, 1992).
For this reason, we have portrayed the establishment of objectives as the first
phase of the recruitment process (see Figure 1).
In the past, it appears that many organizations have had the simple recruitment goal of attracting a large number of job applicants (Wanous, 1992). For a
variety of reasons (e.g., the cost of processing applications), several researchers
have questioned the wisdom of simply trying to attract a large number of
applicants. Instead, it has been suggested (Rynes, 1991) that employers would be
wise to consider a wider range of possible recruitment objectives. For example,
some employers might be interested in trying to influence one or more post-hire
outcomes by the way they recruit. Such post-hire outcomes include: the job
satisfaction of new employees, their initial job performance, whether the organization is seen as living up to the psychological contract that has been established,
and the first-year retention rate of new hires. In establishing recruitment objectives, organizations might also focus their attention on post-hiring outcomes that
can be measured the day employees begin work (Breaugh, 1992). Such outcomes
might include: the cost of recruiting, the speed with which jobs were filled, the
number of individuals hired, and/or the diversity of the new employees.
Although recruitment activities have been linked to some of these post-hire
outcomes, some researchers (e.g., Williams, Labig, & Stone, 1993) have argued
that in recruiting many employers are not overly concerned with post-hire outcomes. Rather, they are interested in pre-hire outcomes such as the number of
individuals who apply for a position, the quality of these applicants, their diversity, and the number of individuals who accept job offers that are extended. If an
employer is interested in these more proximal outcomes of the recruitment
process, its strategy development should be focused on how to accomplish them.
In summary, we believe that the first stage of the recruitment process should
be the establishment of objectives. If clear objectives have not been established,
it is difficult to develop a sound recruitment strategy (Rynes & Barber, 1990).
Having established a core set of objectives, an organization can more intelligently
answer the strategy development questions posed earlier (e.g., What recruitment
sources to use?). Having developed a recruitment strategy, an employer can then
undertake the recruitment activities that are likely to lead to its desired objectives.
Intervening/Process Variables
Although we believe that the recruitment process should proceed in the
manner portrayed in Figure 1 (i.e., recruitment objectives3strategy
development3recruitment activities3recruitment results), it is useful to add
intervening/process variables to this model and to work backwards through the
model. That is, in order to make decisions about what recruitment activities to
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
410
411
412
413
414
considering recruitment source effects that are associated with realistic job expectations and individual differences. Once theoretical linkages have been specified between various recruitment sources and key intervening variables, it is more
likely that the type of theory-driven empirical research called for by Rynes (1991),
Barber (1998), and others will be conducted.
Recruiters. Researchers have offered a number of explanations for why
recruiters may have an effect on job candidates. The first of these has to do with
recruiter informativeness. Researchers (e.g., Powell, 1991) have theorized that
some recruiters provide more information and more specific information to
applicants than other recruiters. Given that the information provided is of personal
relevance to the job candidate and is believed, interacting with more informative
recruiters should have numerous beneficial effects (e.g., enhanced ability of
applicants to remove themselves from consideration for jobs that ultimately would
not be satisfying). In terms of recruiter informativeness, it has been suggested
(Breaugh, 1992) that an individuals prospective supervisor or coworkers should
be particularly informative in contrast to other recruiters (e.g., a person from the
human resources department) who may not possess as much information.
Researchers (e.g., Maurer, Howe, & Lee, 1992) also have hypothesized that
recruiter credibility helps explain the differential effects of recruiters on applicants. For example, Fisher et al. (1979) hypothesized that, in comparison to job
incumbents, corporate recruiters would lack credibility. Fisher et al. based their
assertion on the assumption that corporate recruiters would be viewed by applicants as lacking expertise concerning what a job involves and would be perceived
as having a vested interested in filling open positions.
It also has been suggested (Rynes, 1991) that recruiters may have an impact
because job candidates view them as signals of unknown organizational attributes.
For example, researchers (e.g., Connerley & Rynes, 1997) have suggested that
recruiter personableness may be important because it signals how the person
may be treated if hired or how likely the person is to receive a job offer. In a
similar vein, interacting with female or minority recruiters may signal to an
applicant that an employer values diversity. Such a value system may make a job
more attractive to certain job candidates (Highhouse, Stierwalt, Bachiochi, Elder,
& Fisher, 1999).
Although researchers have theorized about the positive effects of recruiters
who are informative, credible, personable, and demographically diverse, researchers have not focused heavily on the underlying reasons why different types of
recruiters may influence the attention potential applicants give to a job opening or
the interest applicants have in a position. Given the significance of attracting
applicant attention and generating their interest, clearly these two issues merit
future attention. A topic related to the informativeness of a recruiter is the degree
to which the message conveyed by a recruiter involves sharing realistic as
opposed to only positive information. Because the topic of providing realistic
information is generally covered in the context of realistic job previews, we will
discuss this issue in the next section.
In summary, a strong case can be made that the choice of a recruiter can
make a difference (Rynes et al., 1991). However, at present, although researchers
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
415
have provided some theoretical foundation for why recruiters may have beneficial
effects, more theory development needs to take place.
Realistic job previews. According to Phillips (1998), no recruitment issue
has generated more attention than realistic job previews (RJPs), the presentation
by an organization of both favorable and unfavorable job-related information to
job candidates (p. 673). Given the attention that RJPs have attracted, it seems
reasonable to ask, Is possessing inaccurate job expectations really a major
issue? Unlike recruiting sources, national sample data on realistic expectations
have not been gathered. However, data from individual studies suggest that unmet
expectations are a frequent occurrence. In a review of several RJP studies,
Wanous (1992) suggested that unmet expectations on the part of new employees
are frequently reported. In the context of psychological contracts, Rousseau
(1995) provided ample evidence that new hires often see their organizations as not
having lived up to agreed-upon arrangements.
Compared to the topics of recruitment sources and recruiter effects, there has
been considerable theory development with regard to RJPs. For example, Breaugh
(1992); Wanous (1992); Fedor, Buckley, and Davis (1997); Hom, Griffeth, Palich,
and Bracker (1998); and Saks and Cronshaw (1990) have all offered models of the
process by which RJPs affect such outcome variables as job survival, work
attitudes, and job performance (an adaptation of Breaughs model is portrayed in
Figure 2). Given the numerous models in existence, it is not possible to discuss all
of their subtle nuances. However, it is worthwhile to discuss key conceptual
variables that most of the models have in common.
Most RJP models hypothesize that providing realistic job information to
applicants results in their having their job expectations met. It is further hypothesized that providing an RJP influences role clarity (which is thought to affect job
performance) and individuals perceptions that the organization was honest with
them. Given that candidates perceive alternatives to accepting an undesirable job,
providing an RJP is hypothesized to result in applicant self-selection, which, in
turn, is hypothesized to result in a higher level of job satisfaction, a lower level
of voluntary turnover, and a higher level of performance.
Although the various models of RJP effectiveness include a number of
variables, many models have failed to address some key process variables. For
example, as pointed out by Phillips (1998), all theories about the effectiveness of
realistic job previews share the underlying assumption that their message is
received and processed by applicants (p. 673). Given the significance that we
have attached to job applicant attention and comprehension, it should not be
surprising that we think that more theory development should address these two
variables. From our review of the research literature, it appears that Colarelli
(1984) is the only researcher who has given much attention to many of the process
variables we highlighted.
In establishing a theoretical framework for his study, Colarelli addressed
process variables only in the context of providing an RJP via a brochure versus
providing an RJP by means of a face-to-face conversation with a job incumbent.
Colarelli hypothesized that, in comparison to receiving an RJP in written form,
RJPs received via a face-to-face interaction would attract greater attention, be
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
416
417
more understandable, and be more credible. Although he did not address why he
thought a face-to-face conversation would attract attention, Colarelli suggested
that a conversation aided comprehension due to the fact that an applicant could
ask questions to clarify ambiguous information. He argued that job incumbents
have considerable credibility given that they are generally seen as more knowledgeable than other sources of information (Colarelli, 1984: 634) and because
they are generally seen as more trustworthy.
Over the years, a number of researchers have suggested some theoretical
refinements to the basic processes that have been hypothesized for explaining RJP
effects. We will highlight three of these suggestions. In an important (but
somewhat overlooked) paper, Greenhaus, Seidel, and Marinis (1983) questioned
the emphasis that researchers have placed on met expectations. Greenhaus et al.
argued that, if a persons job expectations were negative and met (e.g., the person
was not able to turn down an undesirable job), one would not generally predict job
satisfaction. Alternatively, a person could be pleasantly surprised about certain
aspects of a job upon beginning work (i.e., not all unmet expectations are
unpleasant). Instead of focusing so heavily on met expectations, Greenhaus and
his colleagues argued that more attention should be paid to whether a job provided
for value attainment (i.e., a match between a persons job values and job
experiences). These researchers not only proposed value attainment as an intervening variable between having realistic expectations and experiencing satisfaction, they tested their assertion. In two studies, they found that value attainment
accounted for significantly more variance in facet satisfaction than did realistic
expectations (p. 394).
In order to better understand the effects of RJPs, Fedor et al. (1997) argued
for more attention being given to the attributions new employees make for any
discrepancies that occur between what they expected and what they experienced.
For example, they suggested that new employees who perceive that an organization misled them about job features would likely react more negatively than if
they attributed unmet expectations to the fact that the job had changed since the
position was described to them or to some other reason.
Researchers also have suggested that more attention needs to be given to
characteristics of the RJP recipients. For example, Meglino, DeNisi, Youngblood,
and Williams (1988) hypothesized that RJP effects would be stronger for more
intelligent applicants given that they could better comprehend the information
conveyed. Breaugh and Billings (1988) hypothesized that RJP effects would be
stronger if the RJP information addressed aspects of a job that were seen as
particularly important by job candidates.
In summary, although researchers have given considerable attention to the
reasons why RJPs work, more theory development is needed. In particular, we
believe that researchers need to move beyond viewing RJPs as the primary
mechanism for influencing the accuracy of applicant job expectations. The realism
of job expectations can be influenced by individuals having similar prior work
experience (Breaugh, 1992) or having completed internships (Taylor, 1988).
Other message attributes. Although researchers have given the majority of
their attention to whether a recruitment communication contains realistic (as
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
418
419
applicant inquiries or in making job offers may be viewed as a sign that the
organization does not have a strong interest in the candidate.
A Review of Recruitment Research
Having introduced a framework for understanding the recruitment process
and having summarized theoretical rationales that have been offered to explain the
relationships portrayed in our model, we now will provide a selective review of
empirical recruitment literature.
Research on Recruitment Sources
One of the first issues that an organization needs to address in trying to fill
job openings is how to reach individuals who may be qualified for and interested
in the openings. Over the years, several researchers have investigated the use of
different recruitment sources and whether certain sources are linked to beneficial
outcomes. A study by Ullman (1966) was one of the first to examine recruitment
sources. He found that new employees who were recruited by means of informal
sources (i.e., employee referrals, direct applications) had a lower turnover rate
than individuals recruited via formal sources (i.e., newspaper advertisements,
employment agencies).
The publication of Ullmans study (Ullman, 1966) stimulated several additional recruitment source studies (e.g., Blau, 1990; Gannon, 1971; Saks, 1994).
Some of these studies attempted to test whether the two explanations (the realistic
information hypothesis and the individual difference hypothesis) that have been
offered to explain source effects were supported by empirical data. For example,
Taylor and Schmidt (1983) examined source differences in absenteeism, turnover,
and performance for employees who were recruited by a variety of sources (e.g.,
referrals, rehired former employees). They also measured several individual
difference variables that might explain any source differences they found. Taylor
and Schmidt reported that, compared to the other sources, rehires had longer
tenure and lower absenteeism. They also found some support for the individual
difference explanation for their findings. One would also presume that those in the
rehire group had a fairly accurate view of what the job involved.
Although the results of recruitment source studies with regard to outcome
variables are not entirely consistent, it frequently has been found that employee
referrals and direct applications had lower levels of turnover and higher levels of
satisfaction than persons recruited by more formal sources (Breaugh, 1992).
However, empirical data have not consistently supported either the information
realism or the individual difference explanations for the recruitment source
differences reported (Barber, 1998). The failure of research to support these
explanations for source differences clearly raises concern about their validity.
However, methodological weaknesses of studies is an alternative explanation for
the failure to find support for the information realism and individual difference
hypotheses. We will discuss two of these methodological limitations (i.e., the
samples utilized, the measurement of variables).
In order to adequately test whether different recruitment sources result in job
applicants who differ in terms of the realism of job expectations or with regard to
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
420
individual differences, a researcher needs to gather data from job applicants. Yet,
as noted by Barber (1998), in the great majority of recruitment source studies, data
have been gathered from new employees. Consider the study by Breaugh and
Mann (1984). In this study, it was reported that recruitment sources did not affect
the ability level of new employees. Although this may be the case, one can
question how relevant the data reported by Breaugh and Mann (1984) are to
testing the individual difference hypothesis. Although new employees in this
study may not have differed in terms of their ability, applicants recruited from
different sources may have. However, such an applicant ability difference may
have been eliminated as a result of selection procedures used by the hiring
organization. In summary, given that Breaugh and Mann tested for ability differences using new employees rather than job applicants, it is not clear what one can
conclude from their results.
In contrast to the results reported by Breaugh and Mann, the two studies that
have examined source differences on applicants suggest that informal recruitment
sources were linked to more qualified job applicants. For example, Kirnan, Farley,
and Geisinger (1989) found that persons recruited from informal sources (e.g.,
employee referrals) were of higher quality (and were more likely to be offered
jobs). Williams, Labig, and Stone (1993) also found that informal sources
reached differently qualified applicants in terms of nursing experience and
education which, in turn, were valid predictors of subsequent nurse performance
(p. 163). In summary, in order to advance our understanding of why recruitment
sources may influence work outcomes, more attention needs to be focused on
applicant differences on key intervening variables.
A second methodological weakness of many recruitment source studies
concerns the measurement of variables. In order to provide a fair test of the
realism and the individual explanation for source effects, it is critical that these
variables be measured precisely and measured at the appropriate time. With
regard to measurement precision, researchers have suggested that recruitment
source effects may be due to individual differences in such factors as motivation,
ability, or perceived ease of movement. However, instead of measuring variables
such as ability, investigators all too often chose demographic proxies bearing
little theoretical relevancy to criteria of source effectiveness (Griffeth, Hom,
Fink, & Cohen, 1997: 20). Even when researchers have attempted to measure
individual difference variables more directly, problems emerge. For example,
although Griffeth et al. assessed quality in a rigorous fashion (i.e., during interviews, ratings were made of work experience, training, etc.), these authors
reported data on new hires rather than applicants. Measurement precision also has
been a problem in testing the realism explanation for source differences. For
example, although Williams et al. (1993) gathered data from job applicants, they
tested the realism explanation for source differences indirectly (i.e., they measured the amount of pre-hire information the applicant possessed, rather than the
accuracy of this information).
Conceivably, the reason that Williams et al. focused upon information
quantity is due to the time frame for measuring variables in their study. These
authors measured several key variables during the job application process. Given
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
421
this time frame, it would have been difficult for individuals to assess the accuracy
of their job expectations. In contrast to Williams et al., who measured variables
during the application process, several researchers can be criticized for waiting
too long to measure variables. For example, in attempting to measure recruitment
source effects, many researchers (e.g, Griffeth et al., 1997) have measured job
satisfaction, performance, and turnover at the end of one year of employment. It
is quite likely that recruitment effects would be stronger if measured closer to the
time of hiring (Wanous, 1992). Similarly, some researchers (Breaugh & Mann,
1984) measured the accuracy of job expectations after a year on the job. In
contrast to relying so heavily on a persons memory, Saks (1994) measured the
realism of job expectations after one month of employment.
Having reviewed the research on recruitment sources, Barber (1998) concluded that past research has not made a strong case for the importance of source
differences. We agree. However, based upon the findings of the two studies
(Kirnan et al., 1989; Williams et al., 1993) that presented data on job applicants,
we believe that it is premature to conclude that recruitment sources do not merit
attention. Instead, we believe that research in this area needs to be reoriented.
Future research should focus more heavily upon job applicants, rather than new
hires, and should give more attention to the measurement of key variables. With
regard to future research, there are two remaining themes we would like to
emphasize (i.e., expanding the range of intervening variables that are considered,
giving more attention to the employers perspective).
If one reflects on the reasons why recruitment sources have been hypothesized to be associated with certain work outcomes, several factors that may
explain inconsistent results become apparent. Consider the use of employee
referrals. Researchers have suggested that one reason that employee referrals may
be associated with beneficial work outcomes is due to the fact that employees
making referrals may pre-screen potential applicants. As was noted by Breaugh
(1992), pre-screening is most likely to occur when the person making the referral
is concerned about his or her reputation in the organization. Given that some
recruitment source studies have involved work situations (e.g., summer jobs) in
which the employees making referrals may not always have been concerned about
their reputations, one may question how much pre-screening actually took place
in certain studies. In order to better understand the recruitment process, in future
research, it is important that data be gathered from those who made referrals to
assess whether pre-screening actually occurred. In a similar vein, it has been
suggested that individuals recruited via different sources may differ in terms of
their motivation to find a job and/or their perceptions of job mobility. Clearly, it
is time for researchers to start measuring such explanatory variables directly
rather than measuring demographic variables that may be related to them (Griffeth
et al., 1997).
In the first part of this paper, we argued that more attention should be given
to several process variables. With regard to recruitment sources, we think this is
a critical need. For example, consider the issues of attracting applicant attention
(Does an attendee at a job fair stop at a particular employers booth?) and
generating applicant interest (Does an attendee submit an application?). To our
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
422
423
Research on Recruiters
Given the central role that recruiters play in the recruitment process, it is not
surprising that considerable research has addressed the issue of recruiters and their
impact on job candidates. Alderfer and McCord (1970) conducted one of the first
studies of recruiter characteristics. They found that applicant perceptions of
recruiters behaviors (e.g., their willingness to provide information) and attitudes
(e.g., their interest in the candidate) were associated with applicants expectations
of receiving a job offer and their reported probability of accepting the offer.
Following the publication of Alderfer and McCords study, several other
researchers (e.g., Harris & Fink, 1987; Macan & Dipboye, 1990; Taylor &
Bergmann, 1987) examined the impact of recruiter informativeness and personableness. Although these studies differed in terms of their research designs (e.g.,
Taylor and Bergmann gathered longitudinal data while most researchers gathered
cross-sectional data) and their data analysis strategies (e.g., unlike most researchers, in order to better evaluate recruiter effects, Harris and Fink controlled for
pre-interview impressions of job attributes), they generally replicated the results
of Alderfer and McCord. That is, in several studies, job applicants who perceived
recruiters as being informative and personable also rated the prospective job and
the prospective employer as being more attractive. These positive impressions of
the job and the employer were, in turn, related to applicants reporting a higher
expectancy of receiving a job offer and a higher likelihood of accepting a job
offer.
At the same time that researchers investigated the relationship between
applicant perceptions of recruiter behavior and their reactions to the recruitment
process, they frequently also examined whether recruiter demographic characteristics or other recruiter attributes (e.g., training) were related to applicant reactions. In terms of recruiter demographic characteristics, a few studies have linked
them to applicant reactions to the recruitment process. However, in general,
studies have either not found a relationship or the relationships reported were
small in magnitude (Barber, 1998). As an example, consider recruiter gender.
Barber and Roehling (1993) and Taylor and Bergmann (1987) found that interacting with male recruiters had a small positive association with applicants
reactions to the recruitment process. In contrast, Connerley (1997), Connerley and
Rynes (1997), Harris and Fink (1987), and Turban and Dougherty (1992) found
no evidence that recruiter gender was related to applicant reactions.
Instead of looking directly at recruiter demographic variables, a few studies
have examined whether being similar to the recruiter on certain dimensions might
be important to job applicants. For example, Turban and Dougherty (1992)
studied whether applicants and recruiters being of the same gender or from the
same university might have a beneficial effect on applicants. They found that both
types of similarity were related to job attractiveness. In contrast, Cable and Judge
(1996) did not find demographic similarity (e.g., age, race, gender) between
applicants and recruiters to be associated with such variables as job choice
intention.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
424
425
research (e.g., Maurer et al., 1992) regularly has shown that applicants report not
having received as much job-related information as they would like. If one
considers the issue of expertise, the reason for this lack of information is apparent.
Frequently, recruiters are not very familiar with the job and the job environment.
One can imagine the difficulty that a full-time recruiter would have trying to
answer questions about a particular supervisors style or a work groups climate.
A few researchers (e.g., Harris & Fink, 1987) have investigated whether interacting with a recruiter from the candidates functional area as opposed to one from
the human resource department makes a difference. Although such a distinction
may be worth examining, a better line of inquiry may be whether the person with
whom a job candidate interacts is the candidates potential supervisor or coworker
(e.g., a person in ones functional area may know little about important aspects of
a particular job). One would expect that such a supervisor or coworker would be
seen as having much more expertise than other types of recruiters.
It is not sufficient for a person to have expertise to be seen as a credible
source; the person also needs to be seen as trustworthy. Research (e.g., Coleman
& Irving, 1997) has shown that recruiters from a human resource department are
seen as less trustworthy than job incumbents. Given that full-time recruiters may
be evaluated in terms of the number of individuals they bring into the selection
process (Breaugh, 1992), it is not surprising that applicants may sometimes see
them as presenting an overly positive view of a job opening. In contrast, potential
coworkers may be seen as being more trustworthy because they will have to
interact with the job candidate if the person is hired. From this brief discussion of
recruiter credibility, the need for future research that examines the influence of
whether the recruiter is ones potential supervisor or coworker should be apparent.
It is likely that recruiter effects would be stronger if distinctions were made
between potential supervisors and coworkers versus full-time corporate recruiters.
Over time, recruiter-oriented research has become more complex and more
methodologically sound. For example, early studies of recruiters (e.g., Alderfer &
McCord, 1970) often involved simply gathering survey data from college students
immediately following a campus interview. More recently, research on recruiters
has involved: (a) gathering data both before and after interviews (e.g., Harris &
Fink, 1987), (b) gathering longitudinal data over various stages of the recruitment
process (e.g., Taylor & Bergmann, 1987), (c) gathering data on recruiter behavior
from both recruiters and job applicants (e.g., Connerley & Rynes, 1997), and (d)
more intensively studying recruitment interactions by means of in-depth interviews (e.g., Rynes et al., 1991) and the audiotaping of applicant-recruiter interactions (e.g., Stevens, 1998). This increasing sophistication of research has
resulted in a better understanding of recruiters and their potential effects. For
example, in the 1980s, some researchers questioned whether recruiters had an
important effect on job applicants (Rynes, 1991). Today, this view is less
commonly held (Barber, 1998). For instance, in their intensive study of the
recruitment process, Rynes et al. (1991) found that recruiters had a powerful
impact. In a number of cases, poor recruiters resulted in individuals losing
interest in jobs.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
426
In terms of future research directions, clearly the trend toward more complex
research should continue. As others have suggested (e.g., Barber, 1998), we too
believe that relatively less attention should be given to recruitment on college
campuses and to the initial stage of the recruitment process. In the future,
researchers need to explore the influence of recruiters at job fairs or during site
visits (Turban, Campion, & Eyring, 1995 have presented evidence that the host of
a site visit can influence job applicant perceptions of job attractiveness and their
likelihood of accepting a job offer).
Research on Realistic Job Previews
Over the last thirty years, realistic job previews (RJPs) have attracted
substantial attention. As described earlier, several different RJP models have been
offered. These models suggest that providing realistic information to job candidates should have beneficial effects for a number of reasons (e.g., RJPs allow
candidates to self-select out of consideration for jobs that would not meet their
expectations, RJPs cause individuals to be more committed to their job acceptance
decision). To provide a sense of the research on RJPs, we will review a few typical
studies.
In one of the early RJP studies, Wanous (1973) examined the effects of
applicants for the job of telephone operator viewing either a traditional recruitment film or an experimental film that provided both positive and negative
information about this position. He found that viewing the RJP film had no effect
on job offer acceptance rate (78 of the 80 individuals in his study accepted offers),
but did result in lower job expectations. Wanous reported there was no RJP effect
for turnover, but that receiving an RJP did positively affect job satisfaction.
RJPs generally have been provided by means of a booklet or a video
(Phillips, 1998). Colarelli (1984) felt that an interview with a job incumbent might
be a more powerful RJP medium given that such a two-way conversation may (a)
increase an applicants attention and comprehension, (b) enhance the amount of
personally relevant information conveyed, and (c) increase the importance attached to the information conveyed as a result of job incumbents being a highly
credible source of information. Colarellis study involved applicants for the
position of bank teller. His research design involved comparing a control group
against individuals who received an RJP via a brochure or through an interview
with a teller or a teller trainer. Given that everyone offered a job accepted it,
Colarelli found no evidence of self-selection. He did find that the incumbent group
had a lower turnover rate than the other two groups. With regard to the realism of
job expectations, Colarelli reported that both of the RJP groups felt they had more
realistic expectations than those in the control group. In terms of the personal
relevance of the information received, the incumbent group had higher scores than
the brochure group, which had higher scores than the control group. Colarelli did
not find an RJP effect for job satisfaction. Unfortunately, although Colarelli
hypothesized that receiving an RJP from a job incumbent would increase applicant attention and comprehension, he did not measure these variables.
In 1985, two RJP meta-analyses were published. McEvoy and Cascio (1985)
compared the effects on turnover of providing an RJP versus using a job enrichJOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
427
ment strategy. They reported the average phi coefficient between turnover and the
use of an RJP was .09. They also reported that RJPs had a stronger effect on
turnover for more complex jobs. Premack and Wanous (1985) reported a similar
phi coefficent (.06) between the use of an RJP and turnover to that reported by
McEvoy and Cascio. Premack and Wanous also examined RJP effects on several
other variables (e.g., job satisfaction, performance, initial expectations). For the
most part, the RJP effects they reported were in the expected direction but were
small in magnitude.
Despite the somewhat pessimistic conclusions of some authors (e.g., McEvoy & Cascio, 1985) concerning RJP effects, RJPs have continued to attract
attention. During the 1990s, researchers examined such issues as (a) whether the
RJP medium (written vs. oral) makes a difference (Saks & Cronshaw, 1990), (b)
whether having prior exposure to a job moderates the impact of receiving an RJP
(Meglino, Ravlin, & DeNisi, 1997), and (c) whether RJPs make higher quality
applicants less likely to pursue job openings (Bretz & Judge, 1998). Although it
is not possible for us to provide a review of all of the recent RJP studies, a recent
paper by Phillips (1998), which includes a meta-analysis of empirical research,
provides an excellent summary of the current state of RJP research. Overall,
Phillips found that RJPs were related to higher job performance and to lower
levels of initial job expectation, attrition from the recruitment process, and
voluntary turnover. Phillips also reported that RJP effects were stronger when the
RJP was provided verbally rather than via a videotape or a booklet. Phillips
emphasized that many of the RJP effects were quite modest in magnitude.
A review of Phillips paper (Phillips, 1998) may help explain some of the
confusion in the RJP literature. For example, in almost one-half of the studies
included in her meta-analysis, the RJP was provided after an individual had been
hired. Given that RJPs have been hypothesized to work because they increase
self-selection, provide a sense the employer is trustworthy, and increase commitment to the job choice decision, providing an RJP after hiring should lessen its
effect (e.g., having already accepted a job offer, a person may not see the
organization as being particularly trustworthy and may not feel committed to the
uninformed decision he or she made). RJPs also are thought to be most effective
when an applicant has unrealistic expectations and feels capable of turning down
a job opportunity that is not seen as desirable. Given the visibility of several of the
jobs (e.g., bank teller, grocery store checker, gas station cashier) that have been
addressed in RJP studies (see Phillips, 1998: Table 1), one has to consider the
degree to which the job applicants in a number of these studies had unrealistic job
expectations. In a similar vein, it appears that economic conditions may have
made self-selection unlikely in some RJP studies. For example, 78 of the 80
individuals offered jobs in Wanous study (Wanous, 1973) accepted them. Wanous noted that a difficult labor market probably reduced an individuals freedom
to reject a job offer on the basis of a preview (p. 331).
Another possible reason for some of the modest RJP effects that have been
reported is the nature of the job previews that have been provided. Research (e.g.,
Barber & Roehling, 1993) suggests that applicants want specific information
about job and organizational attributes. Dean and Wanous (1984) pointed out that
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
428
the RJPs provided in many studies did not involve the communication of specific
RJP information.
In summary, there are several potential explanations for the modest RJP
effects that have been reported. One can only imagine the potential effects RJPs
might have if future studies involve situations in which RJPs (a) provide specific
information about a wide range of important job attributes, (b) are conveyed by
a credible source such as a future coworker, and (c) are targeted at applicants (not
new employees) who lack realistic job information and have other viable job
opportunities.
Recently, Meglino et al. (1997) and Bretz and Judge (1998) have raised the
issue of whether providing realistic job preview information may hurt an employers chances of hiring desirable job applicants. For example, based upon their own
research and a meta-analysis of other relevant research, Meglino et al. (1997)
concluded that providing realistic information to applicants who had prior exposure to that type of position resulted in their overestimating the negative aspects
of the job. This overestimation could result in individuals with prior job experience, individuals who are frequently viewed as desirable job candidates, rejecting
job offers. Bretz and Judge (1998) also suggested that higher quality job candidates may be less willing to pursue jobs for which negative information has been
provided. They provided some evidence that supports this position. Although
neither set of authors recommended that RJP information should not be provided,
others may come to this conclusion from their research. In a recent paper,
Buckley, Fedor, Carraher, Frink, and Marvin (1997) took a very different position.
These authors argued that an employer has an ethical imperative to provide
recruits with realistic job previews (p. 468).
One of the reasons that RJPs are thought to have positive effects on turnover
and satisfaction is because they lower job expectations. In a recent paper,
Buckley, Fedor, Veres, Wiese, and Carraher (1998) advocated the wider use of
RJPs but also noted that creating an RJP can be an expensive process. Given this
fact, they experimented with an alternative expectation lowering procedure (ELP).
In their study, an ELP involved an individual participating in a workshop that (a)
stressed the fact that individuals tend to have unrealistically high job expectations,
(b) addressed the likelihood that such expectations are likely to be unfulfilled, and
(c) discussed the common outcomes attached to unfulfilled expectations. To test
the impact of receiving an ELP, Buckley et al. conducted an experiment with
newly hired employees who had yet to start work. These individuals were divided
into four groups. One group went through the traditional orientation program. A
second group received a written RJP that was based upon a detailed job analysis.
A third group was composed of those who participated in the ELP workshop. The
fourth group was a control group. Buckley et al. found that the RJP and the ELP
were equally effective in lowering job expectations. They reported a strong
association between expectation level and subsequent employee turnover. In our
opinion, ELPs merit future research as a potential low-cost alternative to RJPs.
Given that many new employees appear to have incorrect expectations
concerning what their new jobs entail (Wanous, 1992), we believe that a realistic
job preview represents an important recruitment mechanism. However, we think
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
429
there may be value in focusing less on an RJP as a specific event (e.g., showing
a 10-minute video) and instead focusing more on the process of providing
accurate job information at several points during the recruitment process. For
example, an employer could begin to provide realistic information with its job
advertisement. Following this, it could increase the amount of information conveyed during the initial interview by selecting recruiters who are likely to really
understand the job situation. Additional realistic job information could be communicated by a visit to the work site and/or through applicants taking part in a
work sample (Wanous, 1992). By viewing realistic recruitment as a process, an
employer may more thoughtfully plan out recruitment events. Trying to provide
realistic job information at a series of points via different mechanisms may also
lessen the likelihood of a recruits becoming overloaded with information (Barber,
1998).
In summary, we believe research on RJPs has resulted in a better understanding of the consequences of hiring individuals who have realistic expectations. Our hope is that in future years researchers will focus more attention on the
conditions in which RJPs are utilized (e.g., Did job candidates lack accurate job
information?) and on the psychological variables (e.g., the credibility of the
message) that are hypothesized to underlie RJP effectiveness.
Other Recruitment Topics
Recruitment advertising. Although firms spend considerable money on job
advertising, little research has addressed this topic. Previously, we reviewed
research (e.g., Barber & Roehling, 1993) that documented the positive effects of
providing a recruitment message that conveyed both more information and more
specific information. Other research dealing with recruitment ads has also shown
the benefits of their including specific information (Mason & Belt, 1986) and
more information (Yuce & Highhouse, 1998). Recently, Highhouse, Beadle,
Gallo, and Miller (1998) examined whether the wording of an advertisement for
a restaurant position affected college students perceptions of the estimated hourly
pay, the companys image, and their job pursuit intentions. The only difference
Highhouse et al. reported was a position scarcity effect on pay (e.g., when only a
few jobs were advertised, pay was estimated to be over $1.70 more than if many
openings were advertised). The results of Highhouse et al.s study suggest that job
applicants may infer certain information (i.e., pay rate) from the wording of an ad.
It is important for future research to investigate what other inferences may be
drawn from recruitment ads.
The site visit. To date, little research has addressed the importance of the
site visit. The findings of the studies that have are mixed. For example, Taylor and
Bergmann (1987) reported that, after entering expected job attributes as predictor
variables in regression analysis, the site visit (e.g., how well recruits were treated)
had no effect on applicants ratings of company attractiveness or of their likelihood of accepting job offers. In contrast, Rynes, Bretz, and Gerhart (1991) found
that for their sample the site visit played a significant role in the recruitment
process. In particular, job seekers noted the importance they attached to the status
of the people they met, whether they felt specially treated, and the organizaJOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
430
tions professionalism during their visit. Turban, Campion, and Eyring (1995)
reported that various ratings of the site visit (e.g., host likeableness) were
predictive of the recruits ultimate decision of whether to accept a job offer. An
interesting feature of this study was the fact that the site visit host would be a
coworker of the recruit if he or she were hired. As noted by Barber (1998), in
comparison to the issue of generating job applicants, the topic of maintaining
applicant interest has attracted relatively little research attention. Given that a site
visit may have an important influence on whether job applicants remain interested
in a position, we believe the site visit deserves more research attention.
Timing issues. Although being timely in terms of recruitment actions is
generally viewed as being important (Barber, 1998), only a few studies have
addressed timing issues. With regard to the timing of recruitment actions, Rynes,
Bretz, and Gerhart (1991) reported that for their sample: (a) long delays between
various phases of the recruitment process were common, (b) job applicants
frequently drew negative inferences about the delays (e.g., I am not their favorite
candidate), (c) delays affected the willingness of individuals to accept job offers,
and (d) the most marketable job seekers frequently saw delays as reflecting
something was wrong with the organization. In contrast to the results reported by
Rynes et al. (1991), Taylor and Bergmann (1987) reported no timing effect for
their study (conceivably, large sample attrition in this study could have affected
results). Given the limited amount of research that has been conducted, it is
premature to attach too much significance to the timing of recruitment actions.
However, this appears to be yet another area that is ripe for research.
Concluding Remarks
Over the last three decades, the amount of research on recruitment topics has
increased substantially. In spite of this increase, recent reviews of the recruitment
literature (e.g., Barber, 1998; Rynes, 1991) have had a somewhat pessimistic tone.
For example, reviewers frequently have concluded that we still do not know a
great deal about why recruitment activities (e.g., using certain recruitment
sources) have the effects they do. In particular, reviewers have criticized many
recruitment studies for being poorly designed, narrow in focus, and not grounded
in theory. Based upon our review of recruitment research, we think that these
criticisms are valid. We also believe that, in order for future research to lead to a
better understanding of recruitment issues, studies need to be designed with an
appreciation of the complexity of the recruitment process.
In order to stimulate the type of research that has been called for in previous
reviews, we presented an organizing framework of the recruitment process. In
introducing this framework, we gave particular attention to the process variables
(e.g., applicant attention, self-insight) that theory suggests should mediate the
relationships between recruitment activities and recruitment outcomes. In reviewing the empirical recruitment literature, we highlighted how often these process
variables have been ignored.
Given Barbers recent review of recruitment research (Barber, 1998), we
were able to be selective in reviewing research. In selecting studies to review, we
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
431
tried to choose studies that (a) gave the reader a sense of the typical study that has
been conducted (e.g., Wanous paper [Wanous, 1973] on realistic job previews),
(b) called into question conventional thinking (e.g., Greenhaus, Seidel, & Mariniss paper [Greenhaus et al., 1983] on the issue of value attainment), (c)
highlighted a better research design for investigating an issue (e.g., the focus by
Williams et al. [1993] upon recruiting source effects on job applicants), or (d)
suggested new streams of research.
Although one can view the existing recruitment literature as a hodgepodge of
inconsistent results, we feel there are certain themes that emerge. For example,
research on recruiters makes apparent the critical role these individuals can play
both in terms of being informative and in terms of treating applicants in a
personable fashion. These themes of informativeness and personable treatment
also permeate other areas of recruitment research, such as research on the site visit
and the timing of recruitment actions. The importance of providing realistic job
information (e.g., via employee referrals or realistic job previews) has also been
an important research theme in the recruitment literature. Another theme that
emerged in our review of the literature is the importance of signals that
employers may unintentionally be sending to job applicants. For example, Rynes
et al. (1991) showed that applicants used information with regard to recruiter
friendliness and informativeness as an indicator of how a firm treated an employee.
Although our review frequently criticized past research, our objective in
doing this was not to chastise previous researchers. Rather, our intent was to use
the deficiencies of past research to stimulate future research that is not subject to
these criticisms. Having critiqued past research, we should acknowledge the
difficulty of doing research on recruitment topics. To begin with, it is difficult to
define the term recruitment and to distinguish what falls within the definition. For
example, we began this paper by citing Barbers definition of recruitment (recruitment includes those practices and activities carried on by the organization
with the primary purpose of identifying and attracting potential employees;
Barber, 1998: 5). This definition says nothing about recruiting individuals who are
likely to be successful on the job. Some would argue that the notion of success
should be part of this definition. In a similar vein, consider an employer that uses
a work sample as a selection device. If going through a work sample provides a
job candidate with realistic information about a position, should the work sample
be considered a selection device, or recruitment device, or both? The topic of
organizational image also blurs the boundary between recruitment and other
topics. For example, Turban, Forret, and Hendrickson (1998) found that an
organizations reputation influenced job applicants. We chose not to review the
organizational image literature given that an employers reputation frequently is
not directly a function of recruitment activities (e.g., media accounts of business
successes or failures are more likely to affect a companys image than are job
advertisements). However, an organizations image can clearly influence organizational recruitment.
In closing, we choose to end on an optimistic note. In our opinion, this is an
exciting time for recruitment researchers. The difficulty in filling jobs has focused
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
432
433
Harris, M. H., & Fink, L. S. 1987. A field study of applicant reactions to employment opportunities: Does the
recruiter make a difference? Personnel Psychology, 40: 765784.
Highhouse, S. Beadle, D., Gallo, A., & Miller, L. 1998. Get em while they last! Effects of information scarcity
in job advertisements. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28: 779 795.
Highhouse, S., & Hause, E. L. 1995. Missing information in selection: An application of the Einhorn-Hogarth
ambiguity model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 86 93.
Highhouse, S., Stierwalt, S. L., Bachiochi, P., Elder, A. E., & Fisher, G. 1999. Effects of advertised human
resource management practices on attraction of African American applicants. Personnel Psychology, 52:
425 442.
Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. G., Palich, L. E., & Bracker, J. S. 1998. An exploratory investigation into theoretical
mechanisms underlying realistic job previews. Personnel Psychology, 51: 421 451.
Jablin, F. M., Putnam, L. L., Roberts, K. H., & Porter, L. W. 1987. Handbook of organizational communication.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kalleberg, A. L., Knoke, D., Marsden, P. V., & Spaeth, J. L. 1996. Organizations in America. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Kirnan, J. P., Farley, J. A., & Geisinger, K. F. 1989. The relationship between recruiting source, applicant
quality, and hire performance: An analysis by sex, ethnicity, and age. Personnel Psychology, 42: 293308.
Kulik, C. T., & Ambrose, M. L. 1993. Category-based and feature-based processes in performance appraisal:
Integrating visual and computerized sources of performance data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78:
821 830.
Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. L. 1988. The selection of communication media as an executive skill. Academy of
Management Executive, 11: 225232.
Macan, T. H., & Dipboye, R. L. 1990. The relationship of interviewers preinterview impressions to selection
and recruitment outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 43: 745768.
Mason, N. A., & Belt, J. A. 1986. The effectiveness of specificity in recruitment advertising. Journal of
Management, 12: 425 432.
Maurer, S. D., Howe, V., & Lee, T. W. 1992. Organizational recruiting as marketing management: An
interdisciplinary study of engineering graduates. Personnel Psychology, 45: 807 833.
McEvoy, G. M. & Cascio, W. F. 1985. Strategies for reducing employee turnover: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 70: 342353.
Meglino, B. M., DeNisi, A. S., Youngblood, S. A., & Williams, K. J. 1988. Effects of realistic job previews: A
comparison using an enhancement and a reduction preview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 259 266.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & DeNisi, A. S. 1997. When does it hurt to tell the truth? The effect of realistic
job reviews on employee recruiting. Public Personnel Management, 26: 414 421.
Phillips, J. M. 1998. Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational outcomes: A meta-analysis.
Academy of Management Journal, 41: 673 690.
Powell, G. N. 1991. Applicant reactions to the initial employment interview: Exploring theoretical and
methodological issues. Personnel Psychology, 44: 67 83.
Premack, S. L., & Wanous, J. P. 1985. A meta-analysis of realistic job preview experiments. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 70: 706 719.
Rousseau, D. R. 1995. Psychological contracts in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rynes, S. L. 1991. Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (2nd. ed.): 399 444. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Rynes, S. L., & Barber, A. E. 1990. Applicant attraction strategies: An organizational perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 15: 286 310.
Rynes, S. L., & Boudreau, J. W. 1986. College recruiting in large organizations: Practice, evaluation, and
research implications. Personnel Psychology, 39: 729 757.
Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D., & Gerhart, B. 1991. The importance of recruitment in job choice: A different way
of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44: 487521.
Rynes, S. L., Orlitsky, M. O., & Bretz, R. D. 1997. Experienced hiring versus college recruiting: Practices and
emerging trends. Personnel Psychology, 50: 309 339.
Saks, A. M. 1994. A psychological process investigation for the effects of recruitment source and organizational
information on job survival. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15: 225244.
Saks, A. M., & Cronshaw, S. F. 1990. A process investigation of realistic job previews: Mediating variables and
channels of communication. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11: 221236.
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 85.
Stiff, J. B. 1994. Persuasive communication. New York: Guildford Press.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
434
Taylor, M. S. 1988. Effects of college internships on individual participants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73:
393 401.
Taylor, M. S., & Bergmann, T. J. 1987. Organizational recruitment activities and applicants reactions at
different stages of the recruitment process. Personnel Psychology, 40: 261285.
Taylor, M. S., & Schmidt, D. W. 1983. A process-oriented investigation of recruitment source effectiveness.
Personnel Psychology, 36: 343354.
Thurow, L. 1975. Generating inequality. New York: Basic Books.
Turban, D. B., Campion, J. E., & Eyring, A. R. 1995. Factors related to job acceptance decisions of college
graduates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47: 193213.
Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. 1992. Influences of campus recruiting on applicant attraction to firms.
Academy of Management Journal, 35: 739 765.
Turban, D. B., Eyring, A. R., & Campion, J. E. 1993. Job attributes: Preferences compared with reasons given
for accepting and rejecting job offers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66: 71 81.
Turban, D. B., Forret, M. L., & Hendrickson, C. L. 1998. Applicant attraction to firms: Influences of organization
reputation, job and organizational attributes, and recruiter behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52:
24 44.
Tybout, A. M., & Artz, N. 1994. Consumer psychology. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual
review of psychology. 45: 131169. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews Inc.
Ullman, J. C. 1966. Employee referrals: A prime tool for recruiting workers. Personnel, 43: 30 35.
Vecchio, R. P. 1995. The impact of referral sources on employee attitudes: Evidence from a national sample.
Journal of Management, 21: 953965.
Wanous, J. P. 1973. Effects of a realistic job preview on job acceptance, job attitudes, and job survival. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 58: 327332.
Wanous, J. P. 1992. Organizational entry. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wanous, J. P., & Colella, A. 1989. Organizational entry research: Current status and future directions. In K.
Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (vol. 7): 59 120.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Williams, C. R., Labig, C. E., & Stone, T. H. 1993. Recruitment sources and post-hire outcomes for job
applicants and new hires: A test of two hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 163172.
Yuce, P., & Highhouse, S. 1998. Effects of attribute set size and pay ambiguity on reactions to Help Wanted
advertisements. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 337352.